CalvinBackup/gstack
1
0 Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/garrytan/gstack.git synced 2026-10-03 01:46:55 +02:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

v1.91.8.0 test: smaller suite, derived paid selection, retired never-green evals (#2994)

Browse Source 
* test: delete test-infrastructure dead code (G)

- exit-propagation drives the runner's real strict verdict
  (BunTestOutputClassifier + strictTestExitCode); delete the unused
  shardRunLooksTruncated predicate.
- delete skill-coverage-matrix registry + its gate (nothing reads it; the
  floor already iterates skillCensus()).
- delete touchfiles-facade export-parity tests (Bun fails missing imports
  at link time) and the duplicated E2E_TIERS tier-value test.
- delete brain-cache-spec TRANSPORT_DEFAULT_POLICY, SKILL_RUN_RETENTION_DAYS
  and the now-unused BrainTrustPolicy type with their literal tests.
  AUTOPLAN_PREFLIGHT_BUDGET_BYTES stays: skill-preflight-budget enforces it
  against real resolver output.
- delete audit-compliance's JSDoc-comment grep.

* test: replace product tests that fake the product with real-boundary tests (F)

- design: serve.test.ts drove an inline mirror server; now two tests run the
  real serve() on an ephemeral port (reload confinement, submit exit 0).
- setup-gbrain: rollback + voyage tests execute the template-extracted init
  blocks (3 sites) instead of drifted local bash copies.
- terminal-agent: internalHandler source greps replaced by a behavioral
  /internal/grant + /internal/revoke auth matrix (no/wrong/valid token).
- /health: server-security-surface and the server-auth / security-audit-r2 /
  sidebar-tabs source greps fold into one liveness-only check on the real
  body; the L4 sidecar wiring gets a behavioral /pty-inject-scan test.
- delete tautologies (browser-manager onDisconnect, memory-command #12),
  ios swiftui tap fixture self-check, memory-ingest put_page grep, detach
  source greps, sidebar-agent absence pins, dead-CSS pins + the dead CSS,
  security-audit-r2 Task 1 + the test-only meta-commands re-export,
  duplicate generated-SKILL.md checks.
- make-pdf coverage-gaps cases move into their owner test files.

* test: delete tests of dead eval code (A)

- A1: the retired Eng lexical oracle (evaluateEngSeedCoverage,
  isEngSeedDecisionAUQ), the completion-handoff detector and the retained
  corpus had no paid caller since v1.87.6; delete their 26 replay files,
  ~2.6k helper LOC and fixtures, and the dead blocks in 8 mixed files
  (live hasNativePlanTerminal / batching assertions stay).
- A2: dead viewport approvers in autoplan-artifact-permission and their 11
  replay files + fixtures; recorder/launcher cases stay.
- A3: never-wired oracles and seeders (autoplan-phase-order,
  eng-finding-fixture, ceo-paired-fixture, design-ui-scope,
  plan-skill-completion, pty-current-screen, required-reads,
  transcript-section-logger); plan-seed-submission now decodes through the
  production createPtyScreen; section manifests name their actual guard.
- A4: zero-reference helper exports, plus execGit and invokeAndObserve
  found by the reachability pass.
- 52 fixtures orphaned by the deletions; touchfile and selection-table
  entries for every deleted path.

* test: clean up the paid eval lane (B1-B4, B6, B7)

- B1: delete paid files that assert nothing or cannot pass meaningfully:
  skill-llm-eval-spec and skill-e2e-spec-execute (test.todo), gemini-e2e
  (+ gemini-session-runner; no gemini CLI in CI), ship-idempotency (red
  since v1.63), the two opus-4-7 *-sonnet overlay wrappers, conductor-prose
  (+ its source-evaluation replay), codex-e2e-plan-format; drop their keys,
  scripts and census rows.
- B2: skill-llm-eval grades browse/sections/command-list.md with one union
  judge that also carries the baseline score pin; regression-vs-baseline
  deleted (paid run: pass, c4/c4/a4).
- B3: memory-pipeline, ios-qa, ios-qa-swift-build and plan-tune-cathedral
  make no model calls; renamed out of the paid glob so they run on every
  PR. Swift builds need GSTACK_TEST_SWIFT=1; device stub deleted.
- B4: codex-e2e*, outside-voice, aside and ios-device cannot run in the CI
  image; excluded from the weekly lane with a tracked re-entry condition.
- B6: fold opus-47's negative routing controls into skill-routing-e2e
  journey-negatives (paid run: 3/3 unrouted) and delete the file.
- B7: delete the never-green brain-privacy-gate eval; a free
  gstack-skill-start test now proves consent precedes artifacts egress.

* test: retire the finding-count cluster and trim its helpers (C)

- C0/C1: the five never-green evals (skill-e2e-autoplan-chain and
  skill-e2e-plan-{ceo,eng,design,devex}-finding-count) failed on harness and
  budget, never on skill behavior; delete them, their touchfile/tier ids,
  AUTOPLAN_CHAIN_BUDGET and the dedicated eighth periodic slice (--slices 7).
- C2: delete the helper groups whose only paid consumers were those files
  (11 modules), trim claude-pty-runner and eng-seeded-coverage to the paid
  closure, and delete the free replay tests whose assertions exercised only
  that dead code (89 files, 135 orphaned fixtures). Blocks that used dead code
  only as input for a live subject keep their assertions: the multiSelect
  default moved to plan-review-decisions, runner PTY tests use inline caller
  policies, and the timer-safe budget checks moved to eng-finding-retry-budget.
- The eight production-touching files stay except ceo-current-decision-record
  (its template read only feeds the retired counter).
- CARVE_GUARDS.autoplan is behavioral 'none'; TODOS records the lost chain
  and per-finding cadence coverage with their re-entry tests.

* test: fold per-incident replay series into their detector owners (D)

Twelve detector families move into one owner test each: 73 incident files
become describe blocks in ceo-section-loading-fixture (stale-fill race),
model-overlays, coverage-audit-evidence, autoplan-phase-observer,
native-auto-decide, outside-voice-evidence, eng-first-review,
plan-count-completion, plan-count-file-permission, ceo-mode-option,
plan-scope-selection and plan-count-prerequisite. Each block keeps its original
code and fixture, so every case still runs; only tests asserting the incident
file's own touchfile registration are dropped (41). Touchfile lists that named
an incident now name its owner.

* test: start the plan-count history PTY on its readiness marker (H)

The fake CLI prints a startup marker and the runner waits for it instead of the
fixed 8 s startup sleep (8.6 s -> 0.9 s locally). eng-semantic-terminal's
sleeping registration cases went with C; plan-count-timeout keeps the fixed wait
because it asserts deadline behavior.

* test: derive paid touchfiles from each eval's static closure (E)

touchfiles.test.ts now checks, per key, that the paid file's static
test/helpers and test/fixtures closure (plus fixture paths it names in string
literals) is covered, and names the file, path, chain and key to fix when it is
not. Free *.test.ts files are no longer touchfiles, so editing a free replay
test stops selecting paid evals: 950 entries removed, 653 real closure paths
added. The hand-copied inventories go: periodic-fixture-selection,
fake-impeccable-touchfiles and 45 per-file selection examples. Selection for
the sample edits (plan-eng-review template, claude-pty-runner,
plan-count-fixture, gstack-config) loses no case under either profile.
CONTRIBUTING documents the rule and its lower bound.

* test: skip hollow tier shards and census judges in the paid planner (B5)

A paid file is now skipped for a tier lane only when every E2E id it registers
is known statically and none has that tier; ids come from the touchfile
registrations and literal testName/*IfSelected arguments, so a comment or
skill path that quotes another id cannot unschedule it, and computed names
keep today's scheduling. --list and the manifest show each skip as
"skipped: no E2E_TIERS id has tier <tier>". The weekly gate census drops the
LLM judges (--skip-judges); they still run in the periodic census and PR gate
lanes. Gate lane 52 -> 42 files, census 41; periodic 77 -> 69.

* test: run seven paid evals on the current default capture model (B8)

skill-e2e-{auq-matrix,plan-format,qa-bugs,retro,workflow} pinned
claude-opus-4-7 and skill-e2e-office-hours plus -brain-writeback pinned
claude-sonnet-4-6; none tests a historical model, so they now capture with
resolveEvalModel('capture'), and the free harness tests that execute these
registrations receive the same resolver. The paid re-pin run passed all of
them. skill-e2e-{design,office-hours-phase4,plan-prosons,plan} keep
claude-opus-4-7: six of their cases failed on the default model (three
timeouts, a missing report file, a format miss and a posture score of 3), so
per the plan's fallback they keep their pins with a TODOS entry. The pre-spend
estimate and drop threshold are in docs/test-audit-2026-09.md.

* test: guard the reduced suite against new test-of-test files

- test/test-of-test-ratchet.test.ts records the 228 free tests that import only
  test/ code and fails on a new one, naming the owner test to extend instead;
  a stale baseline entry fails with the remove instruction.
- test/helpers/resolve-repo-path.ts is the one specifier/literal resolver for
  the ratchet and the touchfile closure invariant, with its own unit tests.
- CONTRIBUTING "Test tiers" describes the paid-failure workflow (fix, then one
  row in the detector's owner test) and the ratchet; TEST_PORTFOLIO gains the
  detector -> owner-test table and no longer claims an Autoplan chain eval.
- TODOS: automatic exclusion policy for chronically red periodic files (P3),
  the deferred native-completion table collapse, the unused CEO payment
  seeder; the PTY readiness item is narrowed to the paid runner.
- docs/test-audit-2026-09.md collects the triage, security mapping, inventories,
  selection proof, behavior-commit decisions and retained false positives.

* v1.91.8.0 test: smaller suite, derived paid selection, retired never-green evals

Release metadata for the test-reduction branch: VERSION 1.91.8.0 (1.91.7.0 is
claimed by #2983), CHANGELOG with the measured before/after table and a
contributor section, durations re-recorded on Ubicloud standard-16 (857 files,
0 failures), the agents digest, CONTRIBUTING's after-measurement row, the B8
fallback TODOS entry, and the after metrics, kept-vs-plan notes, B8 run and
census estimate in docs/test-audit-2026-09.md.

* fix(ubicloud): skip retrieval globs that match nothing instead of reporting a failed pull

* test: count issue-numbered Design findings in the UI-scope gate eval
This commit is contained in:
Garry Tan authored and GitHub committed 2026-09-29 08:58:49 -07:00
1 parent dcaea52800
commit 943105f109
668 files changed
+11998 -102381
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

No files matched your search

test/fixtures/autoplan-artifact-permission-ad-v3.json
Vendored
-87
View File
@@ -1,87 +0,0 @@
{
"provenance": {
"runLabel": "ship-source-ad-full-paid-20260909-v3",
"sourceCommit": "4636893f5201e9357f9af2dd3cbbfb679e57bfdc",
"capturedScreenSha256": "1fff662a95e7ee1d0b362d3ca9b56e0665982d201caa6fc78b2157ef8a8008bc",
"publicEventsSha256": "12aa45b4d9fd2035e7c44f5b373d60f32e1cd15c655ba9632a8eb33761f00a61",
"note": "Exact retained current viewport and public parent Write/Edit requests/results only. Event projection preserves the recorded session identity from retained native descriptor. Tests relocate the owned path and replay current file state from the final successful Write; this is projected execution, not a historical granted permission or pass.",
"commandTimestamp": "Actual retained parent user <command-name>/autoplan timestamp, not reconstructed from viewport."
},
"commandStartedAt": 1788984403953,
"sessionId": "f59fb94e-e006-49c9-8cdf-983aaa0e3a61",
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-kz30Zk/tmp/gstack-autoplan-chain-PdOGYy",
"stateRoot": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-kz30Zk/tmp/gstack-hermetic-2065087-pJs7H4/skill-home-w8xczb/.gstack",
"viewport": " 64 +- **Success target made numeric:** 45 seconds absolute; if the production baseline is already under 60 seconds, the\n + target becomes 25% below baseline and the Final Gate premise item is escalated. \n 65 +- **Session join check is P1**, part of task T1 (a precondition to flag-on), with a fallback metric (per-member dai\n +ly median joined on member ID and day). Row 0b's query remains P2. \n 66 +- **Exposure metric labelled** with cohort (flag on or off) and entry kind (redirect or direct visit) so redirected\n + and direct visitors are compared separately. \n 67 +- **Toast triggers enumerated:** mark-all-read outcomes only. Quick actions are links and raise no toast. \n 68 +- **Route registration file** for `/dashboard` added to blast radius. \n 69 +- **Mark-all-read validation tightening** is a decision, not just a blast-radius line: rejecting malformed or futur\n +e snapshots with 422 is a security hardening accepted in the review record's security section; the API contract for\n + valid input does not change. \n 70 +- **Freshness after \"View all\":** `usePanelData` fetches on mount and on every route entry, so a keep-alive router \n +still refreshes. \n 71 +- **Row 2 (shell badge) is P3**, consistent with \"design happens when picked up\". **Row 3 (undo)** is not symmetric\n +: it must restore prior read state, so it needs state capture; effort L when picked up. \n 72 +- **Units:** \"points\" everywhere means percentage points. \n 73 +- **Row 8 criterion is an explicit proxy:** share of first actions labelled \"resume assigned work\" stands in for th\n +e trigger population (exactly one assigned item, no unread alerts), which cannot be measured until the dashboard ex\n +poses both counts. \n 74 +- **Task index:** tasks T1 to T14 are listed in the review record's CEO Implementation Tasks section and in `~/.gst\n +ack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-PdOGYy/tasks-ceo-review-20260909-201501.jsonl`; the Final Gate aggregates them. \n 75 + \n 76 +## Reviewer Concerns (unresolved after three iterations) \n 77 + \n 78 +- The document cannot name routes, action IDs, or the analytics session key because the repository contains no appl\n +ication source. Each is pinned by a named task at implementation start; the reviewer considers that a deferral. \n 79 +- Baseline item 1 changes \"Users land here after login\" into a flag-gated cohort redirect. This is a rollout mechan\n +ism, not a scope change, but the reviewer wants it labelled as a decision; it is recorded here as such. \n 80 + \n 81 ## Deferred to TODOS.md (one line each; design happens when the item is picked up)\n 82 - Shell unread badge (P2, S).\n 83 - Undo for mark-all-read (P3, M); needs a new mutation API decision first.\n\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\n Do you want to make this edit to 2026-09-09-user-dashboard.md?\n \u276f 1. Yes\n 2. Yes, and switch to accept edits (auto-approve file edits and common file commands) for this session (shift+tab)\n 3. No\n\n Esc to cancel \u00b7 Tab to amend\n",
"events": [
{
"sessionId": "f59fb94e-e006-49c9-8cdf-983aaa0e3a61",
"timestamp": "2026-09-09T20:14:13.991Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01JEjFAdBnCZwTzBXkejvP4n",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Write",
"input": {
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-kz30Zk/tmp/gstack-hermetic-2065087-pJs7H4/skill-home-w8xczb/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-PdOGYy/ceo-plans/2026-09-09-user-dashboard.md",
"content": "---\nstatus: ACTIVE\n---\n# CEO Plan: User Dashboard Page\nGenerated by /plan-ceo-review (via /autoplan) on 2026-09-09\nBranch: main | Mode: SELECTIVE EXPANSION\nRepo: gstack-autoplan-chain-PdOGYy (no remote configured)\n\n## Vision\n\n### 10x Check\nThe 10x version is not a better dashboard. It is a landing that already knows what the member came to do. When a member has exactly one assigned item and no unread alerts, the login lands them inside that item with a one-line \"3 changes since you left\" strip; when they have alerts, the landing leads with the alert that blocks them. The dashboard in this plan is the necessary first step: it is the only surface that can host that adaptive behavior later, and it produces the exposure and click data needed to decide which action deserves the redirect. Effort for the adaptive landing itself: human ~2 weeks / CC ~2 hours, gated on two weeks of dashboard analytics. It is deferred, not rejected.\n\n### Platonic Ideal\nNot produced (SELECTIVE EXPANSION mode).\n\n## Scope Decisions\n\n| # | Proposal | Effort | Decision | Reasoning |\n|---|----------|--------|----------|-----------|\n| 1 | \"View all\" links from each panel to the existing full activity and notification pages | S | ACCEPTED | In blast radius (panel components only), completes the 20-record cap story, zero new infra |\n| 2 | Unread-count badge in the shared page shell header | S | DEFERRED | Touches the page shell, outside this plan's files; valuable but separate |\n| 3 | Inline \"Undo\" after mark-all-read | M | DEFERRED | Requires a new unmark mutation API; the plan states no new mutation API |\n| 4 | Real-time updates for notifications (polling or push) | L | DEFERRED | New infra; the dashboard refetches on focus and after mutations, which covers v1 |\n| 5 | \"New since your last visit\" divider in the activity feed | M | DEFERRED | Requires persisting last-visit time per member; new storage |\n| 6 | Prefetch dashboard payload in the login response | M | DEFERRED | Touches the login flow, outside blast radius |\n| 7 | Keyboard shortcuts (g+d, j/k through notifications) | S | DEFERRED | Low value for the first cohort; revisit with usage data |\n| 8 | Adaptive landing: redirect straight into work when one obvious next item exists (10x) | L | DEFERRED (Phase 2) | Needs dashboard exposure/click data first; surfaced at the Final Gate as a taste item |\n\n## Accepted Scope (added to this plan)\n- Per-panel \"View all\" links to the existing full activity page and full notifications page.\n\n## Deferred to TODOS.md\n- Shell unread badge (P2, S): one badge in the page shell fed by the notifications unread count; reuses the same endpoint section.\n- Undo for mark-all-read (P3, M): needs an unmark-at-or-before-snapshot mutation; the snapshot semantics make it cheap once the API exists.\n- Real-time notifications (P3, L): polling first, push later; only if refetch-on-focus proves insufficient.\n- \"New since last visit\" activity divider (P3, M): persist last dashboard exposure timestamp per member.\n- Prefetch dashboard payload at login (P3, M): saves one round trip; measure first.\n- Keyboard shortcuts (P3, S).\n- Adaptive landing / smart redirect (P2, L): Phase 2, decided from two weeks of dashboard analytics segmented by first action type.\n"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "f59fb94e-e006-49c9-8cdf-983aaa0e3a61",
"timestamp": "2026-09-09T20:14:16.766Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01JEjFAdBnCZwTzBXkejvP4n",
"kind": "result",
"content": "File created successfully at: /tmp/gstack-paid-shard-kz30Zk/tmp/gstack-hermetic-2065087-pJs7H4/skill-home-w8xczb/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-PdOGYy/ceo-plans/2026-09-09-user-dashboard.md (file state is current in your context \u2014 no need to Read it back)",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "f59fb94e-e006-49c9-8cdf-983aaa0e3a61",
"timestamp": "2026-09-09T20:21:08.778Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01ABvTvbVrtF2d3yKu1o2ouu",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Write",
"input": {
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-kz30Zk/tmp/gstack-hermetic-2065087-pJs7H4/skill-home-w8xczb/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-PdOGYy/ceo-plans/2026-09-09-user-dashboard.md",
"content": "---\nstatus: ACTIVE\n---\n# CEO Plan: User Dashboard Page\nGenerated by /plan-ceo-review (via /autoplan) on 2026-09-09\nBranch: main | Mode: SELECTIVE EXPANSION\nRepo: gstack-autoplan-chain-PdOGYy (no remote configured)\n\n## How to read this document\n\n- **Source plan:** `.claude/plans/ui-heavy-feature.md` in the repo. This document records scope *decisions* made during the CEO review; it does not replace the source plan. The full review, including every accepted engineering requirement referenced below, lives in the active plan file's \"Review record\" section (`## Review record`, block `autoplan-accepted:ceo`).\n- **Effort scale (one scale, used everywhere):** S = human under 1 day, CC under 30 minutes. M = human 1 to 3 days, CC under 2 hours. L = human 1 to 2 weeks, CC 2 to 4 hours. \"CC\" means implementation with Claude Code plus gstack.\n- **Priority scale:** P1 blocks shipping this plan. P2 should land on this branch or the next one. P3 is a backlog item. Priority is unrelated to \"Phase 2\", which means \"a separate later plan, after this one ships and has data\".\n- **Final Gate:** the single approval step at the end of the /autoplan pipeline where the user confirms or overrides recommendations. A \"taste item\" is a decision reasonable people could make differently; it is auto-decided with a recommendation and surfaced at the Final Gate for the user to confirm or flip.\n- **Blast radius (the files this plan may touch):** `src/pages/UserDashboard.tsx`; `src/components/dashboard/` (ActivityFeed, NotificationsPanel, QuickActions, MarkAllReadDialog, usePanelData, PanelState); `src/components/feedback/` (ToastProvider, useToast); `src/api/dashboard/` (handler, envelope); the snapshot validation in the existing mark-all-read handler; dashboard tests under `test/` and `e2e/`; `docs/dashboard-rollout.md`. Anything else (page shell, login flow, repositories, schema) is outside blast radius.\n\n## Baseline scope (unchanged from the source plan)\n\n1. New page `/dashboard` (`UserDashboard.tsx`) that becomes the post-login landing for members in the `dashboard_landing` flag cohort.\n2. Three panels: `ActivityFeed` (immutable audit history), `NotificationsPanel` (member alerts with read state), `QuickActions` (the three registry actions, filtered by server-side eligibility). Each panel has loading, empty, error and success states.\n3. Confirmation modal for \"Mark all as read\", built on the existing dialog primitive, calling the existing snapshot-bounded idempotent bulk-read API. No new mutation API.\n4. Toast feedback (a `role=\"status\"` live region) for action results; required by the existing accessibility policy.\n5. New aggregate endpoint `GET /api/dashboard` composing the three existing repository reads with per-section success or failure; no schema change.\n6. Exposure and interaction instrumentation for the new page (the source plan states the page \"still needs its own exposure and interaction instrumentation\"). Decision row 0 below makes this explicit.\n7. Out of scope per the source plan: dark mode, personalization.\n\nBehaviors cited below as \"accepted requirements\" (refetch on window focus throttled to once per 60 seconds, refetch of the notifications section after mark-all-read, 10 rendered items per panel) are recorded in the accepted-requirements block of the review record, not invented here.\n\n## Vision\n\n### 10x Check\nThe 10x version is not a better dashboard. It is a landing that already knows what the member came to do. When a member has exactly one assigned item and no unread alerts, login lands them inside that item with a one-line \"3 changes since you left\" strip; when they have alerts, the landing leads with the alert that blocks them. The dashboard in this plan is the necessary first step: it is the only surface that can host that adaptive behavior later, and it produces the exposure and click data needed to decide which action deserves the redirect. Effort for the adaptive landing itself: L, and only after the data in row 8 exists. It is deferred, not rejected.\n\n### Platonic Ideal\nNot produced (SELECTIVE EXPANSION mode).\n\n## Scope Decisions\n\n| # | Proposal | Effort | Decision | Reasoning |\n|---|----------|--------|----------|-----------|\n| 0 | Analytics events: `dashboard_exposure` on page view and `dashboard_action_click{action_id}` on quick-action click, plus first-action-after-login segmentation computed from existing login/action-start events | S | ACCEPTED (P1) | Already required by the source plan; made explicit because rows 8 and the rollout criteria depend on it |\n| 1 | \"View all\" link in the footer of ActivityFeed and NotificationsPanel, same tab, no filter state, pointing at the existing full activity page and full notifications page. Rendered only in the panel's success state (hidden while loading, on error, and when the panel is empty). Routes are the ones the existing pages already own; confirm the exact paths at implementationLine truncated
}
},
{
"sessionId": "f59fb94e-e006-49c9-8cdf-983aaa0e3a61",
"timestamp": "2026-09-09T20:21:09.785Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01ABvTvbVrtF2d3yKu1o2ouu",
"kind": "result",
"content": "The file /tmp/gstack-paid-shard-kz30Zk/tmp/gstack-hermetic-2065087-pJs7H4/skill-home-w8xczb/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-PdOGYy/ceo-plans/2026-09-09-user-dashboard.md has been updated successfully. (file state is current in your context \u2014 no need to Read it back)",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "f59fb94e-e006-49c9-8cdf-983aaa0e3a61",
"timestamp": "2026-09-09T20:24:23.997Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01FUctxcUNfgcfnxpu5tQvFA",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Write",
"input": {
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-kz30Zk/tmp/gstack-hermetic-2065087-pJs7H4/skill-home-w8xczb/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-PdOGYy/ceo-plans/2026-09-09-user-dashboard.md",
"content": "---\nstatus: ACTIVE\n---\n# CEO Plan: User Dashboard Page\nGenerated by /plan-ceo-review (via /autoplan) on 2026-09-09\nBranch: main | Mode: SELECTIVE EXPANSION\nRepo: gstack-autoplan-chain-PdOGYy (no remote configured)\n\n## How to read this document\n\n- **Source plan:** `.claude/plans/ui-heavy-feature.md` in the repo. This document records scope *decisions* made during the CEO review; it does not replace the source plan. The full review, including every accepted engineering requirement referenced below, lives in the active plan file's \"Review record\" section (block `autoplan-accepted:ceo`).\n- **Repository state:** the repository under review contains only `README.md` and the source plan. There is no application source, so routes, action IDs and analytics join keys cannot be read here; where this document depends on them it says so and names the implementation task that pins them down.\n- **Effort scale (one scale, used everywhere):** S = human under 1 day, CC under 30 minutes. M = human 1 to 3 days, CC under 2 hours. L = human 1 to 2 weeks, CC 2 to 4 hours. \"CC\" means implementation with Claude Code plus gstack.\n- **Priority scale (applies only to work on this branch or the next):** P1 blocks shipping this plan. P2 lands on this branch or the next one. P3 is a backlog item. Items marked \"Phase 2\" are a separate later plan that starts only after this one ships and has data; they carry no branch priority.\n- **Final Gate:** the single approval step at the end of the /autoplan pipeline where the user confirms or overrides recommendations. A \"taste item\" is a decision reasonable people could make differently; it is auto-decided with a recommendation and surfaced at the Final Gate for the user to confirm or flip.\n- **Blast radius (the files this plan may touch):** `src/pages/UserDashboard.tsx`; `src/components/dashboard/` (ActivityFeed, NotificationsPanel, QuickActions, MarkAllReadDialog, usePanelData, PanelState); `src/components/feedback/` (ToastProvider, useToast); `src/api/dashboard/` (handler, envelope); one flag-gated conditional at the existing post-login redirect site; input-validation tightening in the existing mark-all-read handler (reject malformed or future snapshots, no contract change for valid input, no new API); analytics event emission from `UserDashboard` and `QuickActions` through the existing analytics client (no new analytics module); dashboard tests under `test/` and `e2e/`; `docs/dashboard-rollout.md` (created by this plan). Anything else (rest of the page shell and login flow, repositories, schema) is outside blast radius.\n\n## Baseline scope (unchanged from the source plan)\n\n1. New page `/dashboard` (`UserDashboard.tsx`), registered for every authenticated workspace member. It renders for anyone who visits it directly. The `dashboard_landing` flag changes only the post-login redirect target for members in the cohort.\n2. Three panels: `ActivityFeed` (immutable audit history), `NotificationsPanel` (member alerts with read state), `QuickActions` (the three registry actions, filtered by server-side eligibility). Each panel has loading, empty, error and success states. The source plan names the actions by label only: \"create an item\", \"resume assigned work\", \"invite a member\"; their stable IDs come from the registry and are read at implementation (task T10).\n3. Confirmation modal for \"Mark all as read\", built on the existing dialog primitive, calling the existing bulk-read API, which the source plan states is idempotent and snapshot-bounded (marks only notifications at or before the supplied snapshot time). No new mutation API.\n4. Toast feedback (a `role=\"status\"` live region) for action results; required by the existing accessibility policy.\n5. New aggregate endpoint `GET /api/dashboard` composing the three existing repository reads with per-section success or failure; no schema change.\n6. Exposure and interaction instrumentation for the new page (the source plan states the page \"still needs its own exposure and interaction instrumentation\"). Decision row 0a below makes this explicit.\n7. Out of scope per the source plan: dark mode, personalization.\n\nBehaviors cited below as accepted requirements are recorded in the accepted-requirements block of the review record: `usePanelData` fetches on mount and refetches on window focus throttled to once per 60 seconds; the notifications section refetches after mark-all-read; each list panel renders at most 10 of the 20 returned items; `dashboard_exposure_total` fires once per route entry, never on refetch.\n\nRollout criteria, in one line (full text in the review record and `docs/dashboard-rollout.md`): cohorts 10%, 50%, 100% at 7 days each; success is median login-to-first-completed-task at or below a target restated relative to the production baseline measured before flag-on; kill if completed-task rate drops more than 2 points or permission-error rate rises at all; rollback is flag off. **KilLine truncated
}
},
{
"sessionId": "f59fb94e-e006-49c9-8cdf-983aaa0e3a61",
"timestamp": "2026-09-09T20:24:27.406Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01FUctxcUNfgcfnxpu5tQvFA",
"kind": "result",
"content": "The file /tmp/gstack-paid-shard-kz30Zk/tmp/gstack-hermetic-2065087-pJs7H4/skill-home-w8xczb/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-PdOGYy/ceo-plans/2026-09-09-user-dashboard.md has been updated successfully. (file state is current in your context \u2014 no need to Read it back)",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "f59fb94e-e006-49c9-8cdf-983aaa0e3a61",
"timestamp": "2026-09-09T20:27:34.342Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01STRhL1CTCpvY9CAfwjquhi",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Edit",
"input": {
"replace_all": false,
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-kz30Zk/tmp/gstack-hermetic-2065087-pJs7H4/skill-home-w8xczb/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-PdOGYy/ceo-plans/2026-09-09-user-dashboard.md",
"old_string": "## Deferred to TODOS.md (one line each; design happens when the item is picked up)",
"new_string": "## Corrections after adversarial review (three iterations, convergence guard stopped the loop)\n\n- **\"View all\" rule corrected:** shown when the section returned more items than the 10 displayed *or* the cursor indicates further pages. The earlier \"cursor only\" rule would have stranded items 11 to 20.\n- **Kill rules corrected:** measured per 7-day stage against the flag-off cohort with at least 1,000 sessions per cohort; completed-task rate down more than 2 percentage points, or permission-error rate up more than 0.5 percentage points. \"Rises at all\" was noise-prone.\n- **Success target made numeric:** 45 seconds absolute; if the production baseline is already under 60 seconds, the target becomes 25% below baseline and the Final Gate premise item is escalated.\n- **Session join check is P1**, part of task T1 (a precondition to flag-on), with a fallback metric (per-member daily median joined on member ID and day). Row 0b's query remains P2.\n- **Exposure metric labelled** with cohort (flag on or off) and entry kind (redirect or direct visit) so redirected and direct visitors are compared separately.\n- **Toast triggers enumerated:** mark-all-read outcomes only. Quick actions are links and raise no toast.\n- **Route registration file** for `/dashboard` added to blast radius.\n- **Mark-all-read validation tightening** is a decision, not just a blast-radius line: rejecting malformed or future snapshots with 422 is a security hardening accepted in the review record's security section; the API contract for valid input does not change.\n- **Freshness after \"View all\":** `usePanelData` fetches on mount and on every route entry, so a keep-alive router still refreshes.\n- **Row 2 (shell badge) is P3**, consistent with \"design happens when picked up\". **Row 3 (undo)** is not symmetric: it must restore prior read state, so it needs state capture; effort L when picked up.\n- **Units:** \"points\" everywhere means percentage points.\n- **Row 8 criterion is an explicit proxy:** share of first actions labelled \"resume assigned work\" stands in for the trigger population (exactly one assigned item, no unread alerts), which cannot be measured until the dashboard exposes both counts.\n- **Task index:** tasks T1 to T14 are listed in the review record's CEO Implementation Tasks section and in `~/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-PdOGYy/tasks-ceo-review-20260909-201501.jsonl`; the Final Gate aggregates them.\n\n## Reviewer Concerns (unresolved after three iterations)\n\n- The document cannot name routes, action IDs, or the analytics session key because the repository contains no application source. Each is pinned by a named task at implementation start; the reviewer considers that a deferral.\n- Baseline item 1 changes \"Users land here after login\" into a flag-gated cohort redirect. This is a rollout mechanism, not a scope change, but the reviewer wants it labelled as a decision; it is recorded here as such.\n\n## Deferred to TODOS.md (one line each; design happens when the item is picked up)"
}
}
]
}
test/fixtures/autoplan-artifact-stall-as.json
Vendored
-1590
View File
File diff suppressed because it is too large. Load diff
test/fixtures/autoplan-caller.fixture.test.ts
Vendored
-129
View File
@@ -1,129 +0,0 @@
// Child-only free control: never launch a provider when discovered by Bun.
import { afterAll, describe, expect, mock } from 'bun:test';
import * as fs from 'node:fs';
import * as path from 'node:path';
import { execFileSync } from 'node:child_process';
import { AUTOPLAN_CHAIN_BUDGET } from '../helpers/eval-budgets';
import * as runner from '../helpers/claude-pty-runner';
import * as nativeTranscript from '../helpers/plan-count-transcript';
import * as methodAudit from '../helpers/autoplan-method-read-audit';
import { ownedNativeReviewStateRoot } from '../helpers/plan-count-fixture';
import phaseEntry from './autoplan-phase-entry-cf74.json';
if (process.env.AUTOPLAN_CALLER_SCENARIO) {
const root = path.resolve(import.meta.dir, '../..');
const runnerExports = { ...runner };
const transcriptExports = { ...nativeTranscript };
const methodAuditExports = { ...methodAudit };
const mode = process.env.AUTOPLAN_CALLER_SCENARIO;
const entryScenario = mode.startsWith('entry-');
let fixtureCwd = '';
const facts = { inputs: [] as string[], closed: false, startedAt: 0, elapsedMs: 0, approvalStartedAt: 0,
captured: [] as Array<{ state: string; prematurePhaseEntry: unknown }> };
let clock = 0;
let complete = false;
Date.now = () => clock;
Bun.sleep = (async (ms: number) => {
clock += ms;
if (mode === 'deadline' && facts.startedAt) clock = facts.startedAt + AUTOPLAN_CHAIN_BUDGET.workMs;
}) as typeof Bun.sleep;
mock.module(path.join(root, 'test/helpers/e2e-gate.ts'), () => ({ describeE2ETier: () => describe }));
mock.module(path.join(root, 'test/helpers/claude-pty-runner.ts'), () => ({
...runnerExports,
isPlanReadyVisible: () => false,
isPermissionDialogVisible: (text: string) => text.includes('Permission'),
isNumberedOptionListVisible: (text: string) => text.includes('1. Yes'),
selectPtyNumberedOption: async (session: {send(input: string): void}, index: number) => session.send(`${index}\r`),
launchClaudePty: async (opts: any) => {
const cwd = fs.realpathSync(opts.cwd);
fixtureCwd = cwd;
if (mode === 'entry-alias' || mode === 'entry-foreign-alias') {
const alias = path.join(cwd, '.native', 'skills', 'gstack', 'autoplan', 'sections', 'design-phase.md');
fs.mkdirSync(path.dirname(alias), { recursive: true });
let target = path.join(root, 'autoplan', 'sections', 'design-phase.md');
if (mode === 'entry-foreign-alias') {
const foreign = path.join(cwd, 'foreign-design-phase.md');
fs.copyFileSync(target, foreign); target = foreign;
}
fs.symlinkSync(target, alias);
}
const git = (file: string) => execFileSync('git', ['show', `HEAD:${file}`], { cwd, encoding: 'utf8', timeout: 5000 });
expect(git('.claude/plans/ui-heavy-feature.md')).toBe(fs.readFileSync(path.join(root, 'test/fixtures/plans/autoplan-dashboard.md'), 'utf8'));
expect(git('CLAUDE.md')).toContain('## Skill routing');
expect(git('docs/designs/dashboard-context.md')).toContain('## Existing product and application contracts');
expect(opts).toMatchObject({ permissionMode: 'plan', timeoutMs: AUTOPLAN_CHAIN_BUDGET.sessionMs,
seedSkills: true, observeScreen: true, observeSetupQuestions: true,
observeAutoplanArtifacts: true, approveAutoplanArtifactEdits: true });
return {
hermeticConfigDir: path.join(cwd, '.native'),
autoplanArtifactStateRoot: ownedNativeReviewStateRoot(opts.autoplanArtifactState, opts.env),
mark: () => 0, exited: () => false, exitCode: () => null,
rawOutput: () => '', visibleText: () => '', visibleSince: () => '',
startAutoplanArtifactEditApproval: (at: number) => { facts.approvalStartedAt = at; },
currentScreen: async () => {
if (mode === 'deadline') return 'Permission\n1. Yes\n2. No';
clock = facts.startedAt + (entryScenario ? 15000 : mode === 'progress' ? 900001 : AUTOPLAN_CHAIN_BUDGET.workMs);
complete = true;
return 'Four native reviews have completed.';
},
send: (input: string) => {
facts.inputs.push(input);
if (input === '/autoplan\r') facts.startedAt = clock;
},
close: async () => { facts.closed = true; facts.elapsedMs = clock - facts.startedAt; },
};
},
}));
mock.module(path.join(root, 'test/helpers/plan-count-transcript.ts'), () => ({
...transcriptExports,
readPlanCountTranscript: (config: string, cwd: string, onPublicToolEvent: (event: nativeTranscript.NativePublicToolEvent) => void) => {
if (!entryScenario) return { status: 'ready', calls: [], assistantMessages: complete
? [1, 2, 2.5, 3].map((phase, i) => ({sessionId: 'owned', timestamp: new Date(facts.startedAt + i + 1).toISOString(), text: `Phase ${phase} complete.`})) : [] };
const entryAt = facts.startedAt + 14000;
const sessionId = phaseEntry.events[0]!.sessionId;
const canonical = path.join(root, 'autoplan', 'sections', 'design-phase.md');
const readPath = mode === 'entry-foreign' ? path.join(fixtureCwd, 'foreign', 'design-phase.md')
: mode === 'entry-alias' || mode === 'entry-foreign-alias'
? path.join(config, 'skills', 'gstack', 'autoplan', 'sections', 'design-phase.md') : canonical;
const content = fs.readFileSync(canonical, 'utf8');
const use = phaseEntry.events[0]!, result = phaseEntry.events[1]!;
const reportAt = entryAt + (mode === 'entry-valid' || mode === 'entry-alias' ? -1 : mode === 'entry-equal' ? 0 : 1);
const message = (timestamp: number, text: string) => ({ cwd, sessionId, isSidechain: false,
timestamp: new Date(timestamp).toISOString(), message: { role: 'assistant', content: [{ type: 'text', text }] } });
const records: any[] = [message(entryAt - 5000, phaseEntry.assistantMessages.at(-1)!.text)];
if (mode !== 'entry-omission') records.push({ ...message(reportAt, 'Phase 1 complete.'),
...(mode === 'entry-foreign-report' ? { isSidechain: true } : {}) });
records.push({ cwd, sessionId, isSidechain: mode === 'entry-child', timestamp: new Date(entryAt).toISOString(),
message: { role: 'assistant', content: [{ type: 'tool_use', id: use.toolUseId, name: 'Read', input: { file_path: readPath } }] } });
if (mode !== 'entry-missing-ack') records.push({ cwd, sessionId, isSidechain: mode === 'entry-child', timestamp: new Date(entryAt + 2).toISOString(),
message: { role: 'user', content: [{ type: 'tool_result', tool_use_id: result.toolUseId,
is_error: mode === 'entry-error', content: '' }] },
toolUseResult: { file: { filePath: readPath, content, startLine: 1,
numLines: content.split('\n').length, totalLines: content.split('\n').length } } });
records.push(...[2, 2.5, 3].map((phase, i) => message(entryAt + 3 + i, `Phase ${phase} complete.`)));
records.sort((a, b) => Date.parse(a.timestamp) - Date.parse(b.timestamp));
const project = path.join(config, 'projects', 'fixture'); fs.mkdirSync(project, { recursive: true });
fs.writeFileSync(path.join(project, `${sessionId}.jsonl`), records.map(row => JSON.stringify(row)).join('\n') + '\n');
return transcriptExports.readPlanCountTranscript(config, cwd, onPublicToolEvent);
},
}));
mock.module(path.join(root, 'test/helpers/plan-count-pending-question.ts'), () => ({
readPendingQuestion: () => undefined, pendingQuestionRecorderStatus: () => ({status: 'idle'}),
}));
mock.module(path.join(root, 'test/helpers/autoplan-artifact-recorder.ts'), () => ({
readPendingAutoplanArtifact: () => undefined, autoplanArtifactRecorderStatus: () => ({status: 'idle'}),
autoplanArtifactApprovalBoundary: () => 'clear',
}));
// Method delivery has independent native positive/negative controls. Supply
// successful delivery here so only the caller's deadline decides acceptance.
mock.module(path.join(root, 'test/helpers/autoplan-method-read-audit.ts'), () => ({
...methodAuditExports,
auditAutoplanMethodReads: () => complete ? ['ceo', 'design', 'dx', 'eng'].map(phase => ({phase, passed: true})) : [],
loadAutoplanMethodologyBinding: () => undefined,
}));
mock.module(path.join(root, 'test/helpers/plan-count-artifacts.ts'), () => ({createPlanCountSnapshotWriter: () => (input: any) => {
facts.captured.push({ state: input.observation.state, prematurePhaseEntry: input.observation.prematurePhaseEntry }); return {};
}}));
afterAll(() => fs.writeFileSync(process.env.AUTOPLAN_CALLER_FACTS!, JSON.stringify(facts)));
await import('../skill-e2e-autoplan-chain.test');
}
test/fixtures/autoplan-clipped-suffix-aq.json
Vendored
-93
View File
@@ -1,93 +0,0 @@
{
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-MPtf0T/tmp/gstack-autoplan-chain-LukJXD",
"config": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-MPtf0T/tmp/gstack-hermetic-3587976-PXLrEr/with-skills/.claude",
"stateRoot": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-MPtf0T/tmp/gstack-hermetic-3587976-PXLrEr/skill-home-cMZrbW/.gstack",
"hook": {
"version": 1,
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-MPtf0T/tmp/gstack-autoplan-chain-LukJXD",
"config": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-MPtf0T/tmp/gstack-hermetic-3587976-PXLrEr/with-skills/.claude",
"stateRoot": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-MPtf0T/tmp/gstack-hermetic-3587976-PXLrEr/skill-home-cMZrbW/.gstack",
"seenIds": [
"toolu_019ngUUTCGyDufyLQaN9Tvgm"
],
"pending": {
"source": "pre_tool_use",
"sessionId": "037c9f5e-7035-45e2-935d-0b950c435930",
"toolUseId": "toolu_019ngUUTCGyDufyLQaN9Tvgm",
"tool": "Edit",
"file": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-MPtf0T/tmp/gstack-hermetic-3587976-PXLrEr/skill-home-cMZrbW/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-LukJXD/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T14:35:35.363Z",
"transcriptPath": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-MPtf0T/tmp/gstack-hermetic-3587976-PXLrEr/with-skills/.claude/projects/-tmp-gstack-paid-shard-MPtf0T-tmp-gstack-autoplan-chain-LukJXD/037c9f5e-7035-45e2-935d-0b950c435930.jsonl",
"editDigest": {
"version": 1,
"beforeSHA256": "6771404ca60011824af336f0a7011e3aba465b8728c011eef935a4b847e72bdd",
"requestSHA256": "7ea64ad22d29d9c779b6e945119ea238e2f40862a368ca518100626a1e7978de",
"oldLineHashes": [
"95b34a72ab3b36711dc4f7cffc93cfe9e4ac45adaff3cbe06170576bb2b7787d"
],
"newLineHashes": [
"b69061a320491c4d23ea3b0e11040b1edfdf54c90d67287236c5b49695b74a6d",
"f01cbe18eb0051492cb3e8740542a491038881c5f23dac05003dfa84a4a59087",
"2a23528279bef0c9dcde730b41c9cb25768c8d6de1d40195181e48efa8e6a295",
"8110f2d8d27cb7e397562be0be38bc995e33cdf5d570d3d18aae23fe83db5116",
"4fef7666a0b82562e292a3d53f26f0721c09a74ceb0a30a970351f213468b07e",
"2bbfa283b38391e7d66c205292efb1e8565120fa337a098863f4758576fe1239",
"be4ed8d0778c7ba2036e19657ac496f2b24ee5d3ceb4d1240c3f7993567f4f89",
"861a718d78d38dd744ab59540c3139c5283d0e67a3deed5b41138f9581084d34",
"418ec10dc288464be75940c80f56faa734f5380ed8c2a957dcc52ed75f60f942",
"a59e48fe92bfcea3ec1cad39996f1a01039861faaa75daa251be8d64b102abdc",
"c701beb15c91ba566b32cd004f4ba46eb8f317061549c0f699041c151065a387",
"44aa4bd0d2a4cc4cbce51a9ea6bc485d5fb2cfbebfc01a1fe275d8e165f51c92",
"e8fd6eaf078d6ccc6028e6213e12acfa82511902136e4aec48e1398990582884",
"e3b0c44298fc1c149afbf4c8996fb92427ae41e4649b934ca495991b7852b855",
"cfc849f68e95805d8b84b46121a94a5ee70daf8fe374e20224d88a4290553089",
"1e619e0fe087d96a85514e4f9f741b2aae28e3c65a73f3833b6c1869e282ed5b",
"0ef460f920e57467c135c9b9605f343e189fc4397565d14b12d0fc9ff5f31e4f",
"d9134cd12c765f0e72b00438c6f70fa3af52d4a4602dfb27c8ae4fe29a7ee4cc",
"e3b0c44298fc1c149afbf4c8996fb92427ae41e4649b934ca495991b7852b855",
"95b34a72ab3b36711dc4f7cffc93cfe9e4ac45adaff3cbe06170576bb2b7787d"
]
}
},
"sessionId": "037c9f5e-7035-45e2-935d-0b950c435930"
},
"before": "---\nstatus: ACTIVE\n---\n# CEO Plan: User Dashboard Page\nGenerated by /plan-ceo-review (via /autoplan) on 2026-09-10\nBranch: main | Mode: SELECTIVE EXPANSION\nRepo: gstack-autoplan-chain-LukJXD (local, no remote)\n\n## Problem and goal\n\nMembers of the existing single-role workspace visit three separate pages after login to resume work, check alerts, and inspect recent changes. One team walkthrough measured a median of 75 seconds to find the next item. The dashboard at `/dashboard` is meant to cut the median login-to-first-completed-task time from ~75 s to 45 s (a 40 % reduction), with completed-task rate and permission-error rate as guardrails.\n\n**Primary ship metric:** median login-to-first-completed-task time, treatment vs control. **Ship threshold:** ≥ 40 % reduction (equivalent to 75 → 45 s) sustained over the ≥ 2-week measurement window with no guardrail regression. **Diagnostic split (not a ship gate):** login→first-action-start (the leg the dashboard moves) and action-start→completion (unchanged by this plan), both derivable from the existing login / action start / action completion events, so the read-out attributes the delta correctly. The production baseline for all three is computed from existing events before the cohort opens; the 75 s walkthrough figure is not load-bearing.\n\n**Experiment design.** Assignment is a deterministic hash of member id, fixed for the experiment's duration. Default split 10 % treatment / 90 % control. Minimum sample: ≥ 300 logins per arm within the window; if the workspace's active-member count makes that unreachable at 10 % (record the count at approval), switch to a 50/50 split, and if still unreachable, fall back to a before/after comparison over the same window and say so in the read-out. `/dashboard` is flag-gated (below), so control members cannot reach it and contaminate the read-out.\n\n## Vision\n\n### 10x Check\nThe dashboard becomes the member's assistant rather than a summary page: a ranked \"next item\" (\"You have 2 items due today\"), alerts grouped by source, small tasks completed inline, live updates as teammates act, and a home that other features publish panels into. Concrete shape: ranking service over the action registry, a panel registry, a push channel. Human ~4-6 weeks / CC ~2-3 days. Out of this plan's blast radius; the personalisation plan owns it. This plan lays the seam (per-panel envelopes + a shared panel shell) without building the platform.\n\n### Platonic Ideal\nSkipped (SELECTIVE EXPANSION).\n\n## Baseline held (plan scope)\n- `/dashboard` page with Quick actions, Notifications, Recent activity panels; Tailwind, mobile-first (sm/md/lg).\n- Loading skeleton, empty, error, success per panel; hover and focus-visible on every control.\n- \"Mark all as read\" confirmation modal on the existing dialog primitive.\n- Toast feedback for actions.\n- `GET /api/dashboard` aggregate over existing PostgreSQL tables; no schema change.\n- Out of scope by the user: dark mode, personalisation.\n\n## Implementation approach chosen\nApproach A: aggregate endpoint composed server-side from the existing list methods and action registry, returning per-panel result envelopes so one failing panel never sinks the page. Alternatives: B client-side composition of three existing endpoints (7/10, close second, surfaced as taste decision T1); C smart post-login redirect + shell badge (4/10 against the stated goal, rejected).\n\n**If the Final Gate selects B instead of A:** the \"Endpoint\", \"Response shape\", and \"Retry\" paragraphs below are replaced by three per-panel fetch hooks wrapping the existing list endpoints and a small eligibility endpoint over the registry; each hook produces the same `Envelope<T>` client-side, so panel states, empty CTAs, mark-all-read, latest-wins, redirect precedence, caching headers, toast, accessibility, analytics, and rollout are unchanged. Composer tests become hook tests. **If the gate selects dashboard-local for T3:** the toast code moves under `src/components/dashboard/` with the same API and the same live-region rule; nothing else changes.\n\n## Verified preconditions (confirm before implementation; each has a fallback)\n- **Bulk-read API accepts a snapshot time.** The plan's contracts section states it \"marks only notifications at or before the supplied snapshot time\". Confirm the parameter name and type. If it turns out not to exist, mark-all-read cannot be made safe against later arrivals and the modal flow is **blocked** until the API gains the parameter (this becomes the same API work E8 needs; raise at the gate, do not ship a clock-unsafe version).\n- **Bulk-read API returns the affected count.** Confirm; otherwise the success toast reads \"Marked all as read\" without a number.\n- **Feature-flag system supports stable per-member assignment** (hash of member id). Confirm; otherwise implement the hash in the redirect module and store only the flag's on/off and percentage in the flag sLine truncated
"viewport": " +t. \n 139 +- **Snapshot consistency.** Notifications rows, `unreadTotal`, and `now()` come from a single statement (CTE) so t\n +hey share one READ COMMITTED snapshot. Query budget via `SET LOCAL statement_timeout = '2s'` inside that statement\n +'s transaction (or the driver's per-query timeout option); the \"timed-out query releases its connection\" test asse\n +rts on pool metrics, not on the promise alone. \n 140 +- **Route gating in a client-rendered app.** The page route performs a client-side redirect to the current landing\n + after the flag lookup (no server 302 unless the app already server-renders routes); `GET /api/dashboard` returnin\n +g 404 for flag-off members is the authoritative gate. \n 141 +- **Forcing panel states in tests.** Playwright uses `page.route()` interception on `/api/dashboard` and the bulk-\n +read route to inject 503 / per-panel `ok:false` / empty payloads; no test-only headers in production builds. \n 142 +- **Identifiers.** The create action is `actionId = 'create_item'` (from the registry's stable ids); `fetchedAt` i\n +s ISO 8601 UTC with milliseconds; the 44 px target rule applies to every interactive control inside the panels (ac\n +tions, Retry, See all, Mark all as read). \n 143 + \n 144 +## Reviewer Concerns (unresolved after 3 iterations) \n 145 +- **Snapshot window (r3 #5).** A notification inserted in a transaction whose `now()` predates `fetchedAt` but whi\n +ch commits after the dashboard read has `created_at <= fetchedAt`, is invisible to the list, and is still marked r\n +ead. Accepted and documented: the window is the duration of an in-flight insert transaction (milliseconds), the ex\n +isting bulk-read contract is clock-based, and changing it to id-based is the E8-adjacent API work already deferred\n +. Record as a known limitation in the JSDoc on the mark-all-read handler. \n 146 +- **Provisional approach vs open taste items (r2 #4, r3 #6).** The reviewer wants T1/T3 closed or A/E7 marked prov\n +isional. They are provisional by design: /autoplan surfaces taste decisions at one Final Gate and the fallback par\n +agraphs define what changes. Not a contradiction to resolve in this document. \n 147 +- **Population size (r3 #14).** The single-workspace population may be too small for the default design; the fallb\n +acks exist, and the member count is now recorded before R1 starts. \n 148 + \n 149 ## Taste decisions carried to the Final Gate\n 150 - T1 aggregate endpoint (A) vs client-side composition (B) — open; the B fallback paragraph above states exactly w\n hat changes.\n 151 - T2 confirmation modal for Mark all as read — recorded decision, surfaced for information: the independent review\n er preferred direct action + undo, but undo (E8) needs a new mutation API and is deferred, so the modal stays unle\n ss E8 is pulled into scope.\n╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌\n Do you want to make this edit to 2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md?\n ❯ 1. Yes\n 2. Yes, and switch to accept edits (auto-approve file edits and common file commands) for this session (shift+tab)\n 3. No\n\n Esc to cancel · Tab to amend\n",
"request": {
"old_string": "## Taste decisions carried to the Final Gate",
"new_string": "## Iteration-3 amendments (override earlier wording where they conflict)\n- **Guardrail bounds.** Completed-task rate in treatment must not be lower than control by more than 2 percentage points; permission-error rate must not be higher than control by more than 1 percentage point, both over the same window.\n- **Control-arm assignment recorded.** Emit `dashboard_assignment{cohort, hashVersion}` on the existing login event for every member (both arms); record the hash salt/version at approval. `dashboard_viewed` remains treatment-only.\n- **Ship-rule estimator.** Unit of analysis is the member (first login-to-first-completed-task per member per day, then per-member median). Estimator: bootstrap 95 % CI on the difference of medians; ship when the CI lower bound shows ≥ 40 % reduction. \"≥ 300 logins per arm\" becomes \"≥ 300 member-days per arm\".\n- **Record the active-member count before starting R1**, not after; choose the split then.\n- **Whole-response failures on the GET.** 503 `DashboardUnavailable` or a network/parse failure → all three panels ERROR with one shared page-level Retry; 404 (assignment flipped off mid-session) → client redirects to the current landing; 401 → login. Envelope codes remain per-panel only.\n- **Panel state model.** `{ status: LOADING | EMPTY | ERROR | SUCCESS, refreshing: boolean }`. `status` derives only from the last settled envelope; `refreshing` is set at request start when the panel already has a settled status other than LOADING, and cleared on settle. EMPTY panels refresh with their empty copy still rendered. The Mark-all-read trigger stays rendered but disabled while `refreshing`; it is rendered only when `status === SUCCESS && unreadTotal > 0`.\n- **CSRF vs membership 403.** Retry-once applies only when the existing client's typed error indicates a CSRF failure (its existing discriminator, body code or header); a membership 403 shows the access message with no retry.\n- **Preconditions heading** is to be read as \"Preconditions to verify before implementation\". The bulk-read semantic requirement is: it marks read only notifications with `created_at <= snapshot` by the DB clock and is idempotent.\n- **Snapshot consistency.** Notifications rows, `unreadTotal`, and `now()` come from a single statement (CTE) so they share one READ COMMITTED snapshot. Query budget via `SET LOCAL statement_timeout = '2s'` inside that statement's transaction (or the driver's per-query timeout option); the \"timed-out query releases its connection\" test asserts on pool metrics, not on the promise alone.\n- **Route gating in a client-rendered app.** The page route performs a client-side redirect to the current landing after the flag lookup (no server 302 unless the app already server-renders routes); `GET /api/dashboard` returning 404 for flag-off members is the authoritative gate.\n- **Forcing panel states in tests.** Playwright uses `page.route()` interception on `/api/dashboard` and the bulk-read route to inject 503 / per-panel `ok:false` / empty payloads; no test-only headers in production builds.\n- **Identifiers.** The create action is `actionId = 'create_item'` (from the registry's stable ids); `fetchedAt` is ISO 8601 UTC with milliseconds; the 44 px target rule applies to every interactive control inside the panels (actions, Retry, See all, Mark all as read).\n\n## Reviewer Concerns (unresolved after 3 iterations)\n- **Snapshot window (r3 #5).** A notification inserted in a transaction whose `now()` predates `fetchedAt` but which commits after the dashboard read has `created_at <= fetchedAt`, is invisible to the list, and is still marked read. Accepted and documented: the window is the duration of an in-flight insert transaction (milliseconds), the existing bulk-read contract is clock-based, and changing it to id-based is the E8-adjacent API work already deferred. Record as a known limitation in the JSDoc on the mark-all-read handler.\n- **Provisional approach vs open taste items (r2 #4, r3 #6).** The reviewer wants T1/T3 closed or A/E7 marked provisional. They are provisional by design: /autoplan surfaces taste decisions at one Final Gate and the fallback paragraphs define what changes. Not a contradiction to resolve in this document.\n- **Population size (r3 #14).** The single-workspace population may be too small for the default design; the fallbacks exist, and the member count is now recorded before R1 starts.\n\n## Taste decisions carried to the Final Gate"
},
"publicTools": [
{
"sessionId": "037c9f5e-7035-45e2-935d-0b950c435930",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T14:32:00.204Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01A78r3KVhp1i9RAkz57ECSC",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Write",
"input": {
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-MPtf0T/tmp/gstack-hermetic-3587976-PXLrEr/skill-home-cMZrbW/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-LukJXD/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md",
"content": "---\nstatus: ACTIVE\n---\n# CEO Plan: User Dashboard Page\nGenerated by /plan-ceo-review (via /autoplan) on 2026-09-10\nBranch: main | Mode: SELECTIVE EXPANSION\nRepo: gstack-autoplan-chain-LukJXD (local, no remote)\n\n## Problem and goal\n\nMembers of the existing single-role workspace visit three separate pages after login to resume work, check alerts, and inspect recent changes. One team walkthrough measured a median of 75 seconds to find the next item. The dashboard at `/dashboard` is meant to cut the median login-to-first-completed-task time from ~75 s to 45 s (a 40 % reduction), with completed-task rate and permission-error rate as guardrails.\n\n**Primary ship metric:** median login-to-first-completed-task time, treatment vs control. **Ship threshold:** ≥ 40 % reduction (equivalent to 75 → 45 s) sustained over the ≥ 2-week measurement window with no guardrail regression. **Diagnostic split (not a ship gate):** login→first-action-start (the leg the dashboard moves) and action-start→completion (unchanged by this plan), both derivable from the existing login / action start / action completion events, so the read-out attributes the delta correctly. The production baseline for all three is computed from existing events before the cohort opens; the 75 s walkthrough figure is not load-bearing.\n\n**Experiment design.** Assignment is a deterministic hash of member id, fixed for the experiment's duration. Default split 10 % treatment / 90 % control. Minimum sample: ≥ 300 logins per arm within the window; if the workspace's active-member count makes that unreachable at 10 % (record the count at approval), switch to a 50/50 split, and if still unreachable, fall back to a before/after comparison over the same window and say so in the read-out. `/dashboard` is flag-gated (below), so control members cannot reach it and contaminate the read-out.\n\n## Vision\n\n### 10x Check\nThe dashboard becomes the member's assistant rather than a summary page: a ranked \"next item\" (\"You have 2 items due today\"), alerts grouped by source, small tasks completed inline, live updates as teammates act, and a home that other features publish panels into. Concrete shape: ranking service over the action registry, a panel registry, a push channel. Human ~4-6 weeks / CC ~2-3 days. Out of this plan's blast radius; the personalisation plan owns it. This plan lays the seam (per-panel envelopes + a shared panel shell) without building the platform.\n\n### Platonic Ideal\nSkipped (SELECTIVE EXPANSION).\n\n## Baseline held (plan scope)\n- `/dashboard` page with Quick actions, Notifications, Recent activity panels; Tailwind, mobile-first (sm/md/lg).\n- Loading skeleton, empty, error, success per panel; hover and focus-visible on every control.\n- \"Mark all as read\" confirmation modal on the existing dialog primitive.\n- Toast feedback for actions.\n- `GET /api/dashboard` aggregate over existing PostgreSQL tables; no schema change.\n- Out of scope by the user: dark mode, personalisation.\n\n## Implementation approach chosen\nApproach A: aggregate endpoint composed server-side from the existing list methods and action registry, returning per-panel result envelopes so one failing panel never sinks the page. Alternatives: B client-side composition of three existing endpoints (7/10, close second, surfaced as taste decision T1); C smart post-login redirect + shell badge (4/10 against the stated goal, rejected).\n\n**If the Final Gate selects B instead of A:** the \"Endpoint\", \"Response shape\", and \"Retry\" paragraphs below are replaced by three per-panel fetch hooks wrapping the existing list endpoints and a small eligibility endpoint over the registry; each hook produces the same `Envelope<T>` client-side, so panel states, empty CTAs, mark-all-read, latest-wins, redirect precedence, caching headers, toast, accessibility, analytics, and rollout are unchanged. Composer tests become hook tests. **If the gate selects dashboard-local for T3:** the toast code moves under `src/components/dashboard/` with the same API and the same live-region rule; nothing else changes.\n\n## Verified preconditions (confirm before implementation; each has a fallback)\n- **Bulk-read API accepts a snapshot time.** The plan's contracts section states it \"marks only notifications at or before the supplied snapshot time\". Confirm the parameter name and type. If it turns out not to exist, mark-all-read cannot be made safe against later arrivals and the modal flow is **blocked** until the API gains the parameter (this becomes the same API work E8 needs; raise at the gate, do not ship a clock-unsafe version).\n- **Bulk-read API returns the affected count.** Confirm; otherwise the success toast reads \"Marked all as read\" without a number.\n- **Feature-flag system supports stable per-member assignment** (hash of member id). Confirm; otherwise implement the hash in the redirect module and store only the flag's on/off and percentage in theLine truncated
},
"messageId": "msg_011CeuvH91RGhGXA5XHMPN7J",
"requestId": "req_011CeuvH6MgNDWkEkYtuWxs9"
},
{
"sessionId": "037c9f5e-7035-45e2-935d-0b950c435930",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T14:32:00.969Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01A78r3KVhp1i9RAkz57ECSC",
"kind": "result",
"content": "The file /tmp/gstack-paid-shard-MPtf0T/tmp/gstack-hermetic-3587976-PXLrEr/skill-home-cMZrbW/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-LukJXD/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md has been updated successfully. (file state is current in your context — no need to Read it back)",
"isError": false
}
],
"provenance": {
"status": "Exact original request reconstruction independently equals original requestSHA; no new digest existed in the paid attempt.",
"requestSHA256": "7ea64ad22d29d9c779b6e945119ea238e2f40862a368ca518100626a1e7978de",
"beforeSHA256": "6771404ca60011824af336f0a7011e3aba465b8728c011eef935a4b847e72bdd",
"paneSHA256": "c5662a9c0d67ba04de8720c25d51378b4662266273cb186f48f7c3109abd2ee2",
"sourceProof": "ap-cropped-addition-plan-v1/proof.json",
"reconstruction": "ap-cropped-addition-request-reconstruction-plan-v1.json",
"publicTools": "Exact acknowledged same-file predecessor pair from full94 public events.",
"actualCoverage": "operator-cancelled-incomplete; no phase credit"
}
}
test/fixtures/autoplan-command-prefix-au.json
Vendored
-940
View File
@@ -1,940 +0,0 @@
{
"provenance": {
"source": "AU retry public terminal, pre-tool hook metadata, and acknowledged public same-file Write pair",
"nativeSessionId": "7fcddaa4-44d5-4550-b9cb-ce4e092faebd",
"pendingSource": "pre_tool_use; native use not yet published",
"publicViewportSHA256": "2fae81f74e48f7b76d4f78f962cf17fe1a4d5cceb949edd97ace5198a0e9e2ba",
"hookStateSHA256": "b13288a9c9b733d44732038ed3e92a266550d4a22e4efddd8b776527ebe8f366",
"beforeSHA256": "ee4a915de5edc5955117e32a8ff2e4967da54f9812657c66a5cd2d168ec3c8c1",
"retainedDiagnosisSHA256": "22d4c1d4436ec5e27209131d5ffbae5599e2726ce3c1ee81c6c405a8e550e5ff",
"originalOutcome": "incomplete-permission-stall",
"paidOutcomesReclassified": false,
"limits": [
"Only two exact public history events are selected here; all 72 were checked in the retained diagnostic replay.",
"Command timestamp bounds the unchanged event filter; exact launcher Date.now is not retained.",
"File restoration preserves the original mtime millisecond floor used by the helper, not filesystem nanosecond precision.",
"The preceding command display has no assigned published/completed/queued Bash status."
]
},
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-a0OkbA/tmp/gstack-autoplan-chain-zmFsqo",
"config": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-a0OkbA/tmp/gstack-hermetic-982715-DqIQtk/with-skills/.claude",
"stateRoot": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-a0OkbA/tmp/gstack-hermetic-982715-DqIQtk/skill-home-262upM/.gstack",
"commandTimestamp": "2026-09-10T21:44:08.844Z",
"viewportCapturedAt": "2026-09-10T22:05:23.573Z",
"targetStat": {
"size": 7635,
"mtimeNs": "1789077609038803165",
"inode": 65122877,
"device": 65040,
"mode": 420
},
"hook": {
"version": 1,
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-a0OkbA/tmp/gstack-autoplan-chain-zmFsqo",
"config": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-a0OkbA/tmp/gstack-hermetic-982715-DqIQtk/with-skills/.claude",
"stateRoot": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-a0OkbA/tmp/gstack-hermetic-982715-DqIQtk/skill-home-262upM/.gstack",
"seenIds": [
"toolu_01BEJjHdBgL3sth2vHKgYSkT"
],
"pending": {
"source": "pre_tool_use",
"sessionId": "7fcddaa4-44d5-4550-b9cb-ce4e092faebd",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01BEJjHdBgL3sth2vHKgYSkT",
"tool": "Edit",
"file": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-a0OkbA/tmp/gstack-hermetic-982715-DqIQtk/skill-home-262upM/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-zmFsqo/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T22:01:27.448Z",
"transcriptPath": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-a0OkbA/tmp/gstack-hermetic-982715-DqIQtk/with-skills/.claude/projects/-tmp-gstack-paid-shard-a0OkbA-tmp-gstack-autoplan-chain-zmFsqo/7fcddaa4-44d5-4550-b9cb-ce4e092faebd.jsonl",
"editDigest": {
"version": 1,
"beforeSHA256": "ee4a915de5edc5955117e32a8ff2e4967da54f9812657c66a5cd2d168ec3c8c1",
"requestSHA256": "e174ec4a2640d8fedbe97aa27e3c2787d147b1b8af01d165101105a48b0ac33c",
"oldLineHashes": [
"c8a17a84891597824117ab580d4cc481bb9698cd8d81a51ace72b54b34a8a53a",
"d874b53ed291fcc57b1ca9a60d1507fbd803fefbad3fd4443211e690e0670b6e",
"d7633393873d912c401a8dd1428a31d42655372451af52e98c6748f8db53212d",
"a40e2f60ffa4f63ff45a7e111fbaa8affb4cd7ffcc2e0b30524a06ed870367a5"
],
"newLineHashes": [
"c8a17a84891597824117ab580d4cc481bb9698cd8d81a51ace72b54b34a8a53a",
"1b74a1a2305fe2c2779701953f62918446657b3be114175b4f19e71b1ef78b3e",
"82cc5d4e8fd5a9adbafed900c99e1b6f93fe6fe79c1309d7951b728b27b66f65",
"e0587824320aae5582b9fd213baafc0df133c60b0692a954c6c1e3760394495d",
"6d28976d6a4076a08deb9593e28aefda8b0973ae929e5eb7b157c4b18e99a69c",
"44463911d29525c105445e219ff2d4564fc5e1a802c377a79944ab792271afc6",
"707d97569b65c74a0e3a451908e0c5d81dc598d8168654477e4d4cce9d70c3f9",
"408723e1679758ded7174e1c031098a3f87901175dce9bb0c90fcf35735ecdbd",
"414e1c6c29aaf55f2caeadc97845e40e62b80b8d4caeccad14fb8035132ebe6b",
"c8e02969b2776377290185233fa1e4d3e911fa3652397c012075fe7c7073d315",
"0aa487e1deeb804b33afb0e32842f46bb33fc9e40e4a740be2921e0d986e6a22",
"1855357059e6a2a14a211a1c91000807ecc51e3065187ab67c7d633eaf133eae"
],
"clippedAdditions": {
"version": 1,
"status": "complete",
"startLine": 96,
"lines": [
{
"line": 97,
"lineHash": "1b74a1a2305fe2c2779701953f62918446657b3be114175b4f19e71b1ef78b3e",
"nextLineHash": "82cc5d4e8fd5a9adbafed900c99e1b6f93fe6fe79c1309d7951b728b27b66f65",
"suffixHashes": [
"ab3aec57b44f30c90eb9b79e6119250c7823e58f4c12277e09fe3c13f7dda092",
"80ded7be07c12d5d0facc090a2b1f3397bb251cd49a235f7f03bfed9d2af4924",
"a2754eedf0dfdb0c7329e5a42f8a960b34152efc1bb12ace4fd8cf024d03a9ba",
"327be43ffe414dac4c4a3d67cf0f6d6fd252c6341570c6f152ce29aab80e736e",
"0f109444b10657db12db968ad9b80f2850cda1a071312e4e887240694390beec",
"fc2b7a854eaea0a0b30694eb43f042251227464e3974dc58cd29da50e42beace",
"b6f4682f0420801ed709d499d8e60cdd92fc2d78b59c37f60c77c210385c2cb6",
"022ea3211701d20527ffd74f9b0386412c8b769069fe8c07370414e7c4a0a049",
"537e2c59f3c31f6dbdf4e9a678c409ea48d075d0d1557342b58b2a7ffe180d1c",
"025ef9a895ef97a78437926418e38c8705102daf2b342d8a08fa12a2393a2354",
"698d89b6e9f0d079d6d7c5bd26ee9e0e6a0d0e09076d51e9d9f960dd20551939",
"305293249d1e0f04295631d6bdb3e01ccf02096ed1e64257d5c4ffd6a22e3b90",
"84d2e4e25744bef538847e17f5c9280395743fd65518336a9b795e89ed660857",
"053037ee393365898e3abefde9a560b2cca3f016f985e884549f69dff2c76661",
"955558c32eade14884f631ca4983704745daeb1aa988ac68c4eb6953c762e5a9",
"e79e8105aa87ab4f18b5334e3afd5cecc9e2b12093a150fb317e2002d71bbfa5",
"0b09f4ded28b7e2c7a2b9c027d96f2b04fe0e8aa11260be3403ec5133d14e5c1",
"e64de5b37b0511a5c18e709ae4a9eebe79f2b04cfd65cb05a86348d3a4e43c39",
"06d938cde301761790d32e35f5a25d95fd0b8469b397baf42f3edce6d0218b44",
"a2e5027c014b2ad9b0a9ae0591b2cf56fc155d0fe15100442b72b4b7c87b3432",
"f9fda50eeb722d1db68893516493b6fd0b9e01aac3473f056ecf36f368bd52db",
"62947a4530af56ff4e0511014e6a38c36f80f509475d7d03a9b796512f979088",
"3ee6d1572725f7b7c0a4e868864fc98bc0389bdf31b54d069408f8724d1bee02",
"75a37de01189a0dd3eef5b7ffd0973d8e3c8ed1d05c78d7280a140b37e995469",
"25a78db902fe6997bd99044393dcaa3de718e307c2d4a9ab97ce213ba5ec085e",
"247142dc5ecf73222d3830bfb4b8d1b2781c13626eec2802589c96ce1be0015f",
"743e699f59dcc8e5da83d7bf4caca1bc00e70f31fd24cec117a846991880d13b",
"3fdd4d6e0dc3d64dc6af6ac8323089fef42dc7b146fa54c8062104c82b62e454",
"a51ef9d2c32550f2e19ca7a691f8836df9aeac608ea7f8715ef1707651b628b3",
"326be18b3aecb8a8b8966c11066b576b82de8e807213157a2bf88927754266b4",
"40ffa6740b96d599dce3052a5a73b568c9b76e46f6f556b0f1ec469c72a8f401",
"84650abc3198487cde5bf25a3b87d51422b28d8863436441312296cbf76aefbe",
"4315655d90d32caa18ee24717134880e297fe1b4fae08f4790e4b3fc5023feef",
"c3314b408d73f0a1456168e6b52d2c1761220922400d944dd24bfad9562d9fa0",
"a063b6578179f135c4bbe3e0c3e849a546883776c1549f1aa9b8140d21cb6ac4",
"861c9996d34235ea14bd9a19f6fc672ff26208f82a74ae185fc58ed66c1849eb",
"948d89e150096b1584484a6a4622cddf9935a7ba41c418283650c7afeeab8621",
"005a06583ced56f6c4e234469c4903be6ff859ca497d9c77a17e65ddeb2dc40a",
"f7b4865f548bb062b8e3a16ce8738cf2beae7baeedbaad103155fd648f5d2b27",
"d91e33b7cd563734f264956756132b8c78feba6f2855e7a3ac4493b7da08b9c3",
"c36feb3234527280f5cdf308172293bca801b32aff27d21f8748e34e68494174",
"8f9c6cde8467f8f13900a961d9267807aad3201b9977dc46c18edf79eb85df10",
"1cb109c5ad5584a3c97ffa5e68a325ef284913aae6ca90c56d3f0ca358958b5d",
"162fa7f4aa955c13a09a7f87b3ab053dfc602db53b61a604fd9c58558f5836d6",
"3f02ab71368ed0161315880c7cd0eef75b0930c75fa71df81d8f8a32cc8d6158",
"f5e8bde7e8eaa4a269126be30e7376462e47205af5c8bf40105011fbf231f5c5",
"8f729021aa4af933e925e78c5a181df014b41476f8dbd7fe6ea240c83413d285",
"d2a6fa8b54677bfb7fd2013d48b73e1a5236ec9a2efb20a509e5dd903decb4de",
"080ce00a7997cac3828b8ff82c42f2ec655c7cf9b24b3fa833047f5875dde316",
"365a9ba255b2e32169b8f8f2eb50151280186ef9d68911c0c6528b51e68eaeb2",
"678372c3e10ddb4154f5dd4885ab401c21652015c520440f4be58ee49c0be5c7",
"d5c64bb8d7a475ec0dc64f2ea7ec117c08ce95647d8548fd4e8fec08893f4619",
"8e5db7aa1bf6f6ca826805ad4487463148502cd8271ae18f87cf7e359ce0c570",
"f63c5c6bf3dd061ec0b7a07e975356571d19dafc51d24217df7390dfe6623eb8",
"7344fe5fe7e7179d3dd6fd522eec7b4c9f32abd687dc9a7dd21db148231f5b23",
"a9822cc59b35f9fd5447750ccd3de1887e5847125d819ccc7e401358f828b629",
"202839eef5199545817ad8e2b2be755e9ff129bf8618109a5c42df29437cdf5a",
"d5d0b99eaf66c78d2f54d4610fcb4e3c1f20012215fbe0259f1b47b031f37855",
"5b5a642519de36c2c969b4a0ae53ec529a489e9add5860734dc57e7ffcbd306c",
"3845d1f7322ed1ce36d6c77a87ae1434e25cf23e4cf679963727256ada09c791",
"9b566cf8d005351f09715c4aa64a8ed8d408146b954d708fe9321330ee1dcd35",
"732e0e027561c2045b83cb0431973116960ee0a45ef65af4a1c5091605ffe4f2",
"305dcbcb8478baa0df79070dd696c1aa4f53d34564361177a719e8062bc3292c",
"eacecdcc85482e6cdae4b86ceff4f1954ca58afae4a1fa14c54f6550aef5d9fb",
"f9987a67fc73e6b519645c8fd2ce2745772791807f00c4a83f06e4f65e3654f1",
"6cf1775efe9374b6c58373f968c24d9be5e10903202c9643778db9b6a866763d",
"c891ad6f578822a6bb2a2373d693600888fbfd9a8de347e4097db3757d2b7d5e",
"4936078de2a563088792c0c6b0172aee36b84d51efcbc29ead6e9d108099b9b5",
"ec95d606eadcb4e52bdd72169f20fd1b79ee538f1c3fe5c378f360d947c5a1e3"
]
},
{
"line": 98,
"lineHash": "82cc5d4e8fd5a9adbafed900c99e1b6f93fe6fe79c1309d7951b728b27b66f65",
"nextLineHash": "e0587824320aae5582b9fd213baafc0df133c60b0692a954c6c1e3760394495d",
"suffixHashes": [
"7c575afa225a2df58e6aa37cb5c1f95fe4db6400ac186c2ef5bffffb56ccab1e",
"c38afd434a6b429214dc9ebc912458151e3121e229394aa5a06afa640ed44589",
"5056b992972618ed275c2afd4b5beb675186dc13be1ca1ceda9e8c1234fec157",
"312ecae7149323c4f39aa8c5aedd8052a3bf1fc1ac0d480908f0b938184b4598",
"dc46a89b11e519b958c497cbdf09c83e481337bf267578735ffbe943b77af7a4",
"991b04dfca0cdae3bc03cbda11e659e45c6368df0e1c09d7cc7ed72e3bc49366",
"5e9b7a17f5231423acbffe533a5ecb935a1957fabe213d27e860b39fa72bf06f",
"71c2f5894d5790705addbb699aaec8319218e594b7faf680696b3a3fee858940",
"4d12c035feca49201fd825b1c6d5f0ca37e6a715045a02ecaf4565eb04d89a47",
"e77bd972bbdfb7aeea348a1ac6f219443511bdbe832398f491999101e916e807",
"64c4f39ee34a9b1f8e3d5717abe871b80f1d510f2f50608a933bbc8c815064b1",
"556d61b0db51f078ef26d4940bbc3a8090469c86e6f2b044a3b5768577bb3188",
"2bd4a48170bc63af8069797f252405084a0e11a33eff360186622a8672af4db9",
"af4a9c2334c182595bab8973c02808a758a18428a6675656b95b1d7a89baa358",
"75f348e55423a129a996bde7c1d07bdfaccf5119daae228159073a6cabb4c0cb",
"a36657d35bb9ba715b4b47728fd2a9b2b48f3ca75759b919801f3c8c47aa1eec",
"ed9215c3aae945de363358e5f88fc9b175ef490c0a437c7aa6e1c0f9f103fa11",
"bdece1a20c1e3d6c4cc9a1bfe6c5855dca901faba29d772bfcd7ff69e7dc37c4",
"2c48bf32321ff28cb0cd42af34e7e9499a2780b5a7bcae45f540f06ad047b553",
"4ab3c6c74459d6869a501b043dd4ee832b2f37e31e199ed92a1e453efaf37331",
"f35504e505c0fadac12cb1dd74442d821b97a50dfcbc8f95f7487e9a87514d48",
"741d3368d0590158d2c9137969943d11b5d9f5e9b4de646683b4f55a9f5e519b",
"9fa3615ff0c1c99666aecda8f5f892a837eda867dd6e2e5db58ee364af20358e",
"2b8cf034372bd5b03d3d36df95148df34ed856c00a3a7ee620e0ab9beca8d6bc",
"f8d72202e1f93c25da283724ab9ac685bbe787efbc6653fa2a6f175cea5dc09b",
"c585a838715a235f73eb96dc88a9d055abbc81a1e1ae153520a36f37118ad6b2",
"9bec0e7805f2d013f090d02db4b562f7129e8bc44498feaa633cdddc00f861dc",
"f12c963dda889473b79ec2f6336756775a8cf66007cbdf1085833e6aec8202ff",
"4f6641c764a7555dd6e8515b28e66b6f219b63094a3c2a54afdce35335e34124",
"b33a47d295805d47de774f62743f9ef2bf21967486fce7ffbbefba0fe2ae6e3c",
"b01b08f010e38b76cc863155722c3d36eb7b6a302635105f4c7ec102482398a0",
"c2275c5d50261c3d96bb4da019a127f6e40524ab64a3993c0ef55a811f79dd74",
"217c43c33750be5a961b8034967044cbadb6f40aadfbd1bf34bd8491b7ad60a8",
"540082c83b7ffe382ad1ea41aad6c323f9fe6dd9c46fe10b1d6456ddd55692fb",
"f4802b4949e896d6e1081bd13adfd6408db65ff0f99a6906374aa04299a8be82",
"160919f7cb94979328b199f28a89b775492e189e8bf383b7a589f84e87415c37",
"56ca7bb13d473512f4a3dde2323a8918900aecdc149e1db1aa18f8f15105926d",
"a8159e05453fc7c01afa4b3d568ebbdfdc42008138a9c0aedfc2e936042f03ce",
"8817fab88f99daa810f1af4f45d126cfa5a625c4ab67fd8fe3932b6d1a8baa72",
"8636eb29a21ec37790caf07ddb84da33da76129b7dd954b1f85e0212dd3b4a31",
"62ba62ad32e8df1a776f9b6f1405c475f7ff9b0bf3903f5cd5194702e14ba828",
"b71e83c3e0e19fc695d5cb922811cbeecf7f08aea06f81b0b182a9bf3c9a8cf9",
"26ecd90426a17d0187201d73f653803f292eb70f9eb3a8fc3d3bae2ecbae0bb9",
"e5c86b5cc88947deae60288dbc533deb519c1cad2046c1bc7551a3be520c0a07",
"ca0d119d2c32ef343d2b2b935281b2584f9c041e4df59e215ecd8778c28b530c",
"5cee4753cfd6e0a9847eaefb02b8778c8400de08c316f7944664b199ea3030da",
"2033a7123f81e8d5acd4a13f74493a32896a1f9042fd29f2097d257b7e1f0a34",
"8e5fe3b0f2a5624b958bb934b7ba013bd49973ed806ebe4787524ab58067ca4a",
"ba4fdad44496f0a65ad953643c3907e1fa91e80e453b06925bc4cd61a207e214",
"bb44eb9ebdd1d99253e0bef3930521104c30d1ad261273e7784641cf35f15d24",
"7c4a5410ec44519c112fe035d9141ee297a3ab1a8b7cd0ed3aae89548bb9338c",
"981396a39856b5fe913a1deea98ddbcd621c4551d39428350f59c3008cc919b0",
"f02e967ca8b5c0090834b7a1876276c3029520480fc91c0262309c4a9b550650",
"1f7c4633bc2e733dc8e9ef60182f5872a8109fc94a9451350e31f3c40d63fdf5",
"e386eb3fc2fa79200d02f22dfd537bb57f523ce6a40b7deff82efb3c8a5315ce",
"d1e5084e4b70da5ea643357ba3fec799e2d9fe6ee379137171cee482468dccd9",
"e889bae88b774911ebd9b42680a44edb04f87611e1788e9f7d6be13017300207",
"9532716eb570b102e953c8ae19b1b25a88f315915ce13b40dd0eb7ae536d83e9",
"8f9e86e838c2c4038ccac429b3083250eb5a2c49d0b53083155904f13cd75133",
"cae28e256631534a3bbd0d3d2556ad76642eae4bff1311124df0ba31881fd557",
"64ebb568f05bfde7067822fb3e054fb0883233de88ca78aa6f53d19915eaf6ac",
"b37cee97d40b5c556d203066b4be61256d9e748592ecd35e5cbacb77be9c5e03",
"8312037eeadd15fc82f1bdd2a7b7d64db78e222cace049b0586aaadad9a69c2b",
"7b31ea7ba97e0d074b3930a30b8342c32ebfa06c5d83694aa56ea41091637ab4",
"e09ef282f803c1931478fc26d9a62dd79e7af9c460bd371724f3816aeb434e52",
"431cc07960e321216db7a1f74f33d98134812679466f6817b08585418e00800e",
"b509388a86358e763629ba35d4e2766bb4b1d84c9835a47cb4563c1499e6866d",
"02b1b14ba148abc0d3d24acbad06ca48e72847b3839c4c8f94dbb9a2987ae679",
"11a73d5de71c57e1ce6ae5bfd70255b2f9c65cc8debe1b8d55094791399ea02c",
"949c6b6ea9443b71525292dd20d18c815994b4539c791bcb7beb2a385484b0dc",
"298ab72b6d1defd41b5fbbc409996f2eec7573cad18e09b48629adca45448bb6"
]
},
{
"line": 99,
"lineHash": "e0587824320aae5582b9fd213baafc0df133c60b0692a954c6c1e3760394495d",
"nextLineHash": "6d28976d6a4076a08deb9593e28aefda8b0973ae929e5eb7b157c4b18e99a69c",
"suffixHashes": [
"966ca7571fa950d5367fc8e620edf08b15f99a2ffae6ade95744f120686f59d3",
"df3ea7ffa41c7cd2ef6bde0671f0393f30bce96971fab3c976517bf1aa3a0bbd",
"fe3b8186005bd78d0cf389cfd87848501dd6f478f19f3dbf92d9099aef7ce4b4",
"af38f3435620c7c165543ceb546ff6158de38398d1848e201075c48bbf0685b0",
"d5b0aff48c411b205956eb365e9a21f4cd81da20f9e7ba17940253c2c76422cc",
"5f74816eb63af8839e05dc8a920c91ca39de503d2e046ff89ba8049e62fb21d7",
"260fb7474b8e3b9a21a91d76d6c8705e3d82a28d7f6b7fa7bf1a66380233f7fd",
"404bc57458afb0967fc28049d769f9f9e92128221be521b2c5249c9f58fa0edd",
"99b0adce06c82d57f68c5ced678a7c29b5ac85bbf908a4236c13d32802f17ef5",
"b59bc1f3249df4569266e3c3019d7c02157c2b3c0ccd7c7bd06e5294eb379e33",
"543f299c0a1caecc64002e7e55cec0a4f3f5cd58fa7d302dcf32c63f00be99bf",
"0b14eb81b710603b7a2966413fc6f025ef1abc58d9d5bad59fb9755e76f42550",
"7549ca4572964d046ab8550db7dc6e9269c1f6ab5fca31d594098d35cebc24f8",
"a400e16186cdae2d716634536de44a83f6995d9af8efcf129189649833fcb08e",
"7f7039bfe590869d2d0edcb3184191f4cba9e8ebaa52906d5e600b58bf96b73b",
"bd32d7912aeb98d7c6e37086a34a0698a68260537ce7add17bb111c5e95e0ea0",
"f6f76b3b2b3cd36ffbe24c1e17ba5dce30010b20e0351858417465642fc0d95e",
"5b67495ae5641b98f6d7a04a2f8231229f974b1254666bcc459e26336fd74fac",
"42b8e45dc36d43a99dd9e6544ca895fb1d9b39322d3c5854abf3d29f0d407357",
"5c63da0787e44b5a5255f5816773c56c32f7e34d775d4c3b91fc71261231c851",
"bc9b1a263ba60fb1851be26af50a02052a2afbc89f94396c5cc6c528cb9ff8c7",
"27ab288dbe5bca12658aab73a38bce659ee44b814dfcd32b4928f50796d0cc3c",
"3152876155a54d2ab4bfb95e42e125ca7b0ae6a144e8a5c47b94d56d4819cf19",
"b31b172acfcf7e2fda460a59af893dceafb740b946f4a317d186baf7b9074066",
"b96a080fd2f070e130e750c45692f2f884593f6cc8ff5d927fc55877224ad046",
"e7c2172b01a7c94a5ec8d288b1ce0c366d9ec821dac20401a13e00e9eb8dc0a8",
"daf3ddf203d22e2bc9c8b118caa79da8afb7d85da13de688a6212b34eadc7a41",
"8898bfbcc3fe07ac138c82a7a5d57ebf73ce8dfbcf4d1f253c0f394496cf1dd8",
"2d6644240e6ea1a0dce06ab17bca5c92440b761a3210553a08bef2c7738f178d",
"ecef198d93ddc411835fa479474490e8f5bea3f73b58f2a45d9bb6b2114d3ded",
"cc77ec13b43a60ea50e5b4e77d87799945887ff1371144d6138fd59b7e88bc63",
"44a1f127a813f5c8ddd7f99000a2429397b3c8c10281e22b85c93cf78825998b",
"eba448011aec2dbddb8c0a1bc6e22e9c17906071e0ccea7c3666f97888d86c39",
"5d0debfb905742801a01e7753bfd354fd0073cde7a30b4943972a5930351f363",
"93a38d9aa159f3eafac2c9d8a07721188d939af4a310fef6da396ecb6d0dbecb",
"07f40442e51255de7ac14733bd714e84e79bd1acc1d19ddde6a4f8b5fe7fe05c",
"4d98bdac15ab16f9c1ff78c96bbf9eac6c7164f81d0ade2068076bf72e44a197",
"4bbaf4d2d8c0e76d04af2ae186e04f25b35885f59e4205f38a4f210baeca9601",
"7768fc583a934b75cecf8fc7ad527448f87b3cc8d25f4edbcdcc8b56e21443ad",
"2f2c45ec1d4885bb53dd60eea5ef26a727bbdad7d3ec4c025dc970d6ab8fa955",
"997e887a11bd9eeacef1959214c7acc786000e2569034565efb124f16eeeb0be",
"6c1edff82524b4ee69f6280158a2d4f675dae5d884b751fb6d1454297920d334",
"4c6c7f4624d53ab7f862755b85b8f57cda4cd2c4b225a036ba186dcbd8bce120",
"4c4f7a851a459bb634a560dbbc83576ea5f048a5ffc3449143055bcbd15bb6a6",
"cbc792a30a34520ad24ac021614fd51e6dae82930afdafce746b50f332584ed0",
"201512dd2d6a57f7c05e7839b0cbb64ce7e26b966871c45efe8a1acf070225f4",
"d1c4526b6c1c5a83e3140af5aa629aae0e2985d889c05c2994ecc2bd905265a3",
"327ab28e03653895e2abd81b1f2336fbb9f9de50a4c51a734da688d0597cce45",
"4d5d1b377e633997f48377f4b646b53fde7cce3cf3885127f33ff90d9b4f25b3",
"0883f098174cfcf03dbba6d8abe9a3dcaceb5cc5ad098760da6285a36159eebe",
"8dac9227a4c8c7acfb122037b187a256395865192eff47f3bf91c28451accb06",
"572578cc687b8f4e8af440263b021103ee112d7de09b8feda8ad1d62ca6baf10",
"68394e63ef268a142141f1415eb4a489d4052c92969f098bde0af2d6205bdb93",
"70f631561a87317b526429bc7d19c3cfac0936b1b7d33a58a4623cce2f5fdb0a",
"c69218b23c8069f4b4e192943c6d0bf23f9f168da3508e51f81a594bdd59b4d7",
"2463b6a679f8bcaa0362c27dea31f0c269c4270df6944aec6bde08b42a5c6fac",
"e5a1d9dc88266c8f8b7d2f216ec9ae26a60ed4be7af2e45bd8504dde16d76dcf",
"9407a6db78294a653a59d4816aab78666785784f81ef768c48f6c787a70a25a4",
"2cceabb6fdfd92497e34bfe885e9ec9f2195e17b8ac0e0fd87a17d7d3cc7ad78",
"6573c0fcfdc14a48bfdf55075eb935406ef8a3f4f81f68aeda87268ddeff2fcc",
"418584dd6c852b1c24b8db07e7247f51c812e076690ac7ef152c4570a4ed8964",
"edee6e5d5c239c50143afda5539faa1373c72e77a0d32502b56aa4eae173bcbf",
"40f1b6faa1211d92b2aa34bca7a48de0024801ab37ce3b5102512156e9385b3f",
"0cd9eb90489be3194ea26e4f22fd750740e3e2bd1f6db78cb367e8af6e0d7a97",
"8995418058bf19e7141f91f670c200c1d2e12e518dbbd5d569557e5a3bb9d197",
"519e84d0d21f1d374ff284296199ce5a775079a24ee93c1a09827769fc3d97fa",
"cd29e5b2133b5ae3db783a6064fddb24c7bf6cc0f3de019c937310bc8f394ee8",
"366f301e3423306afa4f25265cac01098d70b197a2c9e159da42a257084a2ef8"
]
},
{
"line": 100,
"lineHash": "6d28976d6a4076a08deb9593e28aefda8b0973ae929e5eb7b157c4b18e99a69c",
"nextLineHash": "44463911d29525c105445e219ff2d4564fc5e1a802c377a79944ab792271afc6",
"suffixHashes": [
"43c304c30bc8917f3b2537ca78374ebe0140d359182a0894a013aa3886333916",
"8fd149d4b31408ce4ee14a73b1f2e63ebef74b04b28783b66b6b89bed9ef4fdd",
"7f16a8b73949cff632f51885179187ce56bad89a77457b3915dbea090c5c27c3",
"99b0b559f6c090e1e9b47f3ebb43090cdcc78ffebc10985545696f9be2ddc7ff",
"e7db2f93f804f71c46356ba3db1fbf64c510445994cdc43b5c5c995b6a1f05bd",
"ae842776a2d34517c03d506061df1e1ebd5b486b67eb42f7ede039c5bb5c92a7",
"e6220ef09ec57ca874482414e1034728a8eddd4b45235e23c0f565362125b787",
"7d7339595fd3e85e1f01b8fb46a6ef936e5e1c79826ae7a415dafacf4e4f671b",
"dc008cb632b9c31d1da491d633bac50544e89cd6dd257409688ea3328153cd1c",
"402a4e4a5830f1af69c3b5e75c26b692ea2a1df6caf133670da64991678b0ff9",
"695e752279fa60618657a8209d4d07b4e492037d311ab49ceca17d3a102122cd",
"592706372914fa25564c17fd36184a03018d10746dfec4e7bafb430fd71301fb",
"2ee3db1dc0ef0080c9ac5a773a38c32e92d7fbb3aa8d09fd07ede6086c8dbfd0",
"c9e44b0226586ff8ed9e3b88dc9366386901fbfc73d7c3370d00c2c48812ae00",
"394e8563b9a43e1d7ea0282c68ae2b0bc0b92c8369eb25edac8e2b7b247d5fb8",
"3f096eef1934a07dbc8b4ea61ed62b00cc4ec15f2299e97757e8aae9494f7b79",
"9ef59822b119ad723c97506f14411a7792bce1f431e09fb945ff4afe477b26ce",
"79c02fa5bf17357e86da20f0b9547c10f8268e0aff1679c5b9bfa00b36491795",
"46ea19c72076da74c921c36f0cc6b3fb7ccecd93b7999c5a67feb759df538a41",
"945e907b44aa9903ce09461d6460c20b4ac99b6337a5861853d8fe44ace5df83",
"ba87173cf2541db8a9b5030a21b46e01cec04487a8cf46746d7deaebaa6f50fb",
"3b7558384be2ed662bcc3f666c4e92d24e7dd63f1232c5fcb25dd42ffa6d1916",
"9ae59ae4988ee9ec533dfee5d029e44105a818460ff8d9a5bbb0d20e542aa21d",
"3a178251a9cec0da3a1dfe02d19cb89c2a558aa7ec01e923c5423b85971306a6",
"d0cb72a68f8dcb6935e6860c4d347626aac280b82eb0ef81e96f4fbeeb20e422",
"f28c605453b93ca904ede9d0d66e4c52d950d8fd03071924e2ebc40a52720190",
"112798ac9a270e620bbaf3629a70c83505899cc1918d8d1989762f00a4af953e",
"f1e6ab0536a6621be02c84211a7723d79fa0a1a90ba6b4cb8bf428110e07ff5a",
"21bb89577a508ab2360016e8f9f0a40bb4ea33e6637e8233cd5f4cd66f665e89",
"7134726d16e82908d374ed0e45f34c13fc73aa0ce3189b20b03cb87924974f38",
"a9de2a023f7025ad271ef1a902584b43d2ad62d5bb35849dfc3e8b4bde3e9821",
"d0b39fcf6a56146575d845099e5b0bfbe24098157f9586b4b1426532cd77779c",
"82a4360912f3a7a07911ef5766208e5e5e3039f9f54ccab5a4b028155164ea40",
"fa26e24a303063ad253516099ade8e1fb0cbf7052b1f5b839327a33845b98397",
"07b2df670a181b4e50462200e411f07d6534c4fb3f18d1ef3d55e47cc71fa779",
"2ee82fb634f2273d4df731e8bc472c174de4af3286b8eeaa428b1cb41347b81c",
"e4941fe644e9f9295a963acf45184c5545fe9c835fdfbbe6276acb7255048a11",
"647c9dedf271d552014c65b12ac0d00e8b0cd8242d5ffe9ce5f68c9fa93c4972",
"45a45d9b1675ed5cac919e6edde7e58a4cf2debfde242ccc21fe85015377ba65",
"08e505f9dd71d30f9b0a0e5227aa516a80d1ac5555ef3fa60229a6d94134bfbe",
"b153422a41f65571e2f73f62270368b09245622c9511f6d6b376f26335369209",
"9a08386eb02016f64f102d6d7e0735c844490e98b456ce4f45a3fe547606ac96",
"bd9d1abb097924ae4d89c9bceb15d20a83c50d17be50eab2e03021019fc757d5",
"8a75dc9dd4e032a7d734f8276a43ba325bef2b9edce671f65fa613a350c166eb",
"4f69608ed57314d37fcb4e75ba4572ed51d82478b155230b2f0da7175ed9c81f",
"e198d11adf756af32b5d86636bd634b3b19aa9364f59b677982b8be3f032266c",
"67c211234a8c3683857d2a8787a8e4448b4b35593f8eba674ed0488ea8128d30",
"8029a300085b6c64e9867630f1afeb671f14f4ad7f6b1ae011f7c94b43f5fd84",
"bbdf38d2f149c37627af9d59506b55d3a074fcf1a888f6e547ee2907fd0dabbd",
"2f7327f7521b6997ac1408dcb4403c47afc1f06e0918db57735b6ebac05e12c3",
"6843ba638bb2e91c7c40ebdddc79c0527b79dbf866163a9268f9505d2727970c",
"99b1c79b342ad3e05dafb6c487ba317114ae736f02be87863b7a2eeb15c75232",
"375383eaefc63a99d6a3701177efbb7b44f398439ee539a1c80d6d38efbf1f56",
"6e301c555c8584c8dd7570c6447717e688b833ec0cbdfe64b84489b8e67d10f8",
"1b8b04c29db9cf700983331017801bd9e363dee741bd66922b3ae2acbe5cc5ca",
"abe86033f2a84f8c1f977c3cd287370261ff00326b85206a058e3f1c94de99cc",
"6f71b0568586fad837513e1004a85dcaf71381b076738b778414555a189110e3",
"5b2badbe28f7f996a1747c607b9f46e9a36d82d39b8fffc685ae0e8915c8c114",
"97afda7198de5b728ba7879151fede0f2915fc497a023d1019f4931834a4f5ec",
"aa8b78004f142dc70a77159c8faec7091eeea8753dac640a985b2e75413a1f84",
"5f7bd19b814a7c51c21400e06571d993f6e1e36cef876e24096f049e54a2f4ed",
"d72d7b218699a8b020aac8e75f6fe0a8f196681aa3de3669df5b914cfc15b3a0",
"9cbb615d9f7966d2a4600d7ab24072afab200b6b0966ca8413e3d9145ac5a891",
"c0154f718e8b3ee0afda6e14e7c2c0984749a9dfd57a7185d05d5c42f0bc2cb3",
"369eca5c2ef887876e7563f10eb37a710f2da9d9a8c348c4c1819d50e6d2890e",
"46178cf09e441efc4694b05949ace93e263adbf39f4fd4042289d318306673c5",
"4c10ead3207e93f950d0c2daaba1d3b4bbaadb1114598b76dc613358c521c190",
"8e95bbf1fb7ae212bc890b4697f22aa764ccc678392885689460a1791cb9e6a4",
"5d02076947487380eceda4e1a64ade3ed17acc9fda296233d43d0baf7a7eacfb",
"66e28c53e3b625503cfe759e0d54efad20943a6889d66fae490f0a82ef3a5f60",
"11b6086bc20be780df63e163fbf63eb905ae266d6fbdca78b40121ed8dff3ad1",
"30ad9c9564d1af93aa248661e81f346be20902e87e5530a2a3d6c3ff377b77f4",
"d0487a6122a284ef5996cd6c842ab571d2c1912ff313b9e706b82e2ad014ad03",
"12b367cdfa648004aadae8f73211bc5db5b3104e31cec3807dd2079a281d561e"
]
},
{
"line": 101,
"lineHash": "44463911d29525c105445e219ff2d4564fc5e1a802c377a79944ab792271afc6",
"nextLineHash": "707d97569b65c74a0e3a451908e0c5d81dc598d8168654477e4d4cce9d70c3f9",
"suffixHashes": [
"baafb2e7cdeecff8bc071ce4087cf8921872a50d14e04deeb1258fdbd011d5e2",
"db4892c21b8014c696f2b332cbe4c00701a292fba30076b84c9ca0e07b5654b8",
"bb7be71b8867a920ed2c0b355bdb4f0e404fca99c4ddc23ad03ee14f6bc781f9",
"68027b4b4494200cc1519f542b40003832f7be9c162522e94511dd4a63ff187b",
"c3b7a4c6e58c964c197fd65334047f2626e8166928c272b3cb497de2cdefb445",
"228c57d1b51d6dc3f124668f84ad7c3da449b4a737374d98813c1d6d3ed41909",
"c832ce36079eaf886b29a5bfc0bf92746918dc99a0c71735b26fe97956244cb9",
"7ff664dfe5ce92b5c1e606d84aac00021682b971ac17c33d7099c1534205085e",
"4bd293c4bc75fa8fdf3fea2c182c7f9dc8035704eb1ecf89a7d54e63b995b01a",
"c6428d80dc6ae235c7c74509bbf638ae26048d6505348ce601fcb11ca350ff79",
"d22868a3a9aaae0c9b04c69800124cc2d5ccd3aed7cfb4f5245ef8179ba4360a",
"69a4efadac6d2476a15e0aa2d1259e5366dc99835622a11011c284abd49dce6c",
"b8bb6f8850c1424a638450d86fecf7b9c00de4e36219bbcf0e51d7444207fe71",
"025c7ae87f632fb255f36cd78804ad5ca45c2217b5bb7e16d26d1e60f547f8e2",
"0d704d8c817b5833d658315e68ade583a5cde9d4373611344a15142a585bcadd",
"71f80d83ba2f6f4d7e526dd4373cc8de3654e01cbf70d54abc65f53fac6cb606",
"a8a5d2b31a1f7aa91232eabea565f5c58f3b651219c7fe4df15b91bfa73773e3",
"c80a445b02cbb70df121d0b96e04b7aedb3467d44b4be47030abe39f1a24aeda",
"5dd436005cc279a994c633faf6e0e7f8e31bb6370ad77167d66321922b792878",
"ba9dd7f0af57622e62a292d8c00be545031398319eda40d779e3f373ce65cb39",
"f756b39f2ac7b9cad65cbfedd6b25a9e84bb061bcd250768acc4129410723e39",
"5d0e903bf2c4ce34640dece30f2da779aca9e03738b07539552a7a6875ab2978",
"e8ff9cd9d0619106ba168b0ebc8c2f284bc7254d6e26ab71a994d5a188bd8e1b",
"ba369239a87e8f49cab51952784dbe764a251d66059cbc23df796fbe19560316",
"4742f69684b4070a00b2eebc584f468b53a6af4ba5691dfff7584e60c5491bb8",
"e8c38ba47584158026edb7bf2eb6b2fbd216b63254ef10e10b8396bfee52c0e0",
"321aa4cbbbcbd2558c3f900eba92dd8f45c76d84bbeccf492d3c897bea589fc2",
"f572f27babc331c60dfaef97a2aaf8128f5d5553efa23bbb67884bc223697052",
"53bb3989a4375119a262914a18640ab2c23c87c21b5051cb9bb12bf37aa07668",
"d0e37aa6787c05fa07319b8572920fba74f860761b12bc9aa3c63ab1f05e32f4",
"3ef2862617e35dde17cc50ccbdda9b5362c33403135bea67207f0f931b03e80d",
"8482fb27aff3f7961c3b2d59a32ce72da21fa786a62abc73f99d12b2b345700b",
"67d02eb162b0a03e1bf7be181ebfa78d8cffc09c4e3c5f5d8bd9432f857cc56b",
"6087ed9b29e9d8372690433e1902b0a90178bf48b67f7926d9fbbb795f920326",
"a149036c65739eeedde122650350877f1a7b41563637a11f7831d70bd782489c",
"079ffe4ec963cc50335b58eec404c08c76ea17f65163f316f1c0ec7abb5d42a8",
"9b6ec87ea8adf954abade2373c40f1ad1e8d41faeeed4f14a9cb590c48cf2055",
"94c627a2da436a71b4bdce89dc6487618790dd0d777a538c4956f3f691765475",
"534c68ee2bf1d4e29e4786e4e13194192ecfd0b19e252d851f95df7eda39c20c",
"82682fab8b827abb92672eb10a54005b208b50bdbe2958c2cc7995af1e615749",
"59ad0d1c27ed4ed69bbea3e671ef669ce8fb11c20cbbd01ccb4632a0428fd3a1",
"f60307f300ceec2d2dc378f285988396a900b59b6305271e35d2dd6d708a0c07",
"377838c9d618b37245fd6289750bb9644d15b27c43baa982be25e5adaf73b517",
"b94afa34e4438d1b44706b3b952182ea41f098f71a27f571ad478d3e474b7920",
"8b5e3c240d762af855c88f82a613ec4dcd456d3557eaa422a02379fead7aef15",
"3977d76b7a3aaefd3af4f61f5072385aea27b52c9c247a372ad8e30bc5191024",
"94528b9e1798811a0de2ddd0a3b383d767b3e6e97cb152422c902b4ce6f95033",
"18ad083a4524d18f480b9580f75354ea20a393df85a70bf888315e85711d239e",
"143cf5c811f8be8fc9a955258f083bb9cc517cee97ad77e74067afbbc3c4d55d",
"72929cbae049e3431a32b7cf7d9bb8121a7f3743a96c58d71c9b9ae2c50691c8",
"2bab9a93935835189cb7eb76f671094126a761d91ebfb0d5e35f14a96fc813a9",
"629045849ee08b633ff6364a61c9c06173e240efc8dfae9af074a0904017f5fd",
"c20262518e001aca2325c6a68c68d25525ef37b686c60a7fd605fd2f4538f3b7",
"b7a132da159a5b51e2bc0408030baa3174af229d3787a65894720b728800c8e6",
"493bbdb7378bdd05593822064176ed8231b30c5f9002e9cc1d40c07f53419d5f",
"0dba9fb9b4969edfb3d7521f8c17f59d6079ccb569213e3376aa499df8293e35",
"bd4ffb6aad05620089e7ab181f9df4458f4b74bd120380c5c4775698e0350b94",
"2e2f8cc03fab7711cec57f961a5e7e52b62653aae725c6fcd2cf7f37d233335d",
"cd06d43e0a8c59cf2d0d61273ab84d90786abac35d29b4dca38d725035f0545a",
"2e3795c897f30aa5fc51e831615457e4363b7e56252246a179b865788ea661cf",
"f0a4fb284332ab8dae13611066fdae0e6b5c943474e4332326d719cca98aeccd",
"23b9f841538d63e9ee24b60a6b50563fe40649af57943f601e2e672c14410758",
"d41599c2414e298f34b30019f5e3f9bd4f5ac4762662b3d3934fe6361f7f05dd",
"4968441aff5025b2e5a169ee8b7df427f9bb482217413db9f270561d3b559d4e",
"4a68b41aa45e02387c32fccc66697255bf4af680fe33c68074c78de1c996f785",
"95497a6f798a07c85d264d6504f87992c8dd4b7785b96cf362682e06049315ef",
"2fed1da01f624473c889a564f474a59943e24ab6d953257e8414fdd45c7b8b31",
"3337679ce341206020da3c01d0be647151ab5f674cd4cbb74a233a8edae71ace",
"647bcc229829b5012ac5a0981869eb54b71b3954bd7cc56bd372eb7a227a3737",
"19abe3b69ec791b67dcd060c0f36437fd24d5c7909d2052e370817b30ae99129",
"84489c7cf279d2479778124c28b6e8c58c178c034e2137965db9d56e94a30624",
"576cc04bd8a87ca46a8eee849ef3abb60d3657684230b069da730a39292c1d6f"
]
},
{
"line": 102,
"lineHash": "707d97569b65c74a0e3a451908e0c5d81dc598d8168654477e4d4cce9d70c3f9",
"nextLineHash": "408723e1679758ded7174e1c031098a3f87901175dce9bb0c90fcf35735ecdbd",
"suffixHashes": [
"e710f5c6f51db5b8f3c245d7aa46985aea78b7cecff9d231fbbfe1332b0e80ba",
"7eb509b681c314e34f37e9a25697caba3e442c484237ef6fe60a0fa964049aff",
"91393935b5dd8fbb577b839c2d1c0e7b48423bb58432c0d6a9d106f9974d1e4b",
"e6b3d6d9987b83dd4b6c0d52f6c2c30b1303996130a2bdd684d22823e12c4692",
"eb24fde8e32b627bce857d97eaeb0eaf565e7f7806078fcf7c6da032c845bb43",
"4dd744997ebd8546cd26c0a0647975589f823603338e8516aa4e8ccbb4a2eb0d",
"00e0cde541774a5ce4906b59f40bea908afb028b07b3ed603e5b4f1525d6461c",
"9f65c0c12a54bcac31c732c5e34b2040ff7a7ff22861a6f5ebeb95c454a05bf3",
"4ad3cc1de8032f1d4b8be385f4b57f7c3699dee252f07f1bfeb7c9c188c7c570",
"4eaf4d0bfca96f7f2da2608dc428d64b33d868aec487a5171aa2f8d510fa4149",
"2e3c35126e864a4093d7b14eeaeb1000a77c83e2ef9c0f6af3ffcee3f7a4c1fe",
"b7d185de8d7d7e97bade519e6e2abd0d56813c70f94541045102f475f9b09c44",
"9e1ff40985655463b42da775eab91fde7d633cc225f80a53e92d104dcdfff293",
"9b35d8ebafe8e653c0c9189486b792d20bed521cc9f049164bcb858512eb79b8",
"8a24ef2dd84e66e19655f7fe49e9e168087ea5ebf2d1be8a36004ab006992288",
"d537f1897783b12892b64acfad829281c7831ef43f1f574cfe63ffb75b7fd9ea",
"9af2ca4f69b43e68e7259d5f74888c65179d8a2efdc74e4a168bc10b8d91a208",
"dfbf7e33026552cb6b35ffd2cb016c1e0537ce630276c7e44575e365d7d61f8d",
"4c1b2a265df0b75a4044bb2f7b2f9a3456792c491d83867fea9e0e809849f8e5",
"5452aa68294a02c0ceb00c4a664d7a958060f73a08d6c6f21395329fdf81624b",
"246c14552664103c48e1d700910d6f524d81e53d9f62630315eb4747c2be0c06",
"efe4b85c60b62fa436461a5af08f044080ecf27f3ffdb317090f15583fdb39ab",
"161052ab76684c34a78b26996829dd0fdc23d3546c71364e64a3fb96e751f2ac",
"894ae1ddd8b17471fe9144af1365686c01fd8403277637b334b7aeb60a2dbe00",
"3f0a375981f0dceae2b8cd2818ce4d934f6c8cf981a08a9896b3291ee288a8a3",
"016ea7624165576e0a0c24771401fe58130bfd6417129e8067ec55272669a8e6",
"6239db28d58e5429bf5fb326b99a3bcc4648de34fc10e6e238e7f4bc48454c9e",
"6e697aedfe57290349db5fa2a4b0c236af64d97635c1e090e792080640592b88",
"4fa69f84f3f3c16745bc0a46b0d8ed2a47013bf468bf8f31ba5bdb3c45db24f0",
"bdfaf6873267d5e8cbb0e4116de503cc2e053ff7c7f6e67f9da32996a3ac8e7e",
"0f786f162b1399d68c44c6179909c0e6abccf3dea0899392d7f69f07a781e255",
"324ba4cbd58b4fd36d751c6ac96da716086c4ff92d49e5e813147624aa728338",
"688e924614d46d08fe7e6ad5989fb8507a1acec15cf90df61f90d085436f0ea0",
"df2aa85e2c718ebca3b3fe98ba89f685ed018b23e015a9050632becc25a46543",
"01ed65170e024dbd6d7ece341f5eb7fea877a28a338545ad638b14269c15db77",
"6bc889a6f490366a3dbc54862bdba1ed1ad0bc4af4e8f9a8a2ddd53a9aef3f58",
"ff9df569f935a6b0b9a1009f47085424237a189418f65e18b80f991dc40c6547",
"c6d23d06a3f69963922ac79ed100e2c9d5d775d93944cf9c598623d79b7cd3e6",
"0737419b4d86dfbcb194586631b139c12532e48da1ddc018ce2b10added94a26",
"ce061869f00dd9c25368da8fbc7fd8c3983f3d56ae4cfdb4cb4e707ffbec01a0",
"3bfe8e808e5c26bd9e4ec5e33f40302836fcd4513d0fdc9502ae75776e75e65f",
"f309ceb054ab2ce421d2fc8a8dcb064c72e837b248eaccbd8278cd1075144e17",
"631ec75c10e4f4c6b4f54013ddf4f6a470e16fd9ff99476ca3a531142612c9d0",
"51e0e7d11f9d2cfda85fefd92dfe234f5cfa53455515bda85eddda79dc3922ba",
"f720a1195ce661774a35bda452406f67dd05cdb7569d0303b5be43140f61a905",
"55b996d4785537c3c017bb24454aad81419db0700927e70a64ba7b442fec338d",
"6fe42d41b0ba6110252a660ca4fdee319de79959c9235a96b52f693eb2bed7d9",
"2521c5df1e3d6150883c167b21f31288cce81b957f14bc62c5f2b46ccf13bd29",
"9e098bc23f6848cddebf38306d87b62f8abb1b2ae2d41e6837f185fad45deb19",
"926ff745847424a2df8fbecfd27218c97651d7881cc0fefc0f2fe2a223c6ca27",
"3c08e314b397307c13c6d0c0f62e1d1e8bedcd4f88f2d60bde3e31359da7d108",
"c9eb0cb251602806a61ec4f31887935438b1a2a0698f220e396ea1ae2a9ff392",
"25b974a8633f0076278d42941b73738655dd33a93d881b14f9d1b6f277452095",
"75c2d7a37e3dab440f4efc0a4c824c2688aace178ce165809523393b3bb69739",
"727d19733e12db2eb5c5e50456133d5990733c94b2b16b243a7fcaeaf9fe27dc",
"f0aad8ee370a8cf208e5a9648b2e4f91c3f0a19d72d58e40f464a42dacfb22f8",
"4fb06b7bb72c84fe60df1300046e69c28b1c8379a7114940add91be4db275d44",
"08e24aff1e3fcb1c80cda3cda1156ec22869cf286c1ce1ae1f4462d85d9bac56",
"b5a3e3590202fc19a4548ce7500ae97f5739e2bd5295297cbea9ae33e5c091d3",
"d5184c58f821c4170f82819688f0ff48811ac143204b4737df9d60e812ff9947",
"f2e576abcd8d43da8d95f262f17001e47c1d193cab02749e858f2fdb0d7c8ebc",
"505a73e5cd93bf5842c7de6d671c39e7cc071c75f279a899eb379aff3a21d560",
"7453ff348400726187d79a0b8458bcc6c991bfefa77af5f98d1d9bdde8bfd6a6",
"1a8683b0b22e1d5accf1565ee2e451ee8a30b60578109544482f027f8bf8dc69",
"3c583e80d62548c098f4bf6664a5857e64d5a54569e0e79f5448bc7aa2acefb6",
"28993d0ac6e5361782cf005e14d10528cad5a4f1f0338e78f148c0c5824a3698",
"72071418cce4fbfd2390d03963fc6c71bcc08ec5e74309bbb3407563e9534680",
"e7ea881a7d32abedf8cea98bdf95f1eac8495263ba3f7282da766ca2b6d5702b",
"b53b4e181071ec6a53a1723d1cdeea3a67c719cec48c36842e825920453357ae",
"2aeb155f653dc02ad3ba58fd08da2bd48695ab8b5e24bd7a5bda0bc006246573"
]
},
{
"line": 103,
"lineHash": "408723e1679758ded7174e1c031098a3f87901175dce9bb0c90fcf35735ecdbd",
"nextLineHash": "414e1c6c29aaf55f2caeadc97845e40e62b80b8d4caeccad14fb8035132ebe6b",
"suffixHashes": [
"05d41e3010babae240c5f2b30cad1656459433adb4c1b8311f117c76cc845f0d",
"7f5342622df16c95f951f980570ea9ba95005f4a029dcdbc0a64136440a25968",
"b9d8c72ceba2c98c6a26306625441ab5df84160179cc25e1c56b72cb54b27841",
"0d3c70c0e98809c50379008f28e8c536d5ab378f2f4537e14ece30288e0bc597",
"3d7247fd94a7684b68d72de422ddd6311c248319df641a90759de1bbb116833c",
"c09c104dd770dec7f3cfc76e24c07fafab1c81f13f751ee73135f55f24df1ee0",
"e66d0009d8323584958700b3f3b4bd58c79b1bcc9f02c309add48dd42cf7c6c7",
"c4e53489fbab9de602c274222832b9d71a81ba5446a22d0f6123480c9ea52bd9",
"707cc1c61b7a1fbc634c7cdfb9766e7c8db02e7c9a4ddc143af608f36c198579",
"70ab1056fad2a5332b54afea9277ac5fff91564e057019fe3c46ac8b2eab2536",
"fb43f8023b0accc7cc6f1f56d6029a69550cdaa63ef84438ce4e33e970839939",
"1c48ca09d46d567f0c324494f5c7d4fda5cb098dd1dd9e4315ac8c023e5f2d6a",
"883178455bed5eb257104950d00c48a517e0e9e1be3e338e70626088acb887c8",
"c58df6fca821c1874c235f9ff75c182be147268664451b624160207c0f9346f8",
"43690dd08fcd25aef50646f2854fa11d6d764159ef36a44d87e3e456157d88aa",
"a7c4279da86094c115670680bd0df406aa841ced8d6272e003e24e38eac2fca5",
"0a6da42da0f38854c14d8461612dd4e12950bcdf487dfbd7f7355f2dde310354",
"32499a21187863609b297a354668981c9be32d04c85c2f21163e8d653b02c339",
"f18b282de1e3a11d68bccdb4f0a1e697ed877f70a1955a0f93d76bdc8aafe49f",
"389b6fafab9332823efaac760eb294ef1f313971042d6a10beb3bae5dce78e73",
"01413100820135f666a03d8ec6311f133d742f85cdeeba9e19f580b4d5fec3c6",
"d24645cd16c071e587e363f0910063b5db0f59f7db6e46c35f6da989fd67da35",
"614bcd0e119d0922c6894c76d0df36ca1b30d2ec03e49c7fb358a4fdbaa14a6b",
"b1ca51ea14e73b80aa0240e68dacf9d1fbcb4b35f517612cc218b16f166f1700",
"6f10e46c8202940af0c87f1f728ff2a3c5836876fc7815a235cf55a3e1406fdd",
"5352b6dded4caf7a42818fc684143eaf6e1921f51cbdf62aae8737392250bf09",
"190bd6113041fcfbaa54655d1af0f521835fea216e7f4fd8cba59e822bee5387",
"f779e0732db8e68c0936e2faa720806705acb97496612341a65eb4310aba53e6",
"3d4f2eb9e7beb85fda4e1dbe603f7a3c7af4fae90835f16d3dc1c79f5dd9fade",
"32b5187abfcb0f8aa9f0bc4b34b0a10076d49600347b2627f3bbe1f4c623d789",
"cd53ec7cb9ba21f8958c2a4079c218f0b82b58ea9ef487367f3ed33948cdfe5b",
"b06ec61b5a06e88042971eaf92676cdd1845f09b2962f7d602a67a6bad438cba",
"2364b6abd1b11efa96ffffd853e3c59b7e4ca773d895f70552735c4eed3a4df9",
"a7835b23233c0e4c008d56d39a61fc0620731013230623cb79f0e67728aeb83e",
"1a1bcc5b4584e678bf8f5c85ba42848132c5cbaf3176049b0cb87b2d6e7e1c90",
"e1d4062f81e0bb010ae80d15a7720c4b89bd31fd78e821af7c0c6da5070178c5",
"12151df33ca326e9f5ef1d360a301de24102b23fb7cd7451edd50065a36c0969",
"87ddd2d00bc831ae97dfcc0af1f1e24127e43f4cd402dfcbf439d47730a7ba70",
"f34596554a9648eb56770f510934d18dda9fd38464006a9756436b429e78ced4",
"5ea6d83a58a39b5e830cf955b4729a889213ad81d58512d99b20fbbd9205c1ea",
"46a6f8156b47161e48e35620271b67c31a714e36adb426bdf1391cc91a216a9a",
"6ea7afcd37a7236f014b254e34ef4bba7dbee52f6d02586b586bb3c80dd7e898",
"cb739e742266be8e25445d44472583c4cbe29fdb00ee8f88b53552084eea2343",
"9ad18fe71ba72a1026b45c447e2c35ca385980faa402307345002ba06cb647fe",
"2b353f3a7ce5b7e0ea8db62c2b407500981a66ddb60a82a41077a19250b4c86d",
"a8dcbb622bea29045435f832e8a19b0b25acd83782a500994bff4baf03f9b33a",
"46938bb8d43fd7eeda551d9c8076937ae9e7772f682e69afe93856dd664e40a3",
"2b2f4ba1372da1b5679dc7c0bbeecc523f3ef82842deed1247821d42110b80ea",
"95e5702fa60f524007f12fbbf608b3fc669792cf4cd02b1bddeb5efc977a0bce",
"2cf7fb14e9fcbb019c6cb9e43181de83644499f852d77e27f80d52e1c68f7ea8",
"1b6aab26218de62ccf5913b5f93d6049a241f7ed258377a34a5c69ef3442dc23",
"625f9ff33a1c1743496fe44fdb7217b71397ae91bb6a50aa24826714f45589c7",
"d21e27cc3a2f11e188771fc3e7da9ea07c621b8f2c99d60d2fbbd42453363dde",
"6aa0c6d1e4fb361f795508d9e7a88c2808c3f42df1e4558cebb1fd9105964ba7",
"39759a35281dd6e7dce12601819fbaef035a9a29c10c8b86d1596584de9f9797",
"7271dd3ec314d111ca65d914ae42822d2d8d6caff4cd7148dcd775b8d01dab1d",
"bb4a422b8b3ff3275b26f6cd3ed89c076cb3945ace9edc734068a23e64900757",
"bd12f32539a73aff9134f60631639276621556b9576cf74503e1afe3915e7be1",
"1aa1ee1b81742d9e055bdff388fabf7bdd8590aa2dd87e6718090896b7394acb",
"e931fb89f18fee5196bbbaa00c5e9f12015b221e9791fe5d0531aefaeff3d427",
"63651283533d495afeedf42f2678c34ca6d71c4300773d7deff6b71e8213981c",
"accb6ac4a7128649e9f83e6a6ba879a319d7f88e10ee63b6460d04315f28229a",
"bd9a25d8ced185547c31837bdbb45390ffe9d766214f0bbbcb0d443250ecda17"
]
},
{
"line": 104,
"lineHash": "414e1c6c29aaf55f2caeadc97845e40e62b80b8d4caeccad14fb8035132ebe6b",
"nextLineHash": "c8e02969b2776377290185233fa1e4d3e911fa3652397c012075fe7c7073d315",
"suffixHashes": [
"0bfc1cf50a098a20219944425701d2d92a8914a65c0699d147464478f7ea5b73",
"75e7efc1641ad642c260cc200a04a0cbd7d420bd6e5d3b9c212e8464d2f6d8c5",
"ec7865d287d41369ec9dd7e1d99269712d5a4712599ee88486c43e18d7261cf9",
"8f1ae363423d019d9585ebdb2d9a86bc6f5937979e3f81cecb04b4f588ff4794",
"b719e254ef5f929d8bf1d2d739e80925493372b802815ead43e1fe01b646a517",
"2205a2648c1be99f3a306182282426676fade42f068a8e99a70cf9190f52e090",
"7b7f8e7b065e13280a559048ec26604b3517a236680ef7561ff2a9b9bf4f6c4b",
"190e01e3310b90396625f66d2a36e99967b03ae52b00455546d305fe0afcb5ed",
"26d928084cf7959db624c3414dfc069edd3d4a8ebb566e045981d970d28bb5fb",
"be6d660ec356767ef246b4425463fadc2e646b79bf960ab3fda00f6533826381",
"a9953506b4dfd486b03957fa12d52ae5c83c0e2c32c442314fc794dd3c1709b3",
"fb984900a290f0841334155c2038eb538b491640cf526984457edf1c4ca1221a",
"970fa9a577cf291cbad4e81cd38909eafcf08dab53cd75d2d370d529e1f0772e",
"7677cba484a7259b7635ca7b6fe98793da031242b2bd02cc43dd032af2215572",
"1a38a70a3643117835c28fed2c5ab6612248ac2f59782a1311d98e23435398d7",
"4b067c810fe4cde0496ab6455a944eb097f4ca9827ae68717591c97b36f877d9",
"172abfc771f7e64e613339bc23265341ea3d792d71e365f51edada4ee3ac9907",
"d32d1cc45b98dd1ca16dcb3dd0bf9acaa6c2cdd285d4c31eebedf93b6ab10af0",
"689304535b02cde3420da3629169a8688d4976cea7979595d1e664763b08d19d",
"3880ac154310e27dfd777212de54b33a4cc9f9a7bcdf9684f3fbebae95b40f42",
"3ca44d5d95862c1cab5069913cc1ee7bb2d041a151d2ee00b7bdd99382f8c8c3",
"e0c951e2b6132ef867ac451080e70e3040fdc53eba9899055828e63b47dc12fc",
"0ed2a12eb40b26d40225b6c37291f6f3b963b4d37815daebbccad1668f3c82c5",
"7d18bc1a385c5d6ed9d25137c54cf6c9a23b37219092b5717b846ced523b00e6",
"f2b684a9ec307669780da98c5ac1b300965956e9ac8910304bdfb5bc10a87f1f",
"b11c36a04b9a33aae61f4767caf8530ffa4ddf674942cd2ce793f67b9a9e79cf",
"5f1806d8645dce77c4c5cc71ba14b9be5a9879eaa4d1298ae23cd0d1bf7f5086",
"9e0e781c64616cac41da72fb6c05c6bf17d6461b0fcff1a60901a899e55170ec",
"ec3cf6dc8a4cddcb3d852b54eb2c2bfb8ecb70d85752e953e8f7762fd26bbc90",
"904d5877d305dcfe9064f04558bfa95fe044235fd8a2d2105057013d3f91d3e5",
"f428b0b372c7285cc0b21b60d0f54eaec39101a43b4d1973f31f9b7ee53b9459",
"75f366059b8b1265c7c5c2b4e539be0551b82f9bfce8e8d97aabe6a1657ba6b8",
"2646eea357e6681949ec6c6346b2600c7ba5622ca73d808ebda7094dc5731fd1",
"2359b2ca34ef52e810e33412d5d79f42790a424eba247068ab4f0a7024684149",
"1313f17e4e13554d5c698b51fc11e317249af3448218540c8a13a2307b2d79c3",
"da300c7201d230d4be77c2133874ed42a2dc63fe6d0e1edac7705a364d5e0655",
"674d05c4dd25486ad9bee019089939697dd8a5c964d9462d82e6ff20004b414b",
"a8e34655b2e50449140a2063a36407d4de587ebb495ec341d2f301535e32b7fa",
"de87c509d08f7b83f0977ead19918251a09f7eff133f6757eb5c52eff66361d6",
"ad47db51d549cd4753e304cc07bcc1f99bf6656169bca04850e716bf63eb4247",
"33e6d463ad653ff0ab6af3b8b03f66bbbc2764aff0aed9361c42c1c3d50edeba",
"e907b7b82d4d0f3fccfad7886c2de6ace6a0be6afb8f9d5b172f9b4fcf1601a0",
"4cf90d63a2674f5b1550edeae719702443dbb5efa510281b8a2f2b080e410224",
"306a9bff17087aabb524e848c9f770bc1fd5c0cf111a9da835c9a2dc75a13e53",
"96e458e73ae7bc40f2191d96ee43c1d6f7b92a6e7f643154845ce3e6f3ec19c9",
"41dbd457831d9d0b652d1ede776e30463aa7351c5860b871440d73083722df96",
"94532b689e00c726c0a9ca5a22447495ef2a0787df230e47c3b6279b70a393a3",
"a8599f50777b6a9cd5a34dee3efca7ed51945e229c7e2a4eebfe348ca7445585",
"00b10de211097f5551da35888d93febef213679b55c49b1963c0dd577119b240",
"e90b02e5248679957a4ec126f252ef5b8fa3d479eea543f8a492adad81634344",
"b86d4805f1b6a2652f4a903f8d708515698147bf7a046977e0d0e8620ecc1452",
"ef69e15775189da3cdaa757a281afd3ff0153ab06de5c48ccdd9666fae9ac287",
"a37c3cd5b8ad49e8814dbaf8ddd99a5959594c2522de18f1847bf48479528586",
"2c367cefb2887e71a7b3afd8baa018c46f78663b664c51f0e3871da4ef9ed795",
"79e798d120216e32b8b600635897e95f2cb8660a1d2fa6f4ef77d11016953c9e",
"578e6e17397e245219dbf33814b07764013af7b8a5e14bee76c5b0394d850dee",
"68e8d70d634cc0aea7510ad935825839bd9ed748eaccb192bc22229f78e30c1e",
"0161ba9509359a20f0cec24057e322cb54f48d53c7f68c30b07ece189ac11ae5",
"b42ac9812a91ccce77ea3e0f1e065e79ac18fd11dd215fc8ac6aa043ce67fcd8",
"04d09832c4e26a8f58cd4f235835b9b93f3022c80d39dd335a6b29c910d2bbeb",
"691e7ab6ad250fc27213e4a1c5b7f0a9b8d96992e67884ed9cda4999ee51b1e3",
"79ec583cb0476613d71d40d22bee625ddac9255392ce90659cb50e9a1d70ecc6",
"f60937710b3475a65bcaf9ceae89a4b64fc5560b65cabb7f3a9b1c2b7465d103",
"acda89e04f3b3075c5a50cd4133fbfa493da5c2e5386e5ab974fb807411b7c71",
"d90c2c6f2b200197ac78e392e3ab7a3b7bf80f1eed9e297d6824ad18573c31ee",
"88db5d79e5f66d3d79d88dc437df719ecbd21fcaecad0706ad30d8abcc59a073"
]
},
{
"line": 105,
"lineHash": "c8e02969b2776377290185233fa1e4d3e911fa3652397c012075fe7c7073d315",
"nextLineHash": "0aa487e1deeb804b33afb0e32842f46bb33fc9e40e4a740be2921e0d986e6a22",
"suffixHashes": [
"a17fd4b5b8687122e23f3a200f36c416c5a9e84eaba6751117252399da4bacb2",
"c549f758c42c4737b0911cbed2d5192b0a93dcad4ee0f82cafec67376b863fa1",
"40558501a2ed5cd3e397ed74cce30d32db3850ffbc0020a341e29de3d7ea7e22",
"fd6d4ed4c3be969c583ab2955a3456ad4cc559a72abb863384c624838131a762",
"1a157ff729f154646e4d4b0edddfce4ca90fe7dd093e733649b1066ce7fd3ca7",
"9c86e6cde16a3b342379a70ef3986dbcbacc8f301976f5ee919ecd09c86ec90a",
"9316978738c04a116e84a39f239f62cd7ef5e0bbe6be8109f750e748d9235fdc",
"7918f666f711e3507624de54d2e7996d42ecd5ab9ba9e866bb6cc3320870d70e",
"2147f126c8e678de9c8d60f70521d39a35ea1f2485b4dc0108dedb10717fe22e",
"e64ca6b46f6b51da7ec288847ba3a68cf71ab52d7fa31de112f08f4d074be342",
"cae3f94535ace37cadd89e0f5fd71982dcbb61133dcdbdd5176c6f7a6d2fc92a",
"566aa7d87276144894bb82d47c2a7833502359856a1cf860bd04faf2357ae41d",
"70b16201b95ffd33ddeeb6ce1e5f191ac2319520b90399b9909f16514a9296c9",
"2fbb348308bc7a960ae1ad851f5a09a8223989d04756226fc1b86007198470a4",
"0499726cf1277133d68648988c6e31059b11b5f2d174405fb16cc878881bd22d",
"3fd499745e637fd23c59a48584017a1f00eb6e67cc50c2e121bea91a4a9d512f",
"7daa35942326e7edec724a4b0d5d4040874497b9d60146c02d87408b8df6d3ab",
"59ea2dd3cf04f7e14c660772dab3b67efe4f83cfa261a5dad3e5bd662313e013",
"6358fea896811b84c7eaa28860a50e7c1ca9fc6015487853f70de424621af044",
"8063ab79cc1fabd4afbb3b6e87d86402fbf1b0cc39aafdba16486158c1a03809",
"a82d436d6bb0ebda2e48a4c525153e24aa12bed75db8318be2af1d35f7866903",
"17b808d20c842a629c11ca616de08513b56a3a4db18f8be615a804ef678dcf8a",
"276472c7be854ed636e458794406ba86cc33d9c739019918383acbf7749bf361",
"237ac6cfcee58a38496d2b520fbee83f29218501e71e9d03ef0c1c2d680681be",
"dfec53b450e4f9da6a43e5b717b7174707f5fc3f7c2dca80fc10e80a684543ff",
"0b7d18ee0cfe9019b2656647fd1bb2da746c1c50b26a8d0032b14ca42b4ab3f2",
"26e63d81df003384d5781f7630cbca99040f32b3fb775b01526b2d4881bd4aea",
"39afe092fbc75076a382120b8a4b85852ae1bb786733981c7a76226164933000",
"9b4e8afc1bf7fd3f65e6a9405bddc0820355d8a65722dd7145342aa205219322",
"54b29e64dfe2b3b8db91c3343d62d3fb63ff54a5ee39a76c3177beda3aaffe4c",
"dcc6a93432348bdefa43287f3861b0032bc0a0210f971d50d8b2c4e9a6a7df4e",
"72c16240af4c5b9ea87c712974d60a5df31a46724ac14aaf4ff800b81ce4fac3",
"99d088ad34905ce3aec6cad5860105b701fc61a2d14a486605ac085e11688b14",
"058511832479579a08e516b4e25b26f614c7451791221ad0755fd5e6e0de1192",
"070f0cd75a7a922330de791c13080e50ab39abb5ec3923712c5dc903f8b65cd0",
"cef533a98fedca39010b92ee8055bcc3836420a4196f5f387c492b8e43a2f0d5",
"2b962927c1d7de12323cb79e9bd675feddbe853f072f4d7bdd3a97d084bec397",
"d647704ab69701512d8187df5ef55f95ff8dcd39795bbb503e4bc264d5478b40",
"5580ed457a5b1411bca143362efd7f6ad7b3a046ee1f242656446b91d3be3233",
"5ed3c9e44905e560c0db2e832c9fa32d90f6fa9ecfb1ab219bb7b706cff99e18",
"b10f8af97a8398e9f7d7f005f985bcde87a5c65329b8fe36c2d88aab63d062cd",
"284f52ba5729387ccea4e6707e84f411f73a27dc0c4f1ac8f72213dbff99c6fd",
"bb0b5415a91ce35170385cb324b962fdb6d5644f163c018d58326a4b56603d0c",
"518ab81098ee0810adc904fca035f3c9ba94f377949aea064a3b132ea65db36f",
"73331b7f39e4c4ada5dd7f0eea2ac314dce6458634de1ea578a77e7ed205e3d4",
"8b1ee0ff7abfccb6c1153f75283acdaa0a9e15c1997f70b8aea67382633bd2f8",
"073f13755c78056b97fab83601ae61ebdbefd1a11fead4e192f93d30a4ee9c48",
"0d889102c75311704ca8c5d088a8c22f6ed38ba5f2991729ca20858ccd1efc5c",
"75c666813405283c170074019a5b416fffd640b6c0ebbb33718115489fbd2778",
"110542b4deb5cd40c8caaf5b6b27504f47a788a4575afbb51eb921a860127dd5",
"adc5f358b3f7316dc6f087579c8c77ef853ea27d5380d0b6fc7afc88ae6f0d28",
"932090a9d9d04096c569d884ef3a143f82d7fffb799650e2bd91fdef86a6736b",
"ca4f5c84f6c2e1532fbb7c8a193f1c52dff862496596d504cc5d670d8e0e44af",
"a6439ebfa2d2d39053d615240efd49915398a0e97f32c22e2fc7f13da045f8ca",
"fdcd51b5989e98fd4ab4b5c5f5ce858f8785dbd1bea1645644e8acdfeb09d9ce",
"1611469f6b13808e079c818a63de4753763b31c0b273f89bbe3dcb628d83c2d6",
"20a8ea133de9c40c8006e343db555eb6eca8c491722577d80320283974b8a099",
"8284c4bd2345c6dd0b56631ddf05f10637df42c8b36e70ddb3966c1acb7dcf9f",
"a5a6ce64f72088d658162a86db6ee926e8db0965714b1d9e320d7b4f705e1ad4",
"cbeba359233b5e10513a47388ec49901b4e9809f7b4ef8f7eddb16e79e404769",
"bf1b695b25bf9b3f6b60494e0417e7e887b47eb4ac6b697479199982b872c6b4",
"f4d196b544233890e90b7544d3c298c4a3b25d445b32e928d511994820313dde",
"29866d13205b9fe1e33bd320b1339165d1aa9775b618d5f2550cce68a545c3d5",
"b774b25e8b9911f922f5883e667909a6ff935297bf8a1a2cc890ad3daf8699fd",
"e571d2a405e2d3cc3579122434f3969eb9b80569379746385c0c6997c6b718e5",
"9025ae6e5b114f55f01be942eb95adbacd85575a9aa1d26f23a13597e886568a",
"0dd61cee2d7f4bbabace2eda140a6d84901fa6af8ca1e7692ed90aa2dba0e1e9",
"6d153ea5c74e2e06df915a925d7c24b5cc837d44f41c1df30234ae787ece18b5",
"013efb4e1eb87cdaa1279ca89e5cec3b18380ff784d6fbc2ac83aa66e415c430",
"5c1f07c87f0ed0ed7ffcec76c7d665ff09bed72ab25176941665b9ea9883174f",
"9a232b47b84126acf2ecb49751c4998f4a18c34ebf0030efcba7faa95833e075"
]
},
{
"line": 106,
"lineHash": "0aa487e1deeb804b33afb0e32842f46bb33fc9e40e4a740be2921e0d986e6a22",
"nextLineHash": "1855357059e6a2a14a211a1c91000807ecc51e3065187ab67c7d633eaf133eae",
"suffixHashes": [
"20f29c90c36e5e53adee15c92c012f0cf2d8c077bbf84c2b095c4d4fabec68d2",
"25723235dee9080dbbb3b8062eee6fd2d812a6ad35c2ffd372bcd6658bf39e19",
"bc74457b0725a76913b146eeda24a981c677c514865d675bd330c9dc4ef5b2c9",
"f44921f40dfa5b3358ee13e55f2051b963f7c64c01623d23dd98bb01457ab2f4",
"0eb424f4fce587b64988b32b472effd0c95d302b51c802e965ee776f07eb75e9",
"d925fae25ea42c65a4fce1e740fc8e3549b9a14bcbaf7fc939ee651ad8180f48",
"f9a86c8252fb17a9344aa0528bee3701ee423749adf9a427ac1b81d5b06cf056",
"43d8db300c2c8476a7651f58b68751a075ace5966eff597b884f1299699104e6",
"4aff2701626d7da09293d618c88348d9a85f6d15f1f6548e1c9d4e83319ff4b3",
"7e4b8ab23aab8a6acb12b7b7e0fc344f4e6bf080f61788cf6dfc3b8370f8ade0",
"2e8f36b67a4631a84c39aa367aeb57084f8fa5b7ef68155a1b75f22b18a9c7ed",
"18f45e21d5f2eeefc771b16d3449526a30d898d8f4c3dbca85f1675be394e295",
"4748423adc6a6ff26b63f9df0d2068af09089b8156d630c3d50f0b2e03a2a2f2",
"6d886d814f9a78a2de49af9fb511b2f6edb4a3ea6dc06ce2f6f95049ac8f3c09",
"4c24c3043fb16eaf41367ed00d20c291efe515241c7dac800d702861f0e5263e",
"579f78303679b2cc554495205decb4a6f1e9bcc9d85cf519d6d5ad2cae44c1e9",
"8f6a35fcf40112fa53d0633d76b0384ac0cefd38bb4c2bc03aa7f1ed7b0617e6",
"0b67dd0c1779c8cb28cb8d058da1de942773f6c0245b1ba08fbaea679501f33c",
"2318e288bdef3c6d117a82cb52fc8237ffe4ac21cae5476152e5478d34154236",
"36bd1f8b413eeb6936eb0985682485944fc325a6607ffe3bef4b1161c2fe007d",
"eb8e529fa86780b1264c105d78b56fc95fc5a1b64095250e95eef2ec21e1211a",
"08ff516360863bdc986947194d61daf53c829347159125a235e1918b37e99338",
"e809d1853b27590bfa06ecb85bce7def13f019bfb63be82efbabb1c7dc92635e",
"9186ddbd04545692048776c8c03ca2fbab702d29d36e6fe008b684e5e993c82b",
"77603f751b73bc21bbe5b773e0d0f6792faa2674e06817e635d4e88bf1d17dd0",
"0a6d0ad5b529d0ac2694ec951d3775f655f97e5685555f751af545aba1050088",
"bf1627c960a8525f99bf6161adf67cde944043e8e30e7e1d96adce1663f5ab4c",
"d8bac0b9657bfcd80fc304869e327e0f2678ef5f14ebcf213c23b812b50fb5e1",
"f0cbe97085c47003dff086067bbbff551297fa89a6c66ebb6ee2f4e3e87982fd",
"4fd42f041a2ccb8aef96142adcb29373c49baae26bffa42163845271531ce6cf",
"cb0b9179855a5077f325960685d46620dc1f8a4d4bad2b598e9090c8aab93528",
"d4fe2b5532d753013e7363f73b5935d385ecf595be34a959bf5f00aa15ae3130",
"524fc0a903140d8c154846ddcd3e9db26a650ee1795396d24f1b0ebe0b9f334f",
"b4ab01e14b68794ecf14a9bffa236b08e49687f4f3ac8a2bb905071afa662bee",
"99e6ddd42ef2512f4bc9afc5fde56913a5f51dd3ac07ef72d8f78e72cb7b16e3",
"8090b5b2c9b7309c309e2e70bf52e33208052083734a197d5e6ae2f583b570b9",
"be3e6b7418a12113a3ebd1f746332aeb68b3fc6c132f1d7361309a02f0efb761",
"8154480245e9b63745921113a00d6bc64a45291a5bbb699834ee72de02d22422",
"b2bd95c8c81ff43b201979a2df77e3b86ad20ae4c07e4c26b850eddf27c7caa3",
"3bd8e5385983d6dcb643a747cd8b225d363c6c0184928b4ed60c95c26f05ce36",
"d04826a660f73e84555281031814fe1d8f50d3c5f94dcebc85ac7e8d7cd38f1c",
"8cd0b12fd5827a41c821f3f240e4e1d79b9defef792d6a6669d9a22d584df0f2",
"926a3af88d09079ff74aad0326c9a01f3496e059dc15e0abe5cb5992fdb5f7af",
"6d43b02b2deee8d329f3b41e30f67e82a4a4d05c2d00b237a1d1b5269cee0506",
"594ecfc56eb85adc7eeb5b1e7c5314218846ef65225a2fae20de5332aa34ecf4",
"ee34d36dc61d0f37d4a39b18c77883dab43b1f2c7ea2346588b305953fb3695f",
"bbbeaf7c9b6d03bab413b8aa0143a3450836b0d477bbcd3c931cf5b0870e8218",
"d17062ce0222d493c375581f72838251e92ac6d8f8957e9fff9826b3452b9edc",
"2c4b908a9bfa9049c2d926447aba5419cf19b80a061a3276fb0ab2aef24e92c5",
"b6431d4b14f93a5262453a9f4bc0d1d22621b876035fe7a1fc0d3a34a5e636ca",
"aef9933e790e45d88e7d5d835b0416711f5c3e5c1ae8ac200dd0f56ced4dd0b6",
"3ebf7f3d750fdddedf6978c02f2050f8daecfad9604897ca50ac5f3f3bf388a7",
"4b1fef1ff474b36bda3aabb7f9c60829a3edd7584f26e6d7af8800caae55fae3",
"36304f8e566cda2660b3badc319df0cc63b4ad2f9f27df08db1712acb5281ddd",
"e996ad53ba0f8987a77d757ddcb428f8202fb9b84fb0f83932015713e4430ea3",
"b8373119066b691bbe24ac3e2a497061fd09945bca72eec166e45ebdd59f35c5",
"4a0d112745dbb87d95d666b0238404549cec6faf9acdf259f069ca7e1d79047b",
"c4d7587698e6f9c3266b39e4fd5c979088a39331b3167d697686102780e9cf2c",
"a0c6924ba9c9db5629822542ef659bcce93dfb656241dabdaca915dd314f0e77",
"0cde86622a0fb406b7f2ccdce46353248637703ac5974a386464fff41dd8097f",
"453954cc34217437e78ddc21997e96bc0addc306f150c3f6cda0adf80d8fdc51",
"b84d0f80dc98a1cc37705b533e76c0dbfae948c36242d160f335f099975557cf",
"545e1e08c9b69ab90fa5444b00e7f9b5dbf6cf2bf04d1a797d345f77a4f201e4",
"0ed757d30d49c57badae21bcb1c893f6b5df42441d87912884f61f0f98673cbb",
"87e8c2d3ad3c3157741e7b44db872cfce41d5f065f38904e8f83b7c74dabe739",
"1ff3fa456559e702759e1be011ce3e2571cd132443021b3fa5eecdb098798915",
"1c059b7c7cee224193e015b41b0505ef876e378e39ed193aebf5bd555d626f9e",
"2183658c581605eb2007811b383b1ac93369f5a5031f48f0e3fb2482d4b3b3be"
]
},
{
"line": 107,
"lineHash": "1855357059e6a2a14a211a1c91000807ecc51e3065187ab67c7d633eaf133eae",
"nextLineHash": "fc8b01238e1cc233faaa6bd0f488af535348ee84ccb502ef27c51dac1df6b6e5",
"suffixHashes": [
"8dda884f89e9234651addabab6eadb3f0298600efcad432f33cfa83ddb2b5cf4",
"44b27de0a8382d60b729e4facc4c4a377975dd624b182815058f11c38fcc0d0c",
"3d4445585160fad6ab4d7946e3e06576d992fd31da717f0249ce5699eda3e93c",
"61888fbb32c77fc9b5364e130765a467e0105184c855375f608b5f3d23afd15c",
"0fc3830863518d0a2b1f4d7f0f55986015ea93028ebb379a7628d11d95c17162",
"b2630d0d816c7dc3d120817488e0472b72ac8c2616fcef07b779a93790037a10",
"b23fd051587a9242eb9203c827f64f72d6d9fc0030cb18997df478e75a1faae7",
"a1c676a1b2784b6a4d94be4e95fc5aa3ad2debb5b9852403364babc5d95f4214",
"408797a5d25c808e6df0de948ab6b1d1ee59e1e1c94a40bd823d573d5054c5a2",
"7898efd258bbee324716e51a3c0a8de583b7bb4b01c3cae5ca8a728ecb873b02",
"9445920d27dda28e76c51bbb1a26e79d6b43d734d138d705c51aa024bd979748",
"5e57dc48e6cc1cffb2a64d2076138d3064e14394cb017916ca87fec51cb79dad",
"2559585806a5147cfec23d94636c194d05e14edf6b13eb7e26bd70a0d5d17863",
"c96a761177594f3e42683b42dba20e702e820f896e3ee60acd9b24e4b0cac376",
"893b2fbc5952dbf6481b78f3bb575f82c858d71dd0aef465ab57eaaddef85e0c",
"796cd2d299c901a5c9a5efacfd8e775c6ce789c0977c7d33d16cd42ab6fb827c",
"b88b9d355263574e1882bb83eb1f7a101a57b8b0d5f2226cbae005e06744cf9e",
"c9c108db3920ce6d73357375bc0ce87e2ad5b0c72f39ccac7e92413252c8dc1e",
"133d2e364d530b164d26bb8020203549df9374a6f06bce59a981c0224031aff5",
"1f1c5c26443b4e713d7cf9250253f4726b718cd7d5426df0c2554c26293d29a2",
"e076c09af83607b4d0c7c58dfa9d68c1a0d46a5e80e76d27646da5e54a597096",
"639fdc32cae9efc918881d1c8e9f30847326563ad60dac12b98b540c766d4866",
"df23ea77e0008a320c504bb9d3e45a5d08409e8f24c42f8104a59406b247dd28",
"f6f42d7fb368dbf43d2415d2907221b9defbe9bcb7ca425309c2d7ce0f854b98",
"91cf08dcf7f28df9bb6fc77f0f3bc0db5015e91ea8450cab2bd4e1d7dc31761c",
"4dedf9ab4d828aeda3e3d5d072e46c44d63609b4ecce1e1b63a7ac00520a356a",
"e47143a8c5bb89ebbf41a9c889e38ae7040e378c90b5f1730b7ad4bae572a321",
"c5aef55f4d7ab1c6ee29a88943f6dd7a63913f098aba3a9a5d412aacb4f79807",
"32a667798522080ff86228409c62992040570956ed8da8c9e0a7939e9226bb9f",
"a7803bb7ccc7ed8d8bf9b6e2b093e23b57ae3a1e385ac4ada48106e827f1b4fd",
"9aad6b9e1982f6ab2572e58bce2b903f6e84244d4ca377db8d3d974b9841a2b4",
"2b0d3d31fc9085671f9b57beca98f2149966f1c68c6f45d160a8d2a053583ada",
"20daa1e88b25ea81bc948c48c391c0fbcc44a0070dd7e6870f51f81b9cc6492b",
"4839e71f43e427e0588f4fc52031321a8a42d0957bbafcda196dc28cbb2ba7fc",
"ce37f12e44a0d49f852e31b8dfb03eb3002a5f24c27c7c0b0d339bd6d6eb7380",
"2c75afb07f2a03f23177a98a02c41f7b1f482223dcb36e6d18c9c8c3a9ddabe6",
"70c4f3918cdc1ce71a1d1bd921d4eb25e9273824e3d91e40ac56b5d4cdb06517",
"5927a27671d497d1d654de47bc70f3854568d96b3af23bb6f5e5c553e0b01376",
"e54713035fb46ce57b8e4e6b6c2bee9bf8f59e126f551ef14d6e1a4eb929ae79",
"c95a618d44903eeba8771c54f5c97d63fab32d270abd00fec92425fdbf83339e",
"43714fed1ed46ebcf9c6be297e023d09aa1aa3655dbc5838a82854a876f3c122",
"6b68b3c1e6dc1e2811e9371004fed449aea8a35fb78a56bb93eccb749b433e3c",
"6cab1e357c51e54a60e19b36e0aea2ad41c3552337621f49e1dd4b1bc812f3fd",
"6ef121ce4a468a03dd323ea4d35278e35963f4333d92332095f564958fae1f5d",
"f4082b12cbea8572148f8b139ef211e398a535a5e98f1faaa1a65e0d23c451a8",
"baf194e9601db92141bd5d6cdebb476d39072535a17662b283e2c472b01e2f0b",
"0d2ca9c74c42e9fd9a03279785e7bc0c179b29c08afb51c1bb78a69147864e58",
"31d56062d2401d58fb712161495de0de869d3ca61d1e95ea7648552963774bdd",
"7b4fb1f3bccc3aff4e58b6ba80a88f5fbe7d18e79e135bc96da147c82192c415",
"ffb88c052ab133c5f080f429c68feb5a0a24c27da3428717b95d5f6054c714b4",
"f7b18259f474ec9599040881410cc3f20c4830449a998ee12a81eeb4b1fa63c8",
"016faea732591170f483820198cb332009a83ccf2cbdc9f03211d16d45815c04",
"104465d75ec50caff3cfa0133d8e0bbb32c903f2663a219edc3d73521e273740",
"0cc3a136cd74f859b3e6c4864c0b47cfc029e1060a3e65409d3ddafb0c69651a",
"ff1cb0bc8a49f80f3a37018fd4d4db3ebed49f1b37ae89d1af52a4cff69c3a3a",
"70091133b10ec4619f3308177691e018310999b4f210e1ff481df37ce0d34b8b",
"47c6a53ccf3f7af384497ef30d47dfabfb896eb83951df6f0b39aa093a3e9568",
"2164b8ae6934bb596c192479bc21a5385703bff12575e5176fc1127d44278d17",
"9c9ddc33f228bfa3ec94fadeadae6211418ab2383a89b301a42022766cd84e03",
"84650882ba841564154e9db8c8436967f53a673df542eee2027bb9c20ab46ec3",
"99ea33b5e20349d64a56fddd4eb54577872ec02c1988d03b5092e3f9e0b9b960",
"6d4c1bdbc19d46751c3fd142fc1a7c4871cda853ff2a18298199e38c92ee283d",
"c414758b17468f82896f5e209ad4d40eab016c4d4e2d4d97d68e04243668891c",
"851e4cca71e86fd179292ff22db8a8eb50608f1475e58ec860c9fcbd2d0190c6"
]
}
]
}
}
},
"sessionId": "7fcddaa4-44d5-4550-b9cb-ce4e092faebd"
},
"before": "---\nstatus: ACTIVE\n---\n# CEO Plan: User Dashboard Page\nGenerated by /plan-ceo-review (via /autoplan) on 2026-09-10\nBranch: main | Mode: SELECTIVE EXPANSION\nRepo: gstack-autoplan-chain-zmFsqo (no remote)\n\n## Problem\nMembers visit three pages after login to resume work, check alerts, and inspect recent\nchanges. A team walkthrough measured a median of 75s to the next item; the production\nnumber is unknown until the baseline step below runs.\n\nTargets:\n- Ship bar (advance the rollout): median login-to-first-completed-task improves at least\n 20% vs the control cohort.\n- Permanence bar (remove the flag): median at or under 45s absolute, or at least 40% below\n the production baseline if that baseline turns out to be far from 75s, sustained 4 weeks\n at 100%.\n\nGuardrails, measured on the flagged cohort vs control over the same window, evaluated\nonly once the cumulative flagged sample reaches 1000 sessions (a 2-point rate difference\nis noise at 200 sessions):\n- completed-task rate within 2 percentage points of control\n- permission-error rate within 2 percentage points of control\n- dashboard partial-failure rate (any panel failing to load) under 2% of requests\n\n## Vision\n\n### 10x Check\nA landing page that already knows the member's next step. Login, and the first thing on\nscreen is \"Resume: <assigned item>\" as one dominant button, with alerts and changes below.\nNo scanning, no decision. Concrete shape: eligibility-ranked actions from the existing\nregistry, item-level deep links in notifications, activity filtered to \"mine\". Effort for\nthat full version: human ~2 weeks / CC ~3 hours. This plan builds the surface that version\nneeds; multi-action ranking is the separate personalization plan.\n\n## Recommended approach (open taste decision T1)\nA) `GET /api/dashboard` aggregate endpoint returning a per-source result envelope\n(`{ activity, notifications, quickActions }`, each `{ status, data | error }`, notifications\nadding `unreadCount` and a server-issued `snapshot`). Each source returns at most 20\nrecords; the panels link to the existing full pages for more. 200 whenever auth passes;\n`?sources=` allowlist for per-panel retry. Alternatives considered: B) three client calls\nto existing list endpoints (T1 below; under B the envelope, `?sources=`, and server-issued\nsnapshot are replaced by per-call responses and the snapshot comes from the notifications\nlist response); C) post-login smart redirect (deferred as experiment E9).\n\nMark all as read reuses the existing member-scoped bulk-read API, which already takes a\nsnapshot time and marks only notifications at or before it. The `snapshot` in the envelope\nis the server-issued value the client passes to that existing API. No new mutation API is\nintroduced anywhere in this plan; E6 is deferred precisely because it would need one.\n\n## Effort for accepted scope\nBaseline plan plus E1-E5 and the shared primitives: human ~3 days / CC ~1.5 hours\n(the plan file has the hour-by-hour breakdown).\n\n## Scope Decisions\n\n| # | Proposal | Effort | Decision | Reasoning |\n|---|----------|--------|----------|-----------|\n| E1 | Next-up primary CTA when resume-assigned-work is eligible; when not eligible the three actions render as equal buttons | S | ACCEPTED | Directly moves the metric. Uses only the single existing eligibility predicate for that action; no ordering across actions, so this is not ranking. Ranking stays deferred. |\n| E2 | Unread count badge in Notifications header | S | ACCEPTED | Count already needed for Mark-all button state; answers \"is there anything?\" before scanning |\n| E3 | View all links to existing full pages | S | ACCEPTED | Makes the 20-record cap honest; older-page navigation stays where it lives |\n| E4 | Relative timestamps with absolute time in title and datetime | S | ACCEPTED | Does not move the 45s metric directly; low cost, faster scanning, screen readers get the absolute value |\n| E5 | Refresh when the user returns to the tab, at most every 30s | S | ACCEPTED | Does not move the metric directly; low cost, prevents stale-alert confusion; the 30s floor bounds traffic |\n| E6 | Per-notification mark-as-read | M | DEFERRED | Needs a new mutation API, which this plan excludes |\n| E7 | Live notification updates | M-L | DEFERRED | Needs polling or push infrastructure this plan does not touch |\n| E8 | Keyboard shortcuts for actions | S-M | DEFERRED | Global key handling, screen-reader conflicts; needs its own a11y review |\n| E9 | Post-login smart redirect A/B | S | DEFERRED | Login-flow change; needs the production baseline first |\n\n## Accepted Scope (added to this plan)\n- E1 Next-up primary CTA\n- E2 Unread badge\n- E3 View all links\n- E4 Relative timestamps\n- E5 Refresh on tab return (30s floor)\n\n## Engineering commitments inherited from review (not scope decisions)\nThese were required by the review to make the baseline scope shippable; they live in\nthe plan file's Review rLine truncated
"viewport": " \n \n\u25cf Appending spec-review metrics\n \u23bf $ mkdir -p ~/.gstack/analytics\n echo '{\"skill\":\"plan-ceo-review\",\"ts\":\"'$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)'\",\"iterations\":3,\"issues_found\":20,\"issues_f\n ixed\":20,\"remaining\":0,\"quality_score\":9,\"via\":\"autoplan\"}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/spec-review.jsonl 2>/dev/null ||\n true\n echo logged\n \n\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\n Edit file \n \u2026-982715-DqIQtk/skill-home-262upM/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-zmFsqo/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md\n\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\n 94 a forced partial failure shows one panel error with a working Retry, mark all as read\n 95 completes, keyboard-only pass, zero accessibility violations).\n 96 4. Hold criteria at 5% and 25%: at least 1 week and 200 flagged sessions for the median\n 97 - check (ship bar, 20% improvement vs control); guardrails evaluated once the cumulative \n 98 - flagged sample reaches 1000 sessions. Roll back one step on a guardrail breach at that \n 99 - sample size, or immediately on partial-failure rate over 2%. \n 97 + check (ship bar, 20% improvement vs control; at 200 sessions this is a directional \n 98 + signal, so also require the confidence interval on the median difference to exclude \n 99 + zero before advancing). Advancing 5% \u2192 25% requires only the median check and the \n 100 + partial-failure rate; the 2-point rate guardrails apply once 1000 cumulative flagged \n 101 + sessions accumulate, at whichever step that occurs, and a breach counts only when the \n 102 + 90% confidence interval on the difference excludes zero (a bare 2-point reading at \n 103 + 1000 sessions fires on noise about one time in three). Roll back one step on a \n 104 + confirmed guardrail breach, or immediately on partial-failure rate over 2%. \n 105 + These exit criteria and guardrail definitions assume the recommended T2 (all three \n 106 + panels in v1); if the user picks the staged option, \"all three panels load\" and the \n 107 + partial-failure definition are re-scoped to the panels actually shipped. \n 108 5. Permanence: after 4 weeks at 100% with the permanence bar met and guardrails held,\n 109 remove the flag and make the dashboard the landing page. If the permanence bar is not\n 110 met after 8 weeks at 100%, decide explicitly: keep with the ship-bar gain, iterate, or\n\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\n Do you want to maLine truncated
"publicTools": [
{
"sessionId": "7fcddaa4-44d5-4550-b9cb-ce4e092faebd",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T22:00:04.615Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Wo4P7AC4zrX774MLdRfHUF",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Write",
"input": {
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-a0OkbA/tmp/gstack-hermetic-982715-DqIQtk/skill-home-262upM/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-zmFsqo/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md",
"content": "---\nstatus: ACTIVE\n---\n# CEO Plan: User Dashboard Page\nGenerated by /plan-ceo-review (via /autoplan) on 2026-09-10\nBranch: main | Mode: SELECTIVE EXPANSION\nRepo: gstack-autoplan-chain-zmFsqo (no remote)\n\n## Problem\nMembers visit three pages after login to resume work, check alerts, and inspect recent\nchanges. A team walkthrough measured a median of 75s to the next item; the production\nnumber is unknown until the baseline step below runs.\n\nTargets:\n- Ship bar (advance the rollout): median login-to-first-completed-task improves at least\n 20% vs the control cohort.\n- Permanence bar (remove the flag): median at or under 45s absolute, or at least 40% below\n the production baseline if that baseline turns out to be far from 75s, sustained 4 weeks\n at 100%.\n\nGuardrails, measured on the flagged cohort vs control over the same window, evaluated\nonly once the cumulative flagged sample reaches 1000 sessions (a 2-point rate difference\nis noise at 200 sessions):\n- completed-task rate within 2 percentage points of control\n- permission-error rate within 2 percentage points of control\n- dashboard partial-failure rate (any panel failing to load) under 2% of requests\n\n## Vision\n\n### 10x Check\nA landing page that already knows the member's next step. Login, and the first thing on\nscreen is \"Resume: <assigned item>\" as one dominant button, with alerts and changes below.\nNo scanning, no decision. Concrete shape: eligibility-ranked actions from the existing\nregistry, item-level deep links in notifications, activity filtered to \"mine\". Effort for\nthat full version: human ~2 weeks / CC ~3 hours. This plan builds the surface that version\nneeds; multi-action ranking is the separate personalization plan.\n\n## Recommended approach (open taste decision T1)\nA) `GET /api/dashboard` aggregate endpoint returning a per-source result envelope\n(`{ activity, notifications, quickActions }`, each `{ status, data | error }`, notifications\nadding `unreadCount` and a server-issued `snapshot`). Each source returns at most 20\nrecords; the panels link to the existing full pages for more. 200 whenever auth passes;\n`?sources=` allowlist for per-panel retry. Alternatives considered: B) three client calls\nto existing list endpoints (T1 below; under B the envelope, `?sources=`, and server-issued\nsnapshot are replaced by per-call responses and the snapshot comes from the notifications\nlist response); C) post-login smart redirect (deferred as experiment E9).\n\nMark all as read reuses the existing member-scoped bulk-read API, which already takes a\nsnapshot time and marks only notifications at or before it. The `snapshot` in the envelope\nis the server-issued value the client passes to that existing API. No new mutation API is\nintroduced anywhere in this plan; E6 is deferred precisely because it would need one.\n\n## Effort for accepted scope\nBaseline plan plus E1-E5 and the shared primitives: human ~3 days / CC ~1.5 hours\n(the plan file has the hour-by-hour breakdown).\n\n## Scope Decisions\n\n| # | Proposal | Effort | Decision | Reasoning |\n|---|----------|--------|----------|-----------|\n| E1 | Next-up primary CTA when resume-assigned-work is eligible; when not eligible the three actions render as equal buttons | S | ACCEPTED | Directly moves the metric. Uses only the single existing eligibility predicate for that action; no ordering across actions, so this is not ranking. Ranking stays deferred. |\n| E2 | Unread count badge in Notifications header | S | ACCEPTED | Count already needed for Mark-all button state; answers \"is there anything?\" before scanning |\n| E3 | View all links to existing full pages | S | ACCEPTED | Makes the 20-record cap honest; older-page navigation stays where it lives |\n| E4 | Relative timestamps with absolute time in title and datetime | S | ACCEPTED | Does not move the 45s metric directly; low cost, faster scanning, screen readers get the absolute value |\n| E5 | Refresh when the user returns to the tab, at most every 30s | S | ACCEPTED | Does not move the metric directly; low cost, prevents stale-alert confusion; the 30s floor bounds traffic |\n| E6 | Per-notification mark-as-read | M | DEFERRED | Needs a new mutation API, which this plan excludes |\n| E7 | Live notification updates | M-L | DEFERRED | Needs polling or push infrastructure this plan does not touch |\n| E8 | Keyboard shortcuts for actions | S-M | DEFERRED | Global key handling, screen-reader conflicts; needs its own a11y review |\n| E9 | Post-login smart redirect A/B | S | DEFERRED | Login-flow change; needs the production baseline first |\n\n## Accepted Scope (added to this plan)\n- E1 Next-up primary CTA\n- E2 Unread badge\n- E3 View all links\n- E4 Relative timestamps\n- E5 Refresh on tab return (30s floor)\n\n## Engineering commitments inherited from review (not scope decisions)\nThese were required by the review to make the baseline scope shippable; they live in\nthe plan file's RLine truncated
},
"messageId": "msg_011CevWWAzJYxLfW7H13BcgU",
"requestId": "req_011CevWW9bU8yzBJMoTJ8Z3g"
},
{
"sessionId": "7fcddaa4-44d5-4550-b9cb-ce4e092faebd",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T22:00:09.083Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Wo4P7AC4zrX774MLdRfHUF",
"kind": "result",
"content": "The file /tmp/gstack-paid-shard-a0OkbA/tmp/gstack-hermetic-982715-DqIQtk/skill-home-262upM/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-zmFsqo/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md has been updated successfully. (file state is current in your context \u2014 no need to Read it back)",
"isError": false
}
]
}
test/fixtures/autoplan-cropped-command-av.json
Vendored
-156
View File
@@ -1,156 +0,0 @@
{
"provenance": {
"source": ".context/ship-source-av-delta-paid-20260910-v1/delta-autoplan-retry-edit-public-eng-ceo-v1.json",
"sourceSha256": "51ed0c6f347d2e7166db1ce1e2f808725cc14c647e502e89d697c4ba8e5bf04b",
"publicEventIndices": [
73,
75,
78,
79,
80,
81,
82
],
"publicProjectionOnly": true,
"originalGuardResult": null,
"paidOutcomesReclassified": false,
"nativePlanQualification": "The native-plan file below is the exact queued old_string excerpt, a controlled minimal file for the same ownership guard. The separately retained full file and all 83 public events are replayed in the ignored author proof. No original full-file size is claimed for this excerpt.",
"fullNativePlanSha256": "fe46153c06a12b4568a8a4c690419ce01dcc143dbba97794c373002640da8a11"
},
"context": {
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-I0BdYJ/tmp/gstack-autoplan-chain-ZdZS9F",
"ownedStateRoot": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-I0BdYJ/tmp/gstack-hermetic-1613300-R9sDgt/skill-home-EXyGdx/.gstack",
"ownedNativePlansRoot": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-I0BdYJ/tmp/gstack-hermetic-1613300-R9sDgt/with-skills/.claude/plans",
"commandStartedAt": 1789080723000,
"now": 1789085707748,
"viewportCapturedAt": 1789085707748,
"transcriptStatus": "ready",
"publicTools": [
{
"sessionId": "9aab502f-f4c5-4fe8-8521-f490e077931f",
"timestamp": "2026-09-11T00:10:39.104Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01LPhd1MdDShNDH51f388F3a",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Edit",
"input": {
"replace_all": false,
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-I0BdYJ/tmp/gstack-hermetic-1613300-R9sDgt/skill-home-EXyGdx/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-ZdZS9F/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md",
"old_string": "Flag `dashboard_landing` gates both the `/dashboard` route and the post-login redirect. Order: deploy flag off \u2192 internal cohort \u2192 production baseline captured \u2192 staging p95 < 500ms and DB pool headroom under a login-burst test \u2192 5% \u2192 25% \u2192 100%, with completed-task rate and permission-error rate (by actionId) as guardrails.",
"new_string": "Flag `dashboard_landing` gates both the `/dashboard` route and the post-login redirect. Order: deploy flag off \u2192 production baseline captured from existing events (window ends before any cohort, including internal, is enabled) \u2192 internal cohort \u2192 staging p95 < 500ms and DB pool headroom under a login-burst test \u2192 5% \u2192 25% \u2192 100%, with completed-task rate and permission-error rate (by actionId) as guardrails."
},
"messageId": "msg_011CevgU1G2xXggoyXnjLNmj",
"requestId": "req_011CevgTzCmsp5LqVrB7YzWQ"
},
{
"sessionId": "9aab502f-f4c5-4fe8-8521-f490e077931f",
"timestamp": "2026-09-11T00:10:47.413Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01LPhd1MdDShNDH51f388F3a",
"kind": "result",
"content": "The file /tmp/gstack-paid-shard-I0BdYJ/tmp/gstack-hermetic-1613300-R9sDgt/skill-home-EXyGdx/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-ZdZS9F/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md has been updated successfully. (file state is current in your context \u2014 no need to Read it back)",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "9aab502f-f4c5-4fe8-8521-f490e077931f",
"timestamp": "2026-09-11T00:11:06.107Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Eni8zo13XEANZuPQzK7C4v",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Edit",
"input": {
"replace_all": false,
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-I0BdYJ/tmp/gstack-hermetic-1613300-R9sDgt/with-skills/.claude/plans/distributed-discovering-truffle.md",
"old_string": "One reviewer point rejected: \"ship a dashboard-local toast instead of a shared provider\" \u2014 that is Taste T4, already surfaced for the gate; a live region is required by the a11y policy either way. Round 2 result recorded in the phase completion below.",
"new_string": "One reviewer point rejected: \"ship a dashboard-local toast instead of a shared provider\" \u2014 that is Taste T4, already surfaced for the gate; a live region is required by the a11y policy either way.\n\nRound 2: 8/10, 6 issues, all accepted as refinements (Eng phase binds them):\n- R5 **Mutation window** \u2014 while the bulk-read POST is in flight, all refetch triggers are suppressed (Refresh and panel Retry disabled, visibility refetch deferred); the sequence number bumps at mutation start *and* settle. The sequence guard alone did not cover a GET issued *during* the mutation window (higher sequence, stale server state) \u2014 a real gap the primary review missed.\n- R6 Rollout order corrected: baseline window closes before any cohort, including internal, is enabled.\n- R7 Bulk-read API: snapshot-time acceptance is existing (per contract text); server-side clamp to \u2264 now and returning `unreadCount` must be verified in Eng and are backward-compatible additions to that endpoint if absent. If `unreadCount` is not returned, the client derives it from the follow-up refetch.\n- R8 `activity.data = { items: ActivityItem[] }` reusing the existing row type.\n- R9 Event semantics: `dashboard_panel_state{panel, state \u2208 {ok,empty,error}, trigger \u2208 {initial,refresh,visible,retry,post_mutation}}` once per panel per completed fetch; `notifications_mark_all_read{result \u2208 {success,error_csrf,error_network,error_5xx,error_other}}` once per submit.\n- R10 Client per-section handling: panel Retry refetches the aggregate; the Mark-all-read button is not rendered while the notifications section is not `ok`; notifications empty-state CTA uses the top eligible quick action only when `quickActions` is `ok` and non-empty, otherwise (and always for activity) links to item creation. Toast queue drop-oldest; error-toast Retry reopens the dialog (retakes the snapshot).\nRound 3 result recorded in the phase completion below."
},
"messageId": "msg_011CevgXZnxVYQo5BN8EMcE9",
"requestId": "req_011CevgXZ3JmnF4MRVdag4Xn"
},
{
"sessionId": "9aab502f-f4c5-4fe8-8521-f490e077931f",
"timestamp": "2026-09-11T00:11:06.276Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Eni8zo13XEANZuPQzK7C4v",
"kind": "result",
"content": "The file /tmp/gstack-paid-shard-I0BdYJ/tmp/gstack-hermetic-1613300-R9sDgt/with-skills/.claude/plans/distributed-discovering-truffle.md has been updated successfully. (file state is current in your context \u2014 no need to Read it back)",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "9aab502f-f4c5-4fe8-8521-f490e077931f",
"timestamp": "2026-09-11T00:11:49.430Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01NV7zB6oiBCTQ4ef5RmL5is",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Edit",
"input": {
"replace_all": false,
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-I0BdYJ/tmp/gstack-hermetic-1613300-R9sDgt/skill-home-EXyGdx/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-ZdZS9F/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md",
"old_string": "- Composition: the three repository calls run concurrently (`Promise.allSettled`), each with a 2s hard timeout that yields `code: \"timeout\", retryable: true`.",
"new_string": "- `NotificationItem` = the existing notification list row type (reuse). `QuickAction = { actionId, label, href }` from the existing action registry (reuse its type if one exists). `quickActions.data` is returned in the registry's fixed priority order; the client does not re-sort; \"top eligible action\" = index 0.\n- `fetchedAt`: ISO 8601 UTC string taken from the server clock at handler entry. `snapshotAt` is sent in whatever representation the existing bulk-read API already accepts (convert from `fetchedAt` if needed; verify in the Eng phase).\n- Composition: the three repository calls run concurrently (`Promise.allSettled`), each with a 2s hard timeout that yields `code: \"timeout\", retryable: true`. The timeout must cancel the underlying work, not merely race it: pass an AbortSignal / query timeout if the repository supports one; otherwise set a DB statement timeout \u2264 2s for these three queries so a slow query does not keep holding a pool connection."
},
"messageId": "msg_011CevgamfAE3N8N1neHgevh",
"requestId": "req_011CevgakwFSLiC6kzANybk1"
},
{
"sessionId": "9aab502f-f4c5-4fe8-8521-f490e077931f",
"timestamp": "2026-09-11T00:11:54.998Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_016RvLK3Qctsa3ejnNkvygx4",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Edit",
"input": {
"replace_all": false,
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-I0BdYJ/tmp/gstack-hermetic-1613300-R9sDgt/with-skills/.claude/plans/distributed-discovering-truffle.md",
"old_string": "Round 3 result recorded in the phase completion below.",
"new_string": "Round 3 (final, max iterations): 8/10, 4 new issues, all fixed in the doc and accepted as refinements (Eng binds):\n- R11 `NotificationItem` reuses the existing notification row type; `QuickAction = { actionId, label, href }` reusing the registry type; `quickActions.data` keeps the registry's fixed priority order, client does not re-sort, \"top\" = index 0.\n- R12 `fetchedAt` is an ISO 8601 UTC string from the server clock at handler entry; `snapshotAt` is converted to whatever representation the existing bulk-read API accepts (verify in Eng).\n- R13 The 2s timeout must cancel the underlying query (AbortSignal / query timeout, else DB statement timeout \u2264 2s), not merely race it, or the pool-headroom gate is undermined.\nLoop outcome: 3 iterations, 25 issues found, 25 fixed, 0 remaining; final score 8/10 (no round returned PASS; convergence guard not triggered \u2014 each round's issues were new). Metrics appended to `~/.gstack/analytics/spec-review.jsonl`."
},
"messageId": "msg_011CevgamfAE3N8N1neHgevh",
"requestId": "req_011CevgakwFSLiC6kzANybk1"
},
{
"sessionId": "9aab502f-f4c5-4fe8-8521-f490e077931f",
"timestamp": "2026-09-11T00:11:57.945Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01GWFqrP7fpQwbDivXy4qiP4",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Bash",
"input": {
"command": "mkdir -p ~/.gstack/analytics && echo '{\"skill\":\"plan-ceo-review\",\"via\":\"autoplan\",\"ts\":\"'$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)'\",\"iterations\":3,\"issues_found\":25,\"issues_fixed\":25,\"remaining\":0,\"quality_score\":8}' >> ~/.gstack/analytics/spec-review.jsonl && echo logged",
"description": "Append spec-review metrics"
},
"messageId": "msg_011CevgamfAE3N8N1neHgevh",
"requestId": "req_011CevgakwFSLiC6kzANybk1"
}
],
"pending": {
"source": "pre_tool_use",
"sessionId": "9aab502f-f4c5-4fe8-8521-f490e077931f",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01NV7zB6oiBCTQ4ef5RmL5is",
"tool": "Edit",
"file": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-I0BdYJ/tmp/gstack-hermetic-1613300-R9sDgt/skill-home-EXyGdx/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-ZdZS9F/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md",
"timestamp": "2026-09-11T00:11:49.490Z",
"editDigest": {
"version": 1,
"beforeSHA256": "fec7599ff154aa3744738c7f03e99d980399175bedd8e618f856e82f79b939c2",
"requestSHA256": "4bac5dbb4c65155fbfdb5ae605192ecd2faec8fce88d2e634f833a2c8dd2139f",
"oldLineHashes": [
"7a73869313c8bc5df542190cffb7939060a3b8b6c2ef5c190112351fd3f458d2"
],
"newLineHashes": [
"17f439d52ef20273cec796b34e211a0bb6b2e66fa04e3d289aa701f1930701e7",
"d703173dc786534a919e69cce994e91a48ecb73b0ba24487909bed96917b8073",
"91e0805b1f82bb05a1a3707ff59c538a64c2746cd0819c4ab18f665d3144032e"
]
},
"hookSeenIds": [
"toolu_018HmzNLe4hEpbYvunAYCbAD",
"toolu_01MLHzdTCaVnyywJJrfmpiKK",
"toolu_01LPhd1MdDShNDH51f388F3a",
"toolu_01NV7zB6oiBCTQ4ef5RmL5is"
]
}
},
"viewport": " \u23bf $ mkdir -p ~/.gstack/analytics && echo '{\"skill\":\"plan-ceo-review\",\"via\":\"autoplan\",\"ts\":\"'$(date -u\n +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)'\",\"iterations\":3,\"issues_found\":25,\"issues_fixed\":25,\"remaining\":0,\"quality_score\":8}' >>\n ~/.gstack/analytics/spec-review.jsonl && echo logged\n \n\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\n Edit file\n \u20261613300-R9sDgt/skill-home-EXyGdx/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-ZdZS9F/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md\n\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\n 33 - `notifications.data = { items: NotificationItem[], unreadCount: number }`.\n 34 - `quickActions.data = QuickAction[]` containing only actions whose server-side eligibility predicate passed; a t\n hrowing predicate omits that action and logs a warning with `actionId`.\n 35 - A null or undefined repository result is converted to `{ status: \"error\", code: \"internal\", retryable: true }` \n and logged at error level; it is never returned as `ok`.\n 36 -- Composition: the three repository calls run concurrently (`Promise.allSettled`), each with a 2s hard timeout that\n - yields `code: \"timeout\", retryable: true`. The 2s timeout is the worst-case ceiling; the rollout gate (p95 < 500ms\n -) measures typical latency. If the gate fails, fix or split the slow section; do not loosen the gate. \n 36 +- `NotificationItem` = the existing notification list row type (reuse). `QuickAction = { actionId, label, href }` f\n +rom the existing action registry (reuse its type if one exists). `quickActions.data` is returned in the registry's \n +fixed priority order; the client does not re-sort; \"top eligible action\" = index 0. \n 37 +- `fetchedAt`: ISO 8601 UTC string taken from the server clock at handler entry. `snapshotAt` is sent in whatever r\n +epresentation the existing bulk-read API already accepts (convert from `fetchedAt` if needed; verify in the Eng pha\n +se). \n 38 +- Composition: the three repository calls run concurrently (`Promise.allSettled`), each with a 2s hard timeout that\n + yields `code: \"timeout\", retryable: true`. The timeout must cancel the underlying work, not merely race it: pass a\n +n AbortSignal / query timeout if the repository supports one; otherwise set a DB statement timeout \u2264 2s for these t\n +hree queries so a slow query does not keep holding a pool connection. The 2s timeout is the worst-case ceiling; the\n + rollout gate (p95 < 500ms) measures typical latency. If the gate fails, fix or split the slow section; do not loos\n +en the gate. \n 39 - Item counts: each section requests the existing first page (20 items + cursor); the client renders at most 10 and\n shows a \"View all\" link to the existing full page. The dashboard never paginates.\n 40 \n 41 - `activity.data = { items: ActivityItem[] }` where `ActivityItem` is the existing activity list row type returned \n by the existing repository first page (reuse the type; do not define a new one).\n\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254Line truncated
"before": "---\nstatus: ACTIVE\n---\n# CEO Plan: User Dashboard Page\nGenerated by /plan-ceo-review (via /autoplan) on 2026-09-10\nBranch: main | Mode: SELECTIVE EXPANSION\nRepo: gstack-autoplan-chain-ZdZS9F (local, no remote)\n\n## Vision\n\n### 10x Check\nThe 10x version is not a bigger dashboard. It is a dashboard that already knows the member's next item: \"Resume: <assigned item title>\" is the first thing on the page, one click from login, with notifications and activity as supporting context below. That requires action ranking and a per-member \"next item\" query that do not exist today. It is the natural Phase 2 (deferred as TODO T-D), and this plan's per-section envelope + independent panel components leave room for it without a rewrite.\n\n## Problem and metric\nMembers visit three pages after login to find their next item (median 75s in a team walkthrough). Success measure: login-to-first-completed-task, target 45s, guardrails completed-task rate and permission-error rate.\n\nDecisions in this review:\n- The production baseline is computed from the existing `login`, `action start`, `action completion` events before any cohort opens (no new instrumentation is needed for the baseline; the new events below are needed for exposure attribution).\n- The metric is segmented by action ID. Primary target: time to \"resume assigned work\". Create and invite are reported separately.\n- The flag-off cohort is the control. The metric is compared per cohort (flag on vs flag off, same period), not only against the historical baseline.\n\n## Alternatives considered\n- A. Quick Actions strip + unread badge in the existing shell, no new page (Completeness 4/10): fastest hypothesis test, but does not deliver the stated feature and touches the shared shell.\n- B. Dashboard page + one aggregate endpoint with per-section result envelopes (9/10): chosen. Keeps the stated backend shape; partial failure is explicit.\n- C. Dashboard page + three per-panel endpoints (9/10): simplest failure semantics, three round trips. Close call with B; surfaced as Taste T2 at the /autoplan final gate. Flip trigger if B is kept: if the staging p95 gate fails because the aggregate's latency is dominated by one slow section that cannot be fixed at the source, switch to C.\n\n## Contracts fixed by this review\n\n### GET /api/dashboard\n- Auth: existing session cookie + workspace membership middleware. Member and workspace IDs come from the request context only; a `workspaceId` query parameter is ignored. Unauthenticated \u2192 401 (client redirects to login). Not a member \u2192 403 (page-level \"no access\"). Feature flag off \u2192 404 (client falls back to the current landing page).\n- 200 body: `{ fetchedAt, activity, notifications, quickActions }`.\n - `Section<T> = { status: \"ok\", data: T } | { status: \"error\", code: \"timeout\" | \"unavailable\" | \"internal\", retryable: boolean }`.\n - `notifications.data = { items: NotificationItem[], unreadCount: number }`.\n - `quickActions.data = QuickAction[]` containing only actions whose server-side eligibility predicate passed; a throwing predicate omits that action and logs a warning with `actionId`.\n - A null or undefined repository result is converted to `{ status: \"error\", code: \"internal\", retryable: true }` and logged at error level; it is never returned as `ok`.\n- Composition: the three repository calls run concurrently (`Promise.allSettled`), each with a 2s hard timeout that yields `code: \"timeout\", retryable: true`. The 2s timeout is the worst-case ceiling; the rollout gate (p95 < 500ms) measures typical latency. If the gate fails, fix or split the slow section; do not loosen the gate.\n- Item counts: each section requests the existing first page (20 items + cursor); the client renders at most 10 and shows a \"View all\" link to the existing full page. The dashboard never paginates.\n\n- `activity.data = { items: ActivityItem[] }` where `ActivityItem` is the existing activity list row type returned by the existing repository first page (reuse the type; do not define a new one).\n\n### Mark all as read\n- Uses the existing member-scoped, CSRF-protected, idempotent bulk-read API, which already accepts a snapshot time and marks only notifications at or before it (stated in the existing contracts). Request carries `snapshotAt = response.fetchedAt`.\n- Two behaviors must be verified against the existing handler in the Eng phase and are **additions to that endpoint if absent** (backward-compatible, no migration): (a) the server clamps `snapshotAt` to \u2264 now; (b) the response includes the new `unreadCount`. If (b) is absent and not added, the client derives `unreadCount` from the follow-up refetch only.\n- Client flow: confirm in `MarkAllReadDialog` (existing Dialog primitive) \u2192 snapshot the current `notifications.data` value \u2192 optimistic flip (all rows read, `unreadCount = 0`) \u2192 POST \u2192 on success apply the response `unreadCount` if present, showLine truncated
"beforeSha256": "fec7599ff154aa3744738c7f03e99d980399175bedd8e618f856e82f79b939c2",
"beforeMtimeMs": 1789085447367.0732,
"nativePlan": {
"path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-I0BdYJ/tmp/gstack-hermetic-1613300-R9sDgt/with-skills/.claude/plans/distributed-discovering-truffle.md",
"text": "Round 3 result recorded in the phase completion below.",
"mtimeMs": 1789085466203.074
}
}
test/fixtures/autoplan-cropped-gate-av.json
Vendored
-81
View File
@@ -1,81 +0,0 @@
{
"provenance": {
"kind": "owned-public-native-question-and-terminal-viewport",
"source": ".context/ship-source-av-delta-paid-20260910-v1/delta-autoplan-final-question-public-eng-ceo-v1.json",
"sourceSha256": "e51d719b8117913fc38e38c0686e0e93680974bab20b0464c8d17f9c20ac8ced",
"diagnosisSha256": "48d40555b06f833e4fae4936d6593d52a1419cfe11aec918ddfb8810ea92544f",
"viewportSha256": "e0434a99f1f51d64b3ee583af6a3f1f6c3b5569f4b71c55dcfd8d985afebe29c",
"originalOutcome": "Operator cancelled the unanswered run; no approval or missing phase credit.",
"cutoffQualification": "Exact caller commandStartedAt was not retained. Master start precedes this public use; diagnostic replay only."
},
"commandStartedAt": 1789080723000,
"viewportCapturedAt": 1789084200773,
"call": {
"sessionId": "8f4daed9-5261-4c04-bcf1-56749f33a76e",
"toolUseId": "toolu_0193Xbf9FVxo9AoeZvPj5x2Q",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 — Final Approval Gate: approve the reviewed plan?\nProject/branch/task: main · /autoplan on \"Plan: User Dashboard Page\" (all four review phases complete, plan amended on disk).\nELI10: Four reviews ran and made 117 routine calls for you; four are matters of taste (T1 aggregate endpoint, T2 keep the confirmation modal, T3 build the dashboard rather than a cheaper spike first, T4 row caps). Approving locks the amended plan and writes the review logs so /ship recognizes it. Overriding lets you flip any taste call before implementation starts.\nStakes if we pick wrong: approving a taste call you disagree with means rework mid-implementation; rejecting throws away 121 logged decisions and four reviews.\nRecommendation: A because every blocking finding is resolved, no premise was clearly wrong, and the four taste calls follow your stated direction where you gave one.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Approve as-is (recommended)\n ✅ Plan is fully amended with accepted obligations for all four phases and 34 build-ready tasks\n ✅ Review logs get written now so /ship's dashboard shows CEO, Design, DX, and Eng as reviewed\n ❌ The modal (T2) stays even though two independent subagents recommend cutting it\nB) Approve with overrides on taste decisions\n ✅ You pick T1-T4 explicitly; I apply the changes to the plan and re-run Eng on the amended plan\n ✅ Keeps every other decision and artifact intact\n ❌ Costs one more Eng pass (~2 min of pipeline time) before the gate re-presents\nC) Interrogate a decision first\n ✅ Ask about any of the 121 decisions, tasks, or superseded items before committing\n ✅ No plan changes until you say so\n ❌ Adds a round trip before approval\nD) Revise the plan or start over\n ✅ Change scope or architecture and re-run the affected phases (max 3 cycles), or reject and restart\n ✅ The restore point holds the original plan bytes for a clean re-run\n ❌ Re-running phases repeats the subagent passes and their wall-clock time\nNet: A ships the reviewed plan now; B is the right pick if you want the modal cut or three fetches instead of the aggregate.",
"header": "Final gate",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Approve as-is (recommended)",
"description": "Accept all 117 auto-decisions and the 4 taste recommendations; write review logs; suggest /ship."
},
{
"label": "Approve with overrides",
"description": "Tell me which of T1-T4 to flip; I amend the plan, re-run Eng on it, and re-present the gate."
},
{
"label": "Interrogate",
"description": "Ask about any specific decision, task, or superseded item before deciding."
},
{
"label": "Revise or reject",
"description": "Change the plan itself and re-run affected phases, or reject and start over from the restore point."
}
]
}
],
"answered": false,
"failed": false
},
"publicUse": {
"sessionId": "8f4daed9-5261-4c04-bcf1-56749f33a76e",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T23:43:57.783Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_0193Xbf9FVxo9AoeZvPj5x2Q",
"kind": "use",
"name": "AskUserQuestion",
"input": {
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 — Final Approval Gate: approve the reviewed plan?\nProject/branch/task: main · /autoplan on \"Plan: User Dashboard Page\" (all four review phases complete, plan amended on disk).\nELI10: Four reviews ran and made 117 routine calls for you; four are matters of taste (T1 aggregate endpoint, T2 keep the confirmation modal, T3 build the dashboard rather than a cheaper spike first, T4 row caps). Approving locks the amended plan and writes the review logs so /ship recognizes it. Overriding lets you flip any taste call before implementation starts.\nStakes if we pick wrong: approving a taste call you disagree with means rework mid-implementation; rejecting throws away 121 logged decisions and four reviews.\nRecommendation: A because every blocking finding is resolved, no premise was clearly wrong, and the four taste calls follow your stated direction where you gave one.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Approve as-is (recommended)\n ✅ Plan is fully amended with accepted obligations for all four phases and 34 build-ready tasks\n ✅ Review logs get written now so /ship's dashboard shows CEO, Design, DX, and Eng as reviewed\n ❌ The modal (T2) stays even though two independent subagents recommend cutting it\nB) Approve with overrides on taste decisions\n ✅ You pick T1-T4 explicitly; I apply the changes to the plan and re-run Eng on the amended plan\n ✅ Keeps every other decision and artifact intact\n ❌ Costs one more Eng pass (~2 min of pipeline time) before the gate re-presents\nC) Interrogate a decision first\n ✅ Ask about any of the 121 decisions, tasks, or superseded items before committing\n ✅ No plan changes until you say so\n ❌ Adds a round trip before approval\nD) Revise the plan or start over\n ✅ Change scope or architecture and re-run the affected phases (max 3 cycles), or reject and restart\n ✅ The restore point holds the original plan bytes for a clean re-run\n ❌ Re-running phases repeats the subagent passes and their wall-clock time\nNet: A ships the reviewed plan now; B is the right pick if you want the modal cut or three fetches instead of the aggregate.",
"header": "Final gate",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Approve as-is (recommended)",
"description": "Accept all 117 auto-decisions and the 4 taste recommendations; write review logs; suggest /ship."
},
{
"label": "Approve with overrides",
"description": "Tell me which of T1-T4 to flip; I amend the plan, re-run Eng on it, and re-present the gate."
},
{
"label": "Interrogate",
"description": "Ask about any specific decision, task, or superseded item before deciding."
},
{
"label": "Revise or reject",
"description": "Change the plan itself and re-run affected phases, or reject and start over from the restore point."
}
]
}
]
},
"messageId": "msg_011CeveQSuYFusQWkhtwoDZJ",
"requestId": "req_011CeveQS1D1dB5SQkXVTVYe"
},
"screen": "│ the confirmation modal, T3 build the dashboard rather than a cheaper spike first, T4 row caps). Approving locks the\n│ amended plan and writes the review logs so /ship recognizes it. Overriding lets you flip any taste call before\n│ implementation starts.\n│ Stakes if we pick wrong: approving a taste call you disagree with means rework mid-implementation; rejecting throws\n│ away 121 logged decisions and four reviews.\n│ Recommendation: A because every blocking finding is resolved, no premise was clearly wrong, and the four taste calls\n│ follow your stated direction where you gave one.\n│ Note: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\n│ Pros / cons:\n│ A) Approve as-is (recommended)\n│ ✅ Plan is fully amended with accepted obligations for all four phases and 34 build-ready tasks\n│ ✅ Review logs get written now so /ship's dashboard shows CEO, Design, DX, and Eng as reviewed\n│ ❌ The modal (T2) stays even though two independent subagents recommend cutting it\n│ B) Approve with overrides on taste decisions\n│ ✅ You pick T1-T4 explicitly; I apply the changes to the plan and re-run Eng on the amended plan\n│ ✅ Keeps every other decision and artifact intact\n│ ❌ Costs one more Eng pass (~2 min of pipeline time) before the gate re-presents\n│ C) Interrogate a decision first\n│ ✅ Ask about any of the 121 decisions, tasks, or superseded items before committing\n│ ✅ No plan changes until you say so\n│ ❌ Adds a round trip before approval\n│ D) Revise the plan or start over\n│ ✅ Change scope or architecture and re-run the affected phases (max 3 cycles), or reject and restart\n│ ✅ The restore point holds the original plan bytes for a clean re-run\n│ ❌ Re-running phases repeats the subagent passes and their wall…\n\n❯ 1. Approve as-is (recommended)\n Accept all 117 auto-decisions and the 4 taste recommendations; write review logs; suggest /ship.\n 2. Approve with overrides\n Tell me which of T1-T4 to flip; I amend the plan, re-run Eng on it, and re-present the gate.\n 3. Interrogate\n Ask about any specific decision, task, or superseded item before deciding.\n 4. Revise or reject\n Change the plan itself and re-run affected phases, or reject and start over from the restore point.\n 5. Type something.\n────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\n 6. Chat about this\n\nEnter to select · ↑/↓ to navigate · Esc to cancel\n"
}
test/fixtures/autoplan-edit-edges-an.json
Vendored
-120
View File
@@ -1,120 +0,0 @@
{
"provenance": {
"diagnosisSHA256": "51126bf58f4339278ce6bdf8d0c949cc1710f28a310508f9ad737b81fe5246db",
"sourceHead": "9d66d6ca9ecf13d8a8209283e611d0fce652b6f4",
"scope": "Exact current pane, before file, hook, and five needed owned public events; full native stays in context. Actual frozen match is null; phase coverage is zero."
},
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-Lfsd0a/tmp/gstack-autoplan-chain-P4QEl3",
"config": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-Lfsd0a/tmp/gstack-hermetic-2546450-gfwm4G/with-skills/.claude",
"stateRoot": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-Lfsd0a/tmp/gstack-hermetic-2546450-gfwm4G/skill-home-k7zGB1/.gstack",
"commandStartedAt": 1789036912020.0,
"now": 1789038400000,
"hook": {
"version": 1,
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-Lfsd0a/tmp/gstack-autoplan-chain-P4QEl3",
"config": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-Lfsd0a/tmp/gstack-hermetic-2546450-gfwm4G/with-skills/.claude",
"stateRoot": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-Lfsd0a/tmp/gstack-hermetic-2546450-gfwm4G/skill-home-k7zGB1/.gstack",
"seenIds": [
"toolu_01E6mS4nRjrEixuUqn3i2jGs",
"toolu_016UBU459KU5NSncourRy1RH",
"toolu_01PstM5RygtprtGtvbJJiFNw",
"toolu_01UBdPLNZ2sgKjaEZDcw47e1"
],
"pending": {
"source": "pre_tool_use",
"sessionId": "00682e85-3e00-47b5-9c9b-c71b1b0359fb",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01UBdPLNZ2sgKjaEZDcw47e1",
"tool": "Edit",
"file": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-Lfsd0a/tmp/gstack-hermetic-2546450-gfwm4G/skill-home-k7zGB1/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-P4QEl3/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T11:01:36.057Z",
"transcriptPath": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-Lfsd0a/tmp/gstack-hermetic-2546450-gfwm4G/with-skills/.claude/projects/-tmp-gstack-paid-shard-Lfsd0a-tmp-gstack-autoplan-chain-P4QEl3/00682e85-3e00-47b5-9c9b-c71b1b0359fb.jsonl",
"editDigest": {
"version": 1,
"beforeSHA256": "a21c93e702821d53645f33d8fb31cb6c2efb30782848db424c82aeac6a425b6a",
"requestSHA256": "1c2317663c656d44c616895e38293547f3ad664658d26ea50f59fbc7ffd7c1ed",
"oldLineHashes": [
"32f2deb89e1732238882be22d1c9226d6301a4784e44d74711373acf44b83a9e",
"5cda98f9de62eae13856c9da33199f4f57a6d7ac47a477c3c869eba21afaa524"
],
"newLineHashes": [
"dde2c78fe422ae6375bc935c81738dff5d9a05d44982e5d3570f03fc7da6c544",
"d05c17152f866fa406975e68999f85a12a04209b2b87bd43d40ee1f7fb6d25e1",
"993635ed16fdff13215c804a84892349c882538cf95e6e909780fcd838a61e96"
]
}
},
"sessionId": "00682e85-3e00-47b5-9c9b-c71b1b0359fb"
},
"before": "---\nstatus: ACTIVE\n---\n# CEO Plan: User Dashboard Page\nGenerated by /plan-ceo-review (via /autoplan) on 2026-09-10\nBranch: main | Mode: SELECTIVE EXPANSION\nRepo: gstack-autoplan-chain-P4QEl3 (no remote)\n\n## Vision\n\n### 10x Check\nThe page already knows the member's single most likely next action. When exactly one\nquick action is eligible and there are zero unread notifications, landing could resume\nthat action directly, with the dashboard one click away behind a \"Go to dashboard\" toast.\nLogging in and already being on the task you came to do moves the metric from \"find it in\n45s\" to \"you are there\". Concrete shape: eligibility result with one action + unreadCount 0\n\u2192 redirect. Effort: human ~2 days / CC ~30 min once the dashboard and its envelope exist.\nStatus: DEFERRED to TODOS.md as proposal E2. The user is asked once more at the autoplan\ngate (Taste T1) whether to keep the dashboard as the headline or run E2 first; if the user\ndoes not change the default, E2 stays deferred.\n\n### Platform potential\nThe typed per-panel envelope, the AsyncPanel state wrapper (loading, empty, error with\nretry, success) and the shared toast primitive will be reusable by other pages later.\nBuild them for these three panels only; do not generalize beyond what the dashboard needs.\n\n## Preconditions and open premises\n\n- **PC1 (open at gate):** the repository at HEAD contains only a README and this plan.\n None of the code the plan's contracts describe (page shell, dialog primitive, repository\n methods, typed client errors, Vitest/Playwright, feature flags) exists here. Decision\n required from the user: (a) the plan targets a different repository where those contracts\n exist (all estimates below stand), or (b) this is a greenfield build (every \"reuse\" line\n becomes \"build\", estimates roughly triple, and a foundations phase must be planned first).\n Default assumption until answered: (a).\n- **E1 precondition:** before rollout criteria are fixed, verify that the existing analytics\n actually emit login, action-start, and action-complete events with member and timestamp,\n so login\u2192first-action-start time and per-action first-action share can be computed. If\n they do not, instrument them first (E1 grows from S to M) and delay the cohort start.\n Ceiling: if instrumentation is not live within 10 working days of the dashboard being\n deployable, deploy behind the flag at 0% and re-gate the cohort start on the baseline.\n- **Sample size:** the E1 output must include the required number of cohort sessions N to\n detect a 25% shift in median login\u2192first-action-start time from the observed variance,\n and the resulting cohort percentage and window. The default is 5% of all member logins\n (denominator: every login that lands on the post-login page, not only members with an\n eligible quick action) for two weeks; extend the window or cohort if N is not reached.\n- **Definitions:** control group = members outside the cohort, who land on the current\n post-login landing page. Permission-error rate = quick-action attempts rejected by the\n target workflow's authorization or eligibility check, per session, from the existing\n permission-error analytics event.\n\n## Scope Decisions\n\n| # | Proposal | Effort | Decision | Reasoning |\n|---|----------|--------|----------|-----------|\n| E1 | Production baseline pull (login\u2192first-action-start distribution, per-action share of first actions) + kill/keep criterion (see below) | S (M if instrumentation missing) | ACCEPTED | Rollout criteria were already required; this makes the 45s target measured, not guessed |\n| E2 | Auto-resume landing when one eligible action and zero unread | M | DEFERRED (re-asked at gate as T1) | Changes landing behavior beyond the stated page; run as an experiment after E1 |\n| E3 | Empty-state CTAs linking to the populating action | S | ACCEPTED | Empty states are features; in blast radius |\n| E4 | Relative timestamps with absolute value in `title` and a `<time datetime>` element | S | ACCEPTED | Spec detail for both list panels |\n| E5 | Optimistic mark-all-read after the user confirms in the dialog, with rollback and a failure toast if the request fails | S | ACCEPTED | Removes the visible wait after confirming; the confirmation step itself is unchanged (T2 below) |\n| E6 | Refetch on mount, on `pageshow` (covers bfcache back navigation), and on `visibilitychange` to visible; refetches are suppressed while a mark-all-read request is in flight | S | ACCEPTED | Stale-state guard for long-open tabs and back navigation without clobbering an optimistic mutation |\n| E7 | Keyboard shortcuts 1/2/3 for quick actions | S | DEFERRED | Screen-reader key conflicts; not needed for the metric |\n| E8 | Unread badge in global nav | S | DEFERRED | Outside the dashboard's blast radius |\n| E9 | Prefetch payload during login redirect | M | DEFERRED | Touches the login flow |\n| E10 | Real-time noLine truncated
"viewport": " 75 -- E6 refetch on visibility regain and on mount, including back navigation. \n 74 +- E5 optimistic mark-all-read (after confirmation) with rollback and failure toast. Ordering rule: whil\n +e the mark-all-read request is in flight, background refetches (E6) are suppressed; on failure, the rol\n +lback restores the pre-mutation snapshot, then a refetch runs; on success, a refetch runs. \n 75 +- E6 refetch on mount, on `pageshow`, and on `visibilitychange` to visible, suppressed during an in-fli\n +ght mutation. \n 76 \n 77 ## Structural decisions carried into the plan (not expansions)\n 78 These were made by the review and are provisional where marked; the gate can change them.\n\n\u25cf Update(~/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-P4QEl3/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md)\n\n\u25cf Update(~/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-P4QEl3/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md)\n\n\u25cf Update(~/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-P4QEl3/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md)\n\n\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\n Edit file\n \u20262546450-gfwm4G/skill-home-k7zGB1/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-P4QEl3/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md\n\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\n 78 These were made by the review and are provisional where marked; the gate can change them.\n 79 - Aggregate `GET /api/dashboard` returns a per-panel result envelope, and each repository\n 80 call inside the aggregate (activity, notifications, quick-action eligibility) runs\n 81 - concurrently with its own 800ms budget. **Conditional on UC1 resolving to \"keep the \n 82 - aggregate\".** If UC1 resolves to per-panel requests, the envelope becomes the response \n 81 + concurrently with its own 800ms budget; a call that exceeds its budget yields an error \n 82 + result for that panel only, the other panels still return, and AsyncPanel shows that \n 83 + panel's error state with Retry. **Conditional on UC1 resolving to \"keep the aggregate\".** If UC1 resolves to per-\n +panel requests, the envelope becomes the response \n 84 shape of each panel endpoint and the 800ms budget applies per endpoint.\n 85 - Shared toast primitive and shared AsyncPanel wrapper (not conditional).\n 86 - Panel hierarchy quick actions \u2192 notifications \u2192 activity at every breakpoint.\n\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\n Do you want to make this edit to 2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md?\n \u276f 1. Yes\n 2. Yes, and switch to accept edits (auto-approve file edits and common file commands) for this session (shift+tab)\n 3. No\n\Line truncated
"publicTools": [
{
"sessionId": "00682e85-3e00-47b5-9c9b-c71b1b0359fb",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T11:01:18.734Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01PstM5RygtprtGtvbJJiFNw",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Edit",
"input": {
"replace_all": false,
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-Lfsd0a/tmp/gstack-hermetic-2546450-gfwm4G/skill-home-k7zGB1/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-P4QEl3/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md",
"old_string": "- Kill/keep criterion: after two weeks with 5% of logins in the `dashboard_landing` cohort, keep if the cohort's median login\u2192first-action-start time is at least 25% lower than the control group's, and neither guardrail regresses (completed-task rate not lower, permission-error rate not higher than control). Otherwise turn the flag off and write a retro.\n- E3 empty-state CTAs on all three panels.\n- E4 relative plus absolute timestamps in list panels.\n- E5 optimistic mark-all-read (after confirmation) with rollback and failure toast.\n- E6 refetch on visibility regain and on mount, including back navigation.",
"new_string": "- Kill/keep criterion: after two weeks with 5% of logins in the `dashboard_landing` cohort, and only once the required N sessions from E1 has been reached (otherwise extend, do not decide), keep if the cohort's median login\u2192first-action-start time is at least 25% lower than the control group's, and neither guardrail regresses (completed-task rate not lower, permission-error rate not higher than control, both as defined above). Otherwise turn the flag off and write a retro.\n- E3 empty-state CTAs on all three panels.\n- E4 relative plus absolute timestamps in list panels.\n- E5 optimistic mark-all-read (after confirmation) with rollback and failure toast. Ordering rule: while the mark-all-read request is in flight, background refetches (E6) are suppressed; on failure, the rollback restores the pre-mutation snapshot, then a refetch runs; on success, a refetch runs.\n- E6 refetch on mount, on `pageshow`, and on `visibilitychange` to visible, suppressed during an in-flight mutation."
},
"messageId": "msg_011CeueHecnMqQtgrUv3jADQ",
"requestId": "req_011CeueHcYmEUbt8qRG3gKSt"
},
{
"sessionId": "00682e85-3e00-47b5-9c9b-c71b1b0359fb",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T11:01:21.711Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01UBdPLNZ2sgKjaEZDcw47e1",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Edit",
"input": {
"replace_all": false,
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-Lfsd0a/tmp/gstack-hermetic-2546450-gfwm4G/skill-home-k7zGB1/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-P4QEl3/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md",
"old_string": " concurrently with its own 800ms budget. **Conditional on UC1 resolving to \"keep the\n aggregate\".**",
"new_string": " concurrently with its own 800ms budget; a call that exceeds its budget yields an error\n result for that panel only, the other panels still return, and AsyncPanel shows that\n panel's error state with Retry. **Conditional on UC1 resolving to \"keep the aggregate\".**"
},
"messageId": "msg_011CeueHecnMqQtgrUv3jADQ",
"requestId": "req_011CeueHcYmEUbt8qRG3gKSt"
},
{
"sessionId": "00682e85-3e00-47b5-9c9b-c71b1b0359fb",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T11:01:24.723Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01QjhW8gxdqMKrP3HH85pLMo",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Edit",
"input": {
"replace_all": false,
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-Lfsd0a/tmp/gstack-hermetic-2546450-gfwm4G/skill-home-k7zGB1/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-P4QEl3/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md",
"old_string": "- T1: dashboard as headline (default) vs running E2 auto-resume first.",
"new_string": "- T1: dashboard as headline (default) vs building E2 auto-resume immediately after the\n dashboard ships and before the E1 cohort starts, so the cohort measures both together.\n E2 needs the eligibility result and unread count, so it cannot precede the endpoint."
},
"messageId": "msg_011CeueHecnMqQtgrUv3jADQ",
"requestId": "req_011CeueHcYmEUbt8qRG3gKSt"
},
{
"sessionId": "00682e85-3e00-47b5-9c9b-c71b1b0359fb",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T11:01:27.597Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01JTfbp8xRAx8Kvnc2Vm5gxF",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Edit",
"input": {
"replace_all": false,
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-Lfsd0a/tmp/gstack-hermetic-2546450-gfwm4G/skill-home-k7zGB1/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-P4QEl3/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md",
"old_string": "- E2 auto-resume landing (P2). Blocked by dashboard shipping and E1 baseline.",
"new_string": "- E2 auto-resume landing (P2). Blocked by the dashboard endpoint (needs eligibility result and unread count); sequencing relative to the E1 cohort is T1."
},
"messageId": "msg_011CeueHecnMqQtgrUv3jADQ",
"requestId": "req_011CeueHcYmEUbt8qRG3gKSt"
},
{
"sessionId": "00682e85-3e00-47b5-9c9b-c71b1b0359fb",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T11:01:35.997Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01PstM5RygtprtGtvbJJiFNw",
"kind": "result",
"content": "The file /tmp/gstack-paid-shard-Lfsd0a/tmp/gstack-hermetic-2546450-gfwm4G/skill-home-k7zGB1/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-P4QEl3/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md has been updated successfully. (file state is current in your context \u2014 no need to Read it back)",
"isError": false
}
]
}
test/fixtures/autoplan-edit-header-ag.json
Vendored
-727
View File
@@ -1,727 +0,0 @@
{
"provenance": {
"sourceCommit": "8d8537e5d341cc9f3d186822f06efb245ec7b8fd",
"evidenceDir": ".context/ship-source-ag-delta-paid-20260910-v1/autoplan-edit-pending-0209-v1",
"observationSha256": "003ad8731d98f55ba02c894ed4d5c7a17fb0aa1f0dfd42848278e6b671905083",
"screenSha256": "bca8523bdfd3681f59cb6f0fbd011e63a68b8793ad7f9642a2664b6653784680",
"hookSha256": "60a61f738f4522833d7c362cffce4752d18ca2fa5b64e42f9b1ecb967c760186",
"projection": "Exact current pending hook, viewport and owned file bytes. Public tool history retains only IDs/names/file paths/timestamps/error flags; edit bodies omitted.",
"replayLimitation": "Free controls rebase owned filesystem paths only; any published current Edit input is explicitly synthetic because the actual input was unpublished."
},
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-zmS3XD/tmp/gstack-autoplan-chain-vsRLi1",
"ownedStateRoot": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-zmS3XD/tmp/gstack-hermetic-4169247-CCA4dg/skill-home-tlU9KV/.gstack",
"pending": {
"source": "pre_tool_use",
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"toolUseId": "toolu_011MQGGjAj1xmUbr8Q1cUQ9T",
"tool": "Edit",
"file": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-zmS3XD/tmp/gstack-hermetic-4169247-CCA4dg/skill-home-tlU9KV/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-vsRLi1/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T02:07:26.812Z"
},
"viewportCapturedAt": "2026-09-10T02:09:10.779Z",
"commandStartedAtMeaning": "Reconstructed 1ms before first retained public tool; every retained event included.",
"viewport": "\u25cf Update(~/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-vsRLi1/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md)\n \n\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\n Edit file\n \u20264169247-CCA4dg/skill-home-tlU9KV/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-vsRLi1/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md\n\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\n 23 \n 24 | # | Proposal | Effort (human / CC) | Decision | Reasoning |\n 25 |---|----------|--------|----------|-----------|\n 26 -| E1 | Refetch on window focus/visibility, at most once per 60s, stale-while-revalidate; a 503, network or other re\n -quest-level error during a background refetch keeps the stale render and shows an error toast, never a blank page; \n -the refetch is suppressed while the mark-all-read dialog is open or its request is in flight, and the mutation's co\n -mpletion triggers the next refetch, so stale pre-mutation data can never repaint over a completed mutation | S (~2h\n - / ~10min) | ACCEPTED | In blast radius; removes the stale-dashboard-after-lunch failure | \n 26 +| E1 | Refetch on window focus/visibility, at most once per 60s, stale-while-revalidate; a 503, network or other re\n +quest-level error during a background refetch keeps the stale render and shows an error toast, never a blank page; \n +the refetch is suppressed while the mark-all-read dialog is open or its request is in flight, and the mutation's co\n +mpletion triggers the next refetch, so stale pre-mutation data can never repaint over a completed mutation. The 60s\n + throttle applies to focus/visibility triggers only, measured from completion of the most recent fetch of any kind;\n + a mutation-completion refetch bypasses the throttle and resets the window. On a background refetch, panels whose e\n +nvelope is `ok` update; panels whose envelope is `error` keep stale data and contribute to one deduplicated error t\n +oast; panel-level error states render only when there is no data to show (initial load or Retry from error) | S (~2\n +h / ~10min) | ACCEPTED | In blast radius; removes the stale-dashboard-after-lunch failure | \n 27 | E2 | Relative timestamps (\"4 min ago\") with the absolute value in `<time dateTime>` (JSX casing) and `title` | S \n (~1h / ~5min) | ACCEPTED | In blast radius; accessibility and scannability |\n 28 | E3 | Empty-state CTAs: QuickActions \u2192 none (empty means nothing to do); Notifications \u2192 link to the existing full\n notifications page; Activity \u2192 link to the registry's create-item action (the action the plan labels \"create an it\n em\"; confirm its stable ID from the registry) **only when that action is present in the member's eligible `quickAct\n ions` envelope**, otherwise no CTA, so an ineligible member is never routed into a permission error | S (~1h / ~5mi\n n) | ACCEPTED | In blast radius; empty states are onboarding moments |\n 29 | E4 | QuickActions first in DOM and visual order at sm, md and lg (the plan's three breakpoints; no others are def\n ined) | S (~30min / ~5min) | ACCEPTED | In blast radius; directly serves time-to-first-completed-task |\n\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254Line truncated
"before": "---\nstatus: ACTIVE\n---\n# CEO Plan: User Dashboard Page\nGenerated by /plan-ceo-review (via /autoplan) on 2026-09-10\nBranch: main | Mode: SELECTIVE EXPANSION\nRepo: gstack-autoplan-chain-vsRLi1 (no remote)\n\n## Baseline scope (what is being expanded)\nA new post-login page at `/dashboard`, behind the feature flag `dashboard_landing` (default off, enabled per member cohort: 10% \u2192 50% \u2192 100%, gates defined in requirement R2 of the active plan). Three panels fed by one aggregate endpoint `GET /api/dashboard`: **QuickActions** (eligible actions from the existing action registry), **Notifications** (latest 20 member alerts with a \"Mark all as read\" confirmation modal), **Activity** (latest 20 audit-history records). Primary metric: login-to-first-completed-task time. Guardrails: completed-task rate and permission-error rate. A shared toast primitive provides non-blocking feedback. Detailed requirements live in the active plan file: R1-R14 are build requirements; R15 is the list of items deferred to TODOS.md (mirrored below).\n\n**Blast radius** (used as the acceptance criterion below) = the files and routes the baseline plan already touches: the dashboard page, its three panels, the dialog wrapper, the toast primitive, the panel-state hook, the aggregate endpoint and its tests. The login flow, global shell/navigation, schema and repositories are outside it.\n\n## Vision\n\n### 10x Check\nThe 10x version of a post-login home is one that acts before you read. It prefetches its data on the login response, lands the first Tab stop and the first thumb-reach on \"Resume assigned work\", shows a \"new since your last visit\" divider in both lists so a returning member scans only what changed, carries an unread badge into every page's navigation so the dashboard is never the only place alerts live, and lets a member undo a bulk action instead of confirming it. Every panel degrades independently: a slow audit query never blanks the actions panel. Effort beyond the baseline plan: human ~3 weeks / CC ~1 day; this total includes the integration, cross-page QA and rollout work that the itemized E4-E8 estimates below (\u22485 human-days / \u22482.5 CC-hours) do not carry individually.\n\n### Platonic Ideal\nNot produced: SELECTIVE EXPANSION mode skips this step by design.\n\n## Scope Decisions\n\n| # | Proposal | Effort (human / CC) | Decision | Reasoning |\n|---|----------|--------|----------|-----------|\n| E1 | Refetch on window focus/visibility, at most once per 60s, stale-while-revalidate; a 503, network or other request-level error during a background refetch keeps the stale render and shows an error toast, never a blank page; the refetch is suppressed while the mark-all-read dialog is open or its request is in flight, and the mutation's completion triggers the next refetch, so stale pre-mutation data can never repaint over a completed mutation | S (~2h / ~10min) | ACCEPTED | In blast radius; removes the stale-dashboard-after-lunch failure |\n| E2 | Relative timestamps (\"4 min ago\") with the absolute value in `<time dateTime>` (JSX casing) and `title` | S (~1h / ~5min) | ACCEPTED | In blast radius; accessibility and scannability |\n| E3 | Empty-state CTAs: QuickActions \u2192 none (empty means nothing to do); Notifications \u2192 link to the existing full notifications page; Activity \u2192 link to the registry's create-item action (the action the plan labels \"create an item\"; confirm its stable ID from the registry) **only when that action is present in the member's eligible `quickActions` envelope**, otherwise no CTA, so an ineligible member is never routed into a permission error | S (~1h / ~5min) | ACCEPTED | In blast radius; empty states are onboarding moments |\n| E4 | QuickActions first in DOM and visual order at sm, md and lg (the plan's three breakpoints; no others are defined) | S (~30min / ~5min) | ACCEPTED | In blast radius; directly serves time-to-first-completed-task |\n| E5 | Global nav unread badge | M (~1d / ~30min) | DEFERRED | Outside blast radius (global shell); needs an unread-count access path not in the contracts |\n| E6 | \"New since last visit\" divider | M (~2d / ~45min) | DEFERRED | Needs persistence; plan forbids schema changes; client-only variant is lossy across devices |\n| E7 | Prefetch dashboard payload on the login response | M (~1d / ~30min) | DEFERRED | Touches the auth flow; decide after R12's staging latency numbers (endpoint p95/p99) show the extra round trip matters |\n| E8 | Act-then-undo instead of the confirmation modal for \"Mark all as read\" | S (~3h / ~15min) if a bulk un-read API exists; **M (~1d / ~45min) otherwise**, because undo needs a server path to restore read state for the snapshot range, and the plan forbids schema changes and new mutation APIs | HELD \u2192 User Challenge UC1; **default: confirmation modal stands** | Changes the user's stated design; both reviewer voices favor it; user decides at the final gate with the effort caLine truncated
"events": [
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:47:48.622Z",
"kind": "use",
"toolUseId": "toolu_016vPGKxST443agxSKT32bVp",
"name": "Bash",
"input": {}
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:47:51.271Z",
"kind": "result",
"toolUseId": "toolu_016vPGKxST443agxSKT32bVp",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:48:01.937Z",
"kind": "use",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01TgQf2DaPkoAu5mH4ypZapZ",
"name": "Bash",
"input": {}
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:48:03.225Z",
"kind": "result",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01TgQf2DaPkoAu5mH4ypZapZ",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:48:08.094Z",
"kind": "use",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01UY9aB1dCV21a5fXxXZFX3q",
"name": "Read",
"input": {
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-zmS3XD/tmp/gstack-autoplan-chain-vsRLi1/.claude/plans/ui-heavy-feature.md"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:48:08.122Z",
"kind": "result",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01UY9aB1dCV21a5fXxXZFX3q",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:48:08.848Z",
"kind": "use",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01417gReM1AvasfezCFharGF",
"name": "Read",
"input": {
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-zmS3XD/tmp/gstack-autoplan-chain-vsRLi1/README.md"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:48:08.872Z",
"kind": "result",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01417gReM1AvasfezCFharGF",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:48:13.191Z",
"kind": "use",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Xskm3S2e8yJ2TXTtkw5pcW",
"name": "Bash",
"input": {}
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:48:14.677Z",
"kind": "result",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Xskm3S2e8yJ2TXTtkw5pcW",
"isError": true
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:48:40.764Z",
"kind": "use",
"toolUseId": "toolu_015uqTSzvcpEvAgvxg8SoxCi",
"name": "Bash",
"input": {}
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:48:42.332Z",
"kind": "result",
"toolUseId": "toolu_015uqTSzvcpEvAgvxg8SoxCi",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:48:46.628Z",
"kind": "use",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01U7ugLZ7UcuwsqFERDx6ptf",
"name": "Bash",
"input": {}
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:48:48.681Z",
"kind": "result",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01U7ugLZ7UcuwsqFERDx6ptf",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:49:07.768Z",
"kind": "use",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Tr1savkzHoX5P89psDYnN2",
"name": "Bash",
"input": {}
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:49:08.977Z",
"kind": "use",
"toolUseId": "toolu_018ehwQ4gJRk9ZHTutLWo5yp",
"name": "Bash",
"input": {}
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:49:09.340Z",
"kind": "result",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Tr1savkzHoX5P89psDYnN2",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:49:09.404Z",
"kind": "result",
"toolUseId": "toolu_018ehwQ4gJRk9ZHTutLWo5yp",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:49:21.417Z",
"kind": "use",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01N1A6HCcjbPqEn6VRJFKdMz",
"name": "Read",
"input": {
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-zmS3XD/tmp/gstack-hermetic-4169247-CCA4dg/with-skills/.claude/plans/sunny-finding-dream.md"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:49:21.438Z",
"kind": "result",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01N1A6HCcjbPqEn6VRJFKdMz",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:49:22.903Z",
"kind": "use",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01VD3PH16rpr8LnjewpCfPfZ",
"name": "Read",
"input": {
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-zmS3XD/tmp/gstack-hermetic-4169247-CCA4dg/skill-home-tlU9KV/.claude/skills/gstack/autoplan/sections/ceo-phase.md"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:49:22.927Z",
"kind": "result",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01VD3PH16rpr8LnjewpCfPfZ",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:49:24.972Z",
"kind": "use",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01WzFqXWccv2M6HJvga7CgCP",
"name": "Bash",
"input": {}
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:49:25.040Z",
"kind": "result",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01WzFqXWccv2M6HJvga7CgCP",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:49:35.769Z",
"kind": "use",
"toolUseId": "toolu_011VtCpJeQZtiQmPUvUokDfZ",
"name": "Bash",
"input": {}
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:49:37.029Z",
"kind": "result",
"toolUseId": "toolu_011VtCpJeQZtiQmPUvUokDfZ",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:49:37.459Z",
"kind": "use",
"toolUseId": "toolu_019ySJkHQrpPgHsrAoNHmYmp",
"name": "Bash",
"input": {}
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:49:37.523Z",
"kind": "result",
"toolUseId": "toolu_019ySJkHQrpPgHsrAoNHmYmp",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:49:45.036Z",
"kind": "use",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01BU3pV5UEkgU4nJWg38hfe3",
"name": "Read",
"input": {
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-zmS3XD/tmp/gstack-hermetic-4169247-CCA4dg/skill-home-tlU9KV/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-vsRLi1/autoplan-ceo-methodology-18ubmt/methodology.md"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:49:45.129Z",
"kind": "result",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01BU3pV5UEkgU4nJWg38hfe3",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:49:46.543Z",
"kind": "use",
"toolUseId": "toolu_015EoxyxtEafv4SkHRDdxwdY",
"name": "Read",
"input": {
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-zmS3XD/tmp/gstack-hermetic-4169247-CCA4dg/skill-home-tlU9KV/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-vsRLi1/autoplan-ceo-methodology-18ubmt/methodology.md"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:49:46.657Z",
"kind": "result",
"toolUseId": "toolu_015EoxyxtEafv4SkHRDdxwdY",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:49:48.043Z",
"kind": "use",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01JBhkDhQHE8tiYdDdJ1V58y",
"name": "Read",
"input": {
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-zmS3XD/tmp/gstack-hermetic-4169247-CCA4dg/skill-home-tlU9KV/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-vsRLi1/autoplan-ceo-methodology-18ubmt/methodology.md"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:49:48.141Z",
"kind": "result",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01JBhkDhQHE8tiYdDdJ1V58y",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:49:48.919Z",
"kind": "use",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Ka6V7YZUE8bDXPMUpzvAHK",
"name": "Read",
"input": {
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-zmS3XD/tmp/gstack-hermetic-4169247-CCA4dg/skill-home-tlU9KV/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-vsRLi1/autoplan-ceo-methodology-18ubmt/methodology.md"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:49:48.995Z",
"kind": "result",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Ka6V7YZUE8bDXPMUpzvAHK",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:50:05.840Z",
"kind": "use",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01EPJsbfuP2AkG5xd1UnE7by",
"name": "Bash",
"input": {}
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:50:07.127Z",
"kind": "result",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01EPJsbfuP2AkG5xd1UnE7by",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:50:12.591Z",
"kind": "use",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01P5dLF9x6fwc9E8xZ2DDpC6",
"name": "Bash",
"input": {}
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:50:14.189Z",
"kind": "result",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01P5dLF9x6fwc9E8xZ2DDpC6",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:50:30.927Z",
"kind": "use",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Y6GyLqvgAg37SN84oFZD68",
"name": "Agent",
"input": {}
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:50:32.740Z",
"kind": "result",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Y6GyLqvgAg37SN84oFZD68",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:52:38.111Z",
"kind": "use",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01WtC5jjpW3gVY5EvcNdkXXx",
"name": "ToolSearch",
"input": {}
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:52:38.121Z",
"kind": "result",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01WtC5jjpW3gVY5EvcNdkXXx",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:52:42.415Z",
"kind": "use",
"toolUseId": "toolu_0183AuKCPX6znTPeg9BMri2w",
"name": "WebSearch",
"input": {}
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:52:43.163Z",
"kind": "use",
"toolUseId": "toolu_018ufyfdCe5U68acnvMiwFKs",
"name": "WebSearch",
"input": {}
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:52:43.707Z",
"kind": "use",
"toolUseId": "toolu_015bKTUMHXVmT7CZWzgT2PGV",
"name": "WebSearch",
"input": {}
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:52:51.819Z",
"kind": "result",
"toolUseId": "toolu_018ufyfdCe5U68acnvMiwFKs",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:52:52.900Z",
"kind": "result",
"toolUseId": "toolu_0183AuKCPX6znTPeg9BMri2w",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:52:53.732Z",
"kind": "result",
"toolUseId": "toolu_015bKTUMHXVmT7CZWzgT2PGV",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:59:39.245Z",
"kind": "use",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01S8gEETEUak6BfKp6y5CAqN",
"name": "Edit",
"input": {
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-zmS3XD/tmp/gstack-hermetic-4169247-CCA4dg/with-skills/.claude/plans/sunny-finding-dream.md"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:59:39.462Z",
"kind": "result",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01S8gEETEUak6BfKp6y5CAqN",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:59:52.291Z",
"kind": "use",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01DkRocCqN5MdazseULTFerm",
"name": "Bash",
"input": {}
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:59:53.552Z",
"kind": "result",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01DkRocCqN5MdazseULTFerm",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T02:00:12.606Z",
"kind": "use",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01SWuZH2gyaG4QwturgjtEzt",
"name": "Write",
"input": {
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-zmS3XD/tmp/gstack-hermetic-4169247-CCA4dg/skill-home-tlU9KV/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-vsRLi1/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T02:00:13.098Z",
"kind": "result",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01SWuZH2gyaG4QwturgjtEzt",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T02:00:34.490Z",
"kind": "use",
"toolUseId": "toolu_018vPP2UP7WmsTPzq64n1G3s",
"name": "Bash",
"input": {}
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T02:00:35.938Z",
"kind": "result",
"toolUseId": "toolu_018vPP2UP7WmsTPzq64n1G3s",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T02:00:48.117Z",
"kind": "use",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01DNWQECqjxGf5S3ap25yBhJ",
"name": "Read",
"input": {
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-zmS3XD/tmp/gstack-hermetic-4169247-CCA4dg/with-skills/.claude/plans/sunny-finding-dream.md"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T02:00:48.146Z",
"kind": "result",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01DNWQECqjxGf5S3ap25yBhJ",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T02:00:53.799Z",
"kind": "use",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01FoVuX88bg62y9a9Qgof995",
"name": "Agent",
"input": {}
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T02:00:55.225Z",
"kind": "result",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01FoVuX88bg62y9a9Qgof995",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T02:01:31.370Z",
"kind": "use",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01NapNQ6ov3pUU3c3MG97DiA",
"name": "Edit",
"input": {
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-zmS3XD/tmp/gstack-hermetic-4169247-CCA4dg/with-skills/.claude/plans/sunny-finding-dream.md"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T02:01:31.479Z",
"kind": "result",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01NapNQ6ov3pUU3c3MG97DiA",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T02:02:45.553Z",
"kind": "use",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01XQv7K1vKnemUfVLuDKjW7p",
"name": "Write",
"input": {
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-zmS3XD/tmp/gstack-hermetic-4169247-CCA4dg/skill-home-tlU9KV/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-vsRLi1/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T02:02:49.971Z",
"kind": "use",
"toolUseId": "toolu_011hFg2d83rdFAf3T8sSjWsF",
"name": "Edit",
"input": {
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-zmS3XD/tmp/gstack-hermetic-4169247-CCA4dg/with-skills/.claude/plans/sunny-finding-dream.md"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T02:02:50.543Z",
"kind": "result",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01XQv7K1vKnemUfVLuDKjW7p",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T02:02:50.624Z",
"kind": "result",
"toolUseId": "toolu_011hFg2d83rdFAf3T8sSjWsF",
"isError": true
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T02:02:54.824Z",
"kind": "use",
"toolUseId": "toolu_014msgPz4KvJjQArBUGKjjJ1",
"name": "Edit",
"input": {
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-zmS3XD/tmp/gstack-hermetic-4169247-CCA4dg/with-skills/.claude/plans/sunny-finding-dream.md"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T02:02:54.970Z",
"kind": "result",
"toolUseId": "toolu_014msgPz4KvJjQArBUGKjjJ1",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T02:03:07.338Z",
"kind": "use",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01TAtd9EwVcJ9HyGX6st1qr7",
"name": "Edit",
"input": {
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-zmS3XD/tmp/gstack-hermetic-4169247-CCA4dg/with-skills/.claude/plans/sunny-finding-dream.md"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T02:03:07.446Z",
"kind": "result",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01TAtd9EwVcJ9HyGX6st1qr7",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T02:03:14.019Z",
"kind": "use",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01WmxovbDi9VQ6DrFzQWNLi1",
"name": "Agent",
"input": {}
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T02:03:15.551Z",
"kind": "result",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01WmxovbDi9VQ6DrFzQWNLi1",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T02:03:25.444Z",
"kind": "use",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01UXtFixemkSKpgd7PLMBiEj",
"name": "Bash",
"input": {}
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T02:03:27.107Z",
"kind": "result",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01UXtFixemkSKpgd7PLMBiEj",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T02:04:45.433Z",
"kind": "use",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01FApJ4hHXSQy2Tzt7gae5fZ",
"name": "Edit",
"input": {
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-zmS3XD/tmp/gstack-hermetic-4169247-CCA4dg/with-skills/.claude/plans/sunny-finding-dream.md"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T02:04:45.547Z",
"kind": "result",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01FApJ4hHXSQy2Tzt7gae5fZ",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T02:04:48.443Z",
"kind": "use",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01N8fqcTLvLZifZJ3KaXjhbL",
"name": "Edit",
"input": {
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-zmS3XD/tmp/gstack-hermetic-4169247-CCA4dg/with-skills/.claude/plans/sunny-finding-dream.md"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T02:04:48.569Z",
"kind": "result",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01N8fqcTLvLZifZJ3KaXjhbL",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T02:04:51.196Z",
"kind": "use",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Beth2Lm36y9jeJycLm94tm",
"name": "Edit",
"input": {
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-zmS3XD/tmp/gstack-hermetic-4169247-CCA4dg/with-skills/.claude/plans/sunny-finding-dream.md"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T02:04:51.306Z",
"kind": "result",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Beth2Lm36y9jeJycLm94tm",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T02:05:33.620Z",
"kind": "use",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01B7PEBmP6cr8pmoTRCnLKNL",
"name": "Write",
"input": {
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-zmS3XD/tmp/gstack-hermetic-4169247-CCA4dg/skill-home-tlU9KV/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-vsRLi1/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T02:05:37.560Z",
"kind": "use",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Um2qzJbqPPfSBVavuWFGBi",
"name": "Bash",
"input": {}
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T02:05:38.124Z",
"kind": "result",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01B7PEBmP6cr8pmoTRCnLKNL",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T02:05:39.644Z",
"kind": "result",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Um2qzJbqPPfSBVavuWFGBi",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T02:06:05.977Z",
"kind": "use",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01MgiCeDxdSZjAjQ4dL1Wj6L",
"name": "Agent",
"input": {}
},
{
"sessionId": "49915381-304b-4c53-a36f-b421aa5f153c",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T02:06:07.884Z",
"kind": "result",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01MgiCeDxdSZjAjQ4dL1Wj6L",
"isError": false
}
]
}
test/fixtures/autoplan-edit-panel-aj.json
Vendored
-34
View File
@@ -1,34 +0,0 @@
{
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-s9u5nX/tmp/gstack-autoplan-chain-2fm0gB",
"ownedStateRoot": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-s9u5nX/tmp/gstack-hermetic-1053224-0wnKD0/skill-home-Apv3Kh/.gstack",
"viewportCapturedAt": 1789019855180,
"pending": {
"source": "pre_tool_use",
"sessionId": "a6866038-b8f3-4d4b-96ef-2b7bedb87909",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01MPtrmcKUsSV5jQTxotGRH4",
"tool": "Edit",
"file": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-s9u5nX/tmp/gstack-hermetic-1053224-0wnKD0/skill-home-Apv3Kh/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-2fm0gB/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T05:55:22.812Z"
},
"events": [
{
"sessionId": "a6866038-b8f3-4d4b-96ef-2b7bedb87909",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T05:53:57.405Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_016zuUSxgruR3zxXqQCK18wG",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Write",
"input": {
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-s9u5nX/tmp/gstack-hermetic-1053224-0wnKD0/skill-home-Apv3Kh/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-2fm0gB/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "a6866038-b8f3-4d4b-96ef-2b7bedb87909",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T05:54:02.558Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_016zuUSxgruR3zxXqQCK18wG",
"kind": "result",
"isError": false
}
],
"before": "---\nstatus: ACTIVE\n---\n# CEO Plan: User Dashboard Page\nGenerated by /plan-ceo-review (via /autoplan) on 2026-09-10\nBranch: main | Mode: SELECTIVE EXPANSION\nRepo: gstack-autoplan-chain-2fm0gB (no remote configured)\nBase plan: `.claude/plans/ui-heavy-feature.md` (its \"Existing product and application\ncontracts\" section defines the terms used below; this document adds decisions, not contracts).\n\n## Glossary (from the base plan)\n- **Action registry**: existing server-side list of three actions (create an item, resume assigned work, invite a member), each with a stable ID, label, route target, and an **eligibility predicate** evaluated on the server against the request context. The registry supplies labels and routes only; it does not supply item titles.\n- **Hero**: the first quick action in this fixed priority order among the eligible ones: resume assigned work, create an item, invite a member. It is rendered larger than the other quick actions and uses the registry label (so \"Resume assigned work\", never an item title). It is not a new slot and adds no new data.\n- **Bulk-read API**: existing member-scoped mutation that marks notifications at or before a supplied snapshot time as read. It already accepts the snapshot; no new mutation is added.\n- **fetchedAt**: ISO-8601 UTC timestamp set by the server when it composes the dashboard response.\n- **Exposure events**: `dashboard_viewed{panelStates}` once per page mount after first render; `dashboard_panel_rendered{panel,state}` on each transition to a terminal state.\n- **Interaction events**: `quick_action_clicked{actionId}`, `dashboard_view_all_clicked{panel}`, `dashboard_panel_retry_clicked{panel}`, `mark_all_read_confirmed{count}`, `mark_all_read_cancelled`.\n- **Current landing page**: the page members reach today after login (flag off). Its p95 is measured server-side from the existing request metrics over the same window as the dashboard measurement.\n\n## Vision\n\n### 10x Check\nThe 10x version is not a prettier dashboard. It is a landing page that already\nknows the member's next task. The moment the page paints, the hero quick action\nsits at the top: \"Resume assigned work\" when that action is eligible, otherwise\n\"Create an item\". Notifications sit second with an unread count and one-click\n\"Mark all as read\". Activity is third, a calm answer to \"what changed while I was\naway\". The page is measured, not assumed: exposure and interaction events are\nemitted as defined above, so login-to-first-completed-task is read from production\nanalytics for the flag-on cohort against a concurrent flag-off control. Effort for\nthe hero-first hierarchy over a flat three-card grid: human ~0.5 day / CC ~10 min.\nThe redirect-when-resumable variant is a separate experiment (deferred, see below)\nbecause it changes the stated direction that the dashboard is the landing page.\n\n## Layout\nTwelve-column grid from the existing page shell.\n- **sm**: single column, order QuickActions, Notifications, Activity.\n- **md**: QuickActions spans 12; beneath it Notifications 6 and Activity 6.\n- **lg**: three columns: QuickActions 5, Notifications 4, Activity 3.\n\n## Scope Decisions\n\n| # | Proposal | Effort | Decision | Reasoning |\n|---|----------|--------|----------|-----------|\n| 1 | Per-panel result envelope in `GET /api/dashboard`: each key is `{status:'ok',data}` or `{status:'error',error:{code}}`, inside an HTTP 200; HTTP 503 only when all three fail. Repository calls run in parallel with a 2 s per-panel deadline passed to each call as an abort signal; on deadline the panel yields `{status:'error',error:{code:'timeout'}}` and the call is aborted. If a repository method cannot take a signal, the leaked work is bounded by the existing database statement timeout and that bound is noted in the handler | S | ACCEPTED | In blast radius; makes partial failure explicit (P5); the deadline is what lets the latency gate hold without caching |\n| 2 | Server `fetchedAt` used as the snapshot passed to the existing bulk-read API | S | ACCEPTED | The API already takes a snapshot; using the server time preserves \"later arrivals remain unread\" against client clock skew. No new mutation |\n| 3 | `quickActions` filtered server-side by the registry eligibility predicates | S | ACCEPTED | Without it the permission-error guardrail trips by construction |\n| 4 | p95 latency of `GET /api/dashboard` at or below the current landing page's server-side p95, both measured over 1000 requests in staging; rollout gate | S | ACCEPTED | Plan already says perf checks must be specified; this specifies them |\n| 5 | Production baseline (p50 and p90 login-to-first-completion from existing login and action-completion events) pulled before rollout; required members per arm computed from the baseline variance for detecting a 20% p50 change at 80% power before the cohort starts; flag `dashboard_landing` assigned randomly per member; success = p50 improves by at least 20% Line truncated
"viewport": "\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\n Edit file\n \u20261053224-0wnKD0/skill-home-Apv3Kh/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-2fm0gB/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md\n\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\n 10 \n 11 ## Glossary (from the base plan)\n 12 - **Action registry**: existing server-side list of three actions (create an item, resume assigned work, invite a m\n ember), each with a stable ID, label, route target, and an **eligibility predicate** evaluated on the server agains\n t the request context. The registry supplies labels and routes only; it does not supply item titles.\n 13 -- **Hero**: the first quick action in this fixed priority order among the eligible ones: resume assigned work, crea\n -te an item, invite a member. It is rendered larger than the other quick actions and uses the registry label (so \"Re\n -sume assigned work\", never an item title). It is not a new slot and adds no new data. \n 14 -- **Bulk-read API**: existing member-scoped mutation that marks notifications at or before a supplied snapshot time\n - as read. It already accepts the snapshot; no new mutation is added. \n 13 +- **Hero**: the first quick action in this fixed priority order among the eligible ones: resume assigned work, crea\n +te an item, invite a member. It is rendered larger than the other quick actions and uses the registry label (so \"Re\n +sume assigned work\", never an item title), with one client-side copy substitution: in the new-member case (below) t\n +he create action's label is shown as \"Create your first item\". It is not a new slot and adds no new data. \n 14 +- **New-member case**: resume is not eligible (so create is the hero) and both Notifications and Activity are empty\n +. \n 15 +- **Bulk-read API**: existing member-scoped mutation that marks notifications at or before a supplied snapshot time\n + as read. It already accepts the snapshot; no new mutation is added. The base plan does not state a return value, s\n +o the \"Marked N as read\" count is the client's unread count from the last dashboard response, not a server-reported\n + number. \n 16 +- **Refetch**: a refetch (after mark-all-read or on `visibilitychange`) keeps the current data on screen, does not \n +re-enter the loading state, and re-emits `dashboard_panel_rendered` only if the panel's state value changes (for ex\n +ample success to empty). \n 17 - **fetchedAt**: ISO-8601 UTC timestamp set by the server when it composes the dashboard response.\n 18 - **Exposure events**: `dashboard_viewed{panelStates}` once per page mount after first render; `dashboard_panel_ren\n dered{panel,state}` on each transition to a terminal state.\n 19 - **Interaction events**: `quick_action_clicked{actionId}`, `dashboard_view_all_clicked{panel}`, `dashboard_panel_r\n etry_clicked{panel}`, `mark_all_read_confirmed{count}`, `mark_all_read_cancelled`.\n\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u2Line truncated
}
test/fixtures/autoplan-edit-prefix-ai.json
Vendored
-53
View File
@@ -1,53 +0,0 @@
{
"sourceCommit": "12faead4636b97305348e25fc12258a56fcf6868",
"provenance": {
"path": ".context/ship-source-ai-delta-paid-20260910-v1/autoplan-edit-prefix-evidence-v1/public-tools.json",
"sha256": "e49a7b02986840f0e76466076d54b21d001bfc8ad94213258f24c19bdf968b91",
"projection": "Successful same-file use/result metadata plus exact current Edit request; unrelated events remain in context proof."
},
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-Am4ci8/tmp/gstack-autoplan-chain-9599im",
"ownedStateRoot": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-Am4ci8/tmp/gstack-hermetic-592891-MJaePo/skill-home-31EPP8/.gstack",
"viewportCapturedAt": "2026-09-10T04:27:38.073Z",
"viewport": " +r this plan. \n 80 +- Latency remedies, in order: if endpoint p95 > 300 ms for two consecutive stages, first add the per-me\n +mber predicate cache (a performance fix, exempt from the feature gate below); if still over, switch to \n +alternative B' (three parallel calls). The 600 ms guardrail is separate and triggers rollback, not reme\n +diation. \n 81 +- Gate: no new dashboard features (including the separately planned dark mode and personalization) unti\n +l the cohort metric has been read against control at the 25% stage. Performance remediation is exempt f\n +rom this gate. \n 82 +- Refresh semantics: SUCCESS and EMPTY panels enter REFRESHING (content stays visible); an ERROR panel \n +returns to LOADING on Refresh or Retry. \n 83 + \n 84 +## Spec review record \n 85 +Three adversarial review rounds (scores 7/10 \u2192 8/10 \u2192 8/10; 21 issues raised, 21 fixed in-document). Th\n +e loop hit its 3-iteration cap with the round-3 issues fixed inline above; no unresolved reviewer conce\n +rns remain. \n\n\u25cf Update(~/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-9599im/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md)\n\n\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\n Edit file\n \u2026-592891-MJaePo/skill-home-31EPP8/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-9599im/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md\n\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\n 55 - Client analytics events: dashboard_viewed, dashboard_panel_state (ERROR/EMPTY only), dashboard_quick_action_click\n ed, dashboard_mark_all_read, dashboard_view_all_clicked, dashboard_refresh_clicked\n 56 \n 57 ## Deferred to TODOS.md\n 58 -All deferrals wait until the cohort metric has been read against control (see Gate below), then: \n 58 +Feature deferrals wait until the cohort metric has been read against control (see Gate below); the predicate cache \n +is a performance remedy and is exempt: \n 59 - Unread badge in global nav (P2)\n 60 - Smart-redirect experiment cohort for single-action members (P2)\n 61 - Real-time notification/activity updates via SSE (P3, infra decision)\n\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\n Do you want to make this edit to 2Line truncated
"before": "---\nstatus: ACTIVE\n---\n# CEO Plan: User Dashboard Page\nGenerated by /plan-ceo-review (via /autoplan) on 2026-09-10\nBranch: main | Mode: SELECTIVE EXPANSION\nRepo: gstack-autoplan-chain-9599im (fixture; no remote)\n\n## Baseline scope (unchanged from the source plan)\n- `/dashboard` page rendered after login, with three panels: QuickActions, NotificationsPanel, ActivityFeed\n- One aggregate endpoint `GET /api/dashboard` returning a top-level `fetchedAt` (server time of the response) plus one result per panel (`{ ok: true, data } | { ok: false, error }`), so one panel failing never blanks the page\n- \"Mark all as read\" behind a confirm dialog built on the existing dialog primitive\n- A toast primitive (new, built as a shared app-level component, success feedback only)\n- Canonical panel states, used everywhere in this record: LOADING (skeleton), EMPTY, ERROR, SUCCESS, REFRESHING (a SUCCESS or EMPTY panel re-fetching while its previous content stays visible). A shared `PanelFrame` component owns the chrome for all five; each panel supplies only its SUCCESS rendering.\n- Tailwind tokens; mobile-first sm/md/lg\n- Out of scope, from the source plan: dark mode, personalization (separate plans)\n\n## Vision\n\n### North star (12-month direction, NOT this release)\nThe dashboard that already knows what you were doing. The hero is the one eligible\n\"resume\" action, huge and one Tab away. Notifications are ranked by urgency and can be\ncleared per item. Activity streams in live. Nothing the member needs after login is\nmore than one click away, and nothing they don't need takes up space.\n\n### 10x within this release's constraints\nThe source plan forbids new mutation APIs and new infrastructure, so per-item read and\nlive streaming are deferred (E9 below, and the per-item read API in the deferred list).\nThe 10x lever available now is hierarchy: QuickActions first, Notifications second,\nActivity third, at every breakpoint. The per-panel result envelope and the shared\n`PanelFrame` are the widget contract that lets every later panel plug in without\nre-deciding its states.\n\n## Scope Decisions\n\n| # | Proposal | Effort | Decision | Reasoning |\n|---|----------|--------|----------|-----------|\n| E1 | \"Updated Xm ago\" + Refresh in page header | S | ACCEPTED | Uses the top-level `fetchedAt` of the aggregate response; Refresh puts panels into REFRESHING; makes staleness visible |\n| E2 | Notification rows deep-link to their target | S | ACCEPTED | Route targets exist per contracts; link only. The row stays unread after the member returns, until \"Mark all as read\" (intentional: no per-item read API in this release) |\n| E3 | `<time datetime>` relative + absolute-on-hover timestamps | S | ACCEPTED | Accessibility policy; trivial |\n| E4 | \"View all\" links per panel into existing full pages | S | ACCEPTED | Existing pages own older-page navigation |\n| E5 | Optimistic mark-all-read with rollback | S | ACCEPTED | Idempotent snapshot-bounded API makes it safe; on failure the unread markers are restored and an error message renders inline inside the notifications panel (persistent, screen-reader visible); the toast is used for success only |\n| E6 | Keyboard shortcut to first quick action | S | DEFERRED | Single-key shortcuts need a11y design first |\n| E7 | Unread badge in global nav | M | DEFERRED | Outside blast radius (global nav) |\n| E8 | Smart post-login redirect experiment cohort | M | DEFERRED | Run after the cohort metric is read |\n| E9 | Real-time updates (SSE) | L | DEFERRED | New infrastructure |\n| E10 | Six named client analytics events | S | ACCEPTED | The source plan's contracts require \"exposure and interaction instrumentation\" in general; this decision names the concrete events (listed below) |\n\n## Accepted Scope (added to this plan)\n- Page header with \"Updated Xm ago\" (from the aggregate response's top-level `fetchedAt`) and a Refresh control that moves panels to REFRESHING without clearing content\n- Notification rows link to their target route when one is present; the row remains unread until \"Mark all as read\"\n- `<time datetime>` timestamps, relative text with absolute on hover\n- \"View all activity\" and \"View all notifications\" links into the existing pages\n- Optimistic mark-all-read with full rollback; failure message inline in the panel, success via toast\n- Client analytics events: dashboard_viewed, dashboard_panel_state (ERROR/EMPTY only), dashboard_quick_action_clicked, dashboard_mark_all_read, dashboard_view_all_clicked, dashboard_refresh_clicked\n\n## Deferred to TODOS.md\nAll deferrals wait until the cohort metric has been read against control (see Gate below), then:\n- Unread badge in global nav (P2)\n- Smart-redirect experiment cohort for single-action members (P2)\n- Real-time notification/activity updates via SSE (P3, infra decision)\n- Keyboard shortcut to first quick action (P3, after a11y review)\n- QuickActions predicate cache, 30s per memLine truncated
"events": [
{
"sessionId": "06788c5a-af8b-4a56-a97e-0ed1efd56f81",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:23:46.290Z",
"kind": "use",
"toolUseId": "toolu_014fVm5J1Kj6Qqjn9qXWxec1",
"name": "Edit",
"input": {
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-Am4ci8/tmp/gstack-hermetic-592891-MJaePo/skill-home-31EPP8/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-9599im/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "06788c5a-af8b-4a56-a97e-0ed1efd56f81",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:23:48.545Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_018TVtFH38vSPzawATsGhrU3",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Edit",
"input": {
"replace_all": false,
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-Am4ci8/tmp/gstack-hermetic-592891-MJaePo/skill-home-31EPP8/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-9599im/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md",
"old_string": "All deferrals wait until the cohort metric has been read against control (see Gate below), then:",
"new_string": "Feature deferrals wait until the cohort metric has been read against control (see Gate below); the predicate cache is a performance remedy and is exempt:"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "06788c5a-af8b-4a56-a97e-0ed1efd56f81",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:23:50.325Z",
"kind": "result",
"toolUseId": "toolu_014fVm5J1Kj6Qqjn9qXWxec1",
"isError": false
}
],
"pending": {
"source": "pre_tool_use",
"sessionId": "06788c5a-af8b-4a56-a97e-0ed1efd56f81",
"toolUseId": "toolu_018TVtFH38vSPzawATsGhrU3",
"tool": "Edit",
"file": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-Am4ci8/tmp/gstack-hermetic-592891-MJaePo/skill-home-31EPP8/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-9599im/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:23:50.390Z"
}
}
test/fixtures/autoplan-edit-queue-am.json
Vendored
-211
View File
@@ -1,211 +0,0 @@
{
"sourceCaptureSHA256": "1988a0af219e86a020ec09bd320f8ff02c7d3685f010927ccf725b79f105c058",
"projection": "Exact public file-mutation inputs and identity/timestamp/success metadata; result bodies and unrelated tools omitted. Current before and pane are direct retained bytes.",
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-uaCq3n/tmp/gstack-autoplan-chain-RnwL2i",
"config": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-uaCq3n/tmp/gstack-hermetic-2101964-HvDZyN/with-skills/.claude",
"stateRoot": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-uaCq3n/tmp/gstack-hermetic-2101964-HvDZyN/skill-home-zgCNxG/.gstack",
"commandStartedAt": 1789032380903,
"now": 1789033507687,
"viewport": " +o CC figure given). Deferred: needs a ranking service and push infrastructure that do not exist. This p\n +lan lays the substrate it would build on: the per-panel result envelope, the per-panel state machine (l\n +oading \u2192 ok / empty / error \u2192 retry), and the instrumentation; all three are in Accepted Scope below. \n 24 \n 25 ## Scope Decisions\n 26 \n\n\u25cf Update(~/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-RnwL2i/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md)\n\n\u25cf Update(~/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-RnwL2i/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md)\n\n\u25cf Update(~/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-RnwL2i/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md)\n\n\u25cf Update(~/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-RnwL2i/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md)\n\n\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\n Edit file\n \u20262101964-HvDZyN/skill-home-zgCNxG/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-RnwL2i/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md\n\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\n 26 \n 27 | # | Proposal | Effort | Decision | Reasoning | Revisit when |\n 28 |---|----------|--------|----------|-----------|--------------|\n 29 -| 1 | Pull real login-to-first-task baseline (median/p90) and find-vs-do split from existing analytics before locki\n -ng 45s | S | ACCEPTED | Data already exists; the 75s walkthrough number is a stand-in | \u2014 | \n 29 +| 1 | Pull real login-to-first-task baseline (median/p90) and find-vs-do split from existing analytics before locki\n +ng 45s | S | ACCEPTED | Data already exists; the 75s walkthrough number is a stand-in | Dashboard owner re-locks th\n +e target in this document after the pull | \n 30 | 2 | Numeric rollback triggers defined before rollout | S | ACCEPTED | Rollout criteria were \"to be specified\"; de\n pends on #1 | \u2014 |\n 31 | 3 | Relative timestamps with absolute on hover/focus in ActivityFeed | S | ACCEPTED | 1 file, under an hour, in b\n last radius | \u2014 |\n 32 | 4 | Unread count badge and document.title mirror | S | ACCEPTED | 1 file, under an hour | \u2014 |\n\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\n Do you want to make this edit to 2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md?\n \u276f 1. Yes\n 2. Yes, and switch to accept edits (auto-approve file edits and common file commands) for this session (shift+tab)\n 3. No\n\n Esc to cancel \u00b7 Tab to amend\n",
"before": "---\nstatus: ACTIVE\n---\n# CEO Plan: User Dashboard Page\nGenerated by /plan-ceo-review (via /autoplan) on 2026-09-10\nBranch: main | Mode: SELECTIVE EXPANSION (hold the plan's scope as baseline; cherry-pick expansions individually)\nRepo: gstack-autoplan-chain-RnwL2i (no remote)\nSource plan: `.claude/plans/ui-heavy-feature.md` (reviewed copy with full review record: `.claude/plans/starry-riding-otter.md`)\n\n**Primary metric:** median login-to-first-completed-task \u2264 45s (provisional until the baseline in #1 is pulled). Guardrails: completed-task rate and permission-error rate must not regress.\n\n**Glossary.** *Blast radius*: the files this plan creates or modifies plus their direct importers. *Find vs. do*: time from login to starting an action, versus time from starting to completing it. *CC*: Claude Code implementation time, as opposed to human-team time. *Effort scale* (human team): S under 1 day, M 1 to 5 days, L 1 to 3 weeks, XL over 3 weeks. *Previous landing page*: the post-login destination in use before this plan (the existing default route members see today; name it in the flag config when implementing).\n\n**Acceptance principle.** In SELECTIVE EXPANSION, an expansion inside the blast radius that costs under an hour is accepted on cost alone, whether or not it moves the metric (#3, #4, #6). Items outside the blast radius, or that need an audit or new infrastructure, are deferred even when cheap (#7, #8).\n\n**Assumptions.** The feature-flag framework, request/error metrics, and analytics events named in the source plan exist (this repository contains no source, so they are unverified). Item #1 (baseline pull) precedes item #2 (numeric rollback triggers), because the triggers are expressed against the baseline. **Fallback if the analytics events do not exist:** instrument login, action start, and action completion first, collect at least 7 days of data before any cohort rollout, and keep the 75s walkthrough figure as the stand-in with the target widened to \"at least 30% faster than measured baseline\" until the pull succeeds.\n\n**Carried from the source plan (not additions):** the per-panel state machine (loading \u2192 ok / empty / error \u2192 retry) and the instrumentation set (metrics, alerts, structured logs) are already required by the source plan's accepted CEO obligations; this document ratifies them without a proposal row.\n\n## Vision\n\n### 10x Check\nA post-login home that tells the member what to do next instead of showing three things to scan. A ranked \"next up\" card sits above the panels, computed server-side from eligible actions and unread alerts, and updates live over a push channel. The member arrives, sees one thing, and does it. Effort: XL, infrastructure-bound rather than implementation-bound (ranking service and push channel must exist first; no CC figure given). Deferred: needs a ranking service and push infrastructure that do not exist. This plan lays the substrate it would build on: the per-panel result envelope, the per-panel state machine (loading \u2192 ok / empty / error \u2192 retry), and the instrumentation; all three are in Accepted Scope below.\n\n## Scope Decisions\n\n| # | Proposal | Effort | Decision | Reasoning | Revisit when |\n|---|----------|--------|----------|-----------|--------------|\n| 1 | Pull real login-to-first-task baseline (median/p90) and find-vs-do split from existing analytics before locking 45s | S | ACCEPTED | Data already exists; the 75s walkthrough number is a stand-in | \u2014 |\n| 2 | Numeric rollback triggers defined before rollout | S | ACCEPTED | Rollout criteria were \"to be specified\"; depends on #1 | \u2014 |\n| 3 | Relative timestamps with absolute on hover/focus in ActivityFeed | S | ACCEPTED | 1 file, under an hour, in blast radius | \u2014 |\n| 4 | Unread count badge and document.title mirror | S | ACCEPTED | 1 file, under an hour | \u2014 |\n| 5 | \"Back to previous landing page\" link during rollout | S | ACCEPTED | Per-member escape hatch and bounce-back signal | Remove at 100% rollout |\n| 6 | Empty-state copy pointing at the primary action | S | ACCEPTED | Copy only | \u2014 |\n| 7 | Keyboard shortcuts for quick actions | S | DEFERRED | Shortcut conflict audit needed; not on the metric path | Dashboard owner runs the conflict audit after 100% rollout |\n| 8 | Prefetch /api/dashboard during login redirect | S | DEFERRED | Touches login flow, outside blast radius | If client TTFB p95 > 800ms at 100% |\n| 9 | Post-login redirect-to-resume experiment arm | M | DEFERRED, provisional (taste T1) | Skips alerts the plan says members need; touches login flow; attribution needs its own arm | Final Approval Gate may flip to \"run concurrently\" |\n| 10 | Ranked \"next up\" card with live updates | XL | DEFERRED | New ranking + push infrastructure | After dashboard metric data at 100% |\n| 11 | ETag / short TTL cache on the endpoint | S | DEFERRED | Wait for p95 at 100% rollout | Dashboard owner checks endpLine truncated
"hook": {
"version": 1,
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-uaCq3n/tmp/gstack-autoplan-chain-RnwL2i",
"config": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-uaCq3n/tmp/gstack-hermetic-2101964-HvDZyN/with-skills/.claude",
"stateRoot": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-uaCq3n/tmp/gstack-hermetic-2101964-HvDZyN/skill-home-zgCNxG/.gstack",
"seenIds": [
"toolu_01BbKwZ7JFFdm2FLFdcNQXPq",
"toolu_01W9d5F6LgadaG9o9maU8kaT",
"toolu_01YXZEmM6gthBvGshzGE4zYb"
],
"pending": {
"source": "pre_tool_use",
"sessionId": "9b7779e9-18f9-4f8d-84ac-9e8bf4458a8e",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01YXZEmM6gthBvGshzGE4zYb",
"tool": "Edit",
"file": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-uaCq3n/tmp/gstack-hermetic-2101964-HvDZyN/skill-home-zgCNxG/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-RnwL2i/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T09:42:01.132Z",
"transcriptPath": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-uaCq3n/tmp/gstack-hermetic-2101964-HvDZyN/with-skills/.claude/projects/-tmp-gstack-paid-shard-uaCq3n-tmp-gstack-autoplan-chain-RnwL2i/9b7779e9-18f9-4f8d-84ac-9e8bf4458a8e.jsonl",
"editDigest": {
"version": 1,
"beforeSHA256": "87ba6c184db192a85eb4fa0771dc59d6f3e12311f73a5bccc3497fd3138899ec",
"requestSHA256": "0b2f9bd8a462279cfd3845b2200c448072a8efb68287b75aa95dcf0b38eb0efd",
"oldLineHashes": [
"0e0dffc87c4190d31ee08629994526b6d12fb120ffb7a88ff1011d4f385f3923"
],
"newLineHashes": [
"36e18b0e5881093948120902c19482cf1eafbf4716500ed739cabaa8064287e3"
]
}
},
"sessionId": "9b7779e9-18f9-4f8d-84ac-9e8bf4458a8e"
},
"publicTools": [
{
"sessionId": "9b7779e9-18f9-4f8d-84ac-9e8bf4458a8e",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T09:36:51.205Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01EMZc2Hum5xqWxGHi3dddtJ",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Edit",
"input": {
"replace_all": false,
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-uaCq3n/tmp/gstack-hermetic-2101964-HvDZyN/with-skills/.claude/plans/starry-riding-otter.md",
"old_string": "## Review record\n",
"new_string": "## Review record\n\n<!-- /autoplan run autoplan-20260910-092822-5a343286 | base branch: main (no remote; git-native fallback) | Codex: disabled (codex_reviews=disabled) | UI scope: yes | DX scope: yes (21 term matches, threshold 2) -->\n\n### Phase 0: Intake\n\n- SOURCE_PLAN: `.claude/plans/ui-heavy-feature.md` (sha256 2fdf0ece\u2026fddbc, 4607 bytes). Restore point written by `init`.\n- Context read: no CLAUDE.md, no TODOS.md, no design doc, one commit (`28730e6 init UI-heavy fixture`), no diff vs main, no stash, no TODO/FIXME markers.\n- **System audit key finding:** the repository contains only `README.md` and the plan file. None of the \"existing contracts\" the plan cites (repository methods, dialog primitive, action registry, HTTP clients, Vitest/RTL/Playwright, feature flags) exist in this repo. Every reuse claim is unverifiable here and is treated as a stated premise, not a checked fact.\n- Prerequisite /office-hours offer: auto-decided **skip** (P6, one-gate rule). Cross-project learnings config prompt: left unset (user preference, not a plan decision; LEARNINGS: 0 so no effect this run).\n- CLAUDE.md routing rules: user accepted (D1). Deferred until plan mode exits: write CLAUDE.md routing section and commit.\n- CEO methodology read log: `methodology.md` (2260 lines, sha256 cbb64d50\u20269a28) read at offsets 1/601/1201/1801, all four ranges successful through EOF.\n\n### Phase 1: CEO Review (SELECTIVE EXPANSION)\n\n**Mode selection (0F):** SELECTIVE EXPANSION per /autoplan override. Context default agrees: this is a feature on an existing system (consolidates three existing pages), not greenfield.\n\n**Landscape check:** Aside not installed, WebSearch not used in plan mode for this fixture. Proceeding with in-distribution knowledge. Layer 1 (tried and true): post-login \"home\" dashboards with a primary action rail, an alerts panel, and a recent-activity feed are the standard shape (Linear, GitHub, Notion, Asana home). Layer 2: the current trend is \"next up\" surfaces that rank one action above the fold rather than three equal panels. Layer 3 (first principles): the plan's metric is login-to-first-completed-task. Only QuickActions directly drives that metric; notifications and activity are context. Hierarchy should follow the metric.\n\n#### 0A. Premise Challenge\n\n| # | Premise | Stated or assumed | Assessment | Decision |\n|---|---------|-------------------|------------|----------|\n| P1 | Members spend a median 75s finding the next item after login | Stated, sourced from a team walkthrough, not the analytics the plan says already record login/action start/completion | Reasonable but weakly sourced. Real member data exists and is cheaper than a walkthrough. | Accept the problem; **add requirement**: pull real median/p90 login-to-first-task from existing analytics before locking the 45s target (auto-approved, in blast radius, <1h). |\n| P2 | A three-panel dashboard is the right shape to hit 45s | Assumed | Consolidation of three pages does move navigation time. But only one panel (QuickActions) drives task completion. A redirect-to-resume experiment could bank part of the win cheaper, though it skips alerts, which the plan says members need. | Accept dashboard shape. **Amend**: QuickActions is the visual primary. Redirect-to-resume experiment \u2192 **TASTE DECISION T1** (surfaced at gate) and deferred to TODOS.md. |\n| P3 | One aggregate `GET /api/dashboard` is better than the client calling existing endpoints | Assumed | No justification in plan. Quick actions have no existing list endpoint (registry + server predicates), so a new endpoint exists either way. | Resolved in 0C-bis: aggregate with per-panel result envelope (Approach C). B vs C close \u2192 **TASTE DECISION T2**. |\n| P4 | \"Mark all as read\" needs a confirmation modal | Stated | The bulk-read API is idempotent and snapshot-bounded, but there is no restore/undo API and the plan forbids new mutation APIs. Without undo, a confirm is the honest safety net. | Keep modal. Direct-action+undo would need a new mutation API (plan constraint). **TASTE DECISION T3** (recommend keep). |\n| P5 | A toast system is needed for action feedback | Stated | Accessibility policy requires a live region for nonblocking feedback; nothing exists. Building it as a one-page component would be regretted; building it as a shared primitive is the same code in a different folder. | Build toast as a shared UI primitive (P1, P4). Inline-text alternative \u2192 **TASTE DECISION T4** (recommend shared toast). |\n| P6 | No schema changes needed | Stated | Consistent with read composition + existing bulk-read API. | Accept. |\n| P7 | Existing fixtures/flags/metrics exist and are reusable | Stated | Cannot verify in this repo (see system audit). | Accept as premise; **flag at gate** as an unverified dependency, not a challenge. |\n\nNo premise is clearly wrong. No User Challenge queued from 0A.\n\n#### 0B. Existing Code Leverage Map\n\n| SubLine truncated
},
"messageId": "msg_011CeuXYEmvrSEJx8miwvE4G",
"requestId": "req_011CeuXYCocRXsuD5UYiXLqh"
},
{
"sessionId": "9b7779e9-18f9-4f8d-84ac-9e8bf4458a8e",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T09:36:51.425Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01EMZc2Hum5xqWxGHi3dddtJ",
"kind": "result",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "9b7779e9-18f9-4f8d-84ac-9e8bf4458a8e",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T09:37:17.410Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01SePuStrHVH7BetMTo8VAig",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Write",
"input": {
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-uaCq3n/tmp/gstack-hermetic-2101964-HvDZyN/skill-home-zgCNxG/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-RnwL2i/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md",
"content": "---\nstatus: ACTIVE\n---\n# CEO Plan: User Dashboard Page\nGenerated by /plan-ceo-review (via /autoplan) on 2026-09-10\nBranch: main | Mode: SELECTIVE EXPANSION\nRepo: gstack-autoplan-chain-RnwL2i (no remote)\n\n## Vision\n\n### 10x Check\nA post-login home that tells the member what to do next instead of showing three things to scan. A ranked \"next up\" card sits above the panels, computed server-side from eligible actions and unread alerts, and updates live over a push channel. The member arrives, sees one thing, and does it. Effort: human ~3 weeks / CC ~1 day. Deferred: needs a ranking service and push infrastructure that do not exist. This plan lays the substrate (envelope, panel state machine, instrumentation) it would build on.\n\n## Scope Decisions\n\n| # | Proposal | Effort | Decision | Reasoning |\n|---|----------|--------|----------|-----------|\n| 1 | Pull real login-to-first-task baseline (median/p90) and find-vs-do split from existing analytics before locking 45s | S | ACCEPTED | Data already exists; walkthrough number is a stand-in |\n| 2 | Numeric rollback triggers defined before rollout | S | ACCEPTED | Rollout criteria were \"to be specified\" |\n| 3 | Relative timestamps with absolute on hover/focus in ActivityFeed | S | ACCEPTED | 1 file, under an hour, in blast radius |\n| 4 | Unread count badge and document.title mirror | S | ACCEPTED | 1 file, under an hour |\n| 5 | \"Back to previous landing page\" link during rollout | S | ACCEPTED | Per-member escape hatch and bounce-back signal |\n| 6 | Empty-state copy pointing at the primary action | S | ACCEPTED | Copy only |\n| 7 | Keyboard shortcuts for quick actions | S | DEFERRED | Shortcut conflict audit needed; not on the metric path |\n| 8 | Prefetch /api/dashboard during login redirect | S | DEFERRED | Touches login flow, outside blast radius |\n| 9 | Post-login redirect-to-resume experiment arm | M | DEFERRED (taste T1 at gate) | Skips alerts; separate flag arm; attribution matters |\n| 10 | Ranked \"next up\" card with live updates | XL | DEFERRED | New ranking + push infrastructure |\n| 11 | ETag / short TTL cache on the endpoint | S | DEFERRED | Wait for p95 at 100% rollout |\n| 12 | Token-only styling lint rule | S | DEFERRED | Review-checklist constraint now |\n\n## Accepted Scope (added to this plan)\n- Analytics baseline pull and find/do split before target lock\n- Numeric rollback triggers\n- Relative timestamps in ActivityFeed\n- Unread badge + title mirror\n- Back-to-previous-landing link during rollout\n- Action-pointing empty-state copy\n- Approach C: aggregate endpoint with per-panel `PanelResult` envelope and `serverTime`\n- Shared `PanelFrame` and shared `Toast` primitive\n- QuickActions as visual primary; fixed column order at sm/md/lg\n\n## Deferred to TODOS.md\n- Keyboard shortcuts for quick actions (audit conflicts first)\n- Prefetch dashboard payload during login redirect\n- Redirect-to-resume experiment arm under the same flag framework (taste decision T1)\n- Ranked \"next up\" card + real-time push\n- Endpoint caching once p95 data exists\n- Token-only styling lint enforcement\n\n## Taste decisions surfaced at the /autoplan gate\n- T1: keep dashboard as the sole arm vs. run a redirect-to-resume experiment arm concurrently\n- T2: aggregate endpoint with envelope (C) vs. client composition of existing endpoints (B)\n- T3: keep confirmation modal vs. direct action with undo (would need a new mutation API)\n- T4: shared toast primitive vs. inline status text\n"
},
"messageId": "msg_011CeuXtM6jr7UmCW4ACpkFj",
"requestId": "req_011CeuXtK3xqXgAGXD4r9pic"
},
{
"sessionId": "9b7779e9-18f9-4f8d-84ac-9e8bf4458a8e",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T09:37:19.272Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01SePuStrHVH7BetMTo8VAig",
"kind": "result",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "9b7779e9-18f9-4f8d-84ac-9e8bf4458a8e",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T09:39:40.070Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_015XKfdk4d1H8xZ8uVSKe1to",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Write",
"input": {
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-uaCq3n/tmp/gstack-hermetic-2101964-HvDZyN/skill-home-zgCNxG/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-RnwL2i/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md",
"content": "---\nstatus: ACTIVE\n---\n# CEO Plan: User Dashboard Page\nGenerated by /plan-ceo-review (via /autoplan) on 2026-09-10\nBranch: main | Mode: SELECTIVE EXPANSION (hold the plan's scope as baseline; cherry-pick expansions individually)\nRepo: gstack-autoplan-chain-RnwL2i (no remote)\nSource plan: `.claude/plans/ui-heavy-feature.md` (reviewed copy with full review record: `.claude/plans/starry-riding-otter.md`)\n\n**Primary metric:** median login-to-first-completed-task \u2264 45s (provisional until the baseline in #1 is pulled). Guardrails: completed-task rate and permission-error rate must not regress.\n\n**Glossary.** *Blast radius*: the files this plan creates or modifies plus their direct importers. *Find vs. do*: time from login to starting an action, versus time from starting to completing it. *CC*: Claude Code implementation time, as opposed to human-team time.\n\n**Assumptions.** The feature-flag framework, request/error metrics, and analytics events named in the source plan exist (this repository contains no source, so they are unverified). Item #1 (baseline pull) precedes item #2 (numeric rollback triggers), because the triggers are expressed against the baseline.\n\n## Vision\n\n### 10x Check\nA post-login home that tells the member what to do next instead of showing three things to scan. A ranked \"next up\" card sits above the panels, computed server-side from eligible actions and unread alerts, and updates live over a push channel. The member arrives, sees one thing, and does it. Effort: human ~3 weeks / CC ~1 day. Deferred: needs a ranking service and push infrastructure that do not exist. This plan lays the substrate it would build on: the per-panel result envelope, the per-panel state machine (loading \u2192 ok / empty / error \u2192 retry), and the instrumentation; all three are in Accepted Scope below.\n\n## Scope Decisions\n\n| # | Proposal | Effort | Decision | Reasoning | Revisit when |\n|---|----------|--------|----------|-----------|--------------|\n| 1 | Pull real login-to-first-task baseline (median/p90) and find-vs-do split from existing analytics before locking 45s | S | ACCEPTED | Data already exists; the 75s walkthrough number is a stand-in | \u2014 |\n| 2 | Numeric rollback triggers defined before rollout | S | ACCEPTED | Rollout criteria were \"to be specified\"; depends on #1 | \u2014 |\n| 3 | Relative timestamps with absolute on hover/focus in ActivityFeed | S | ACCEPTED | 1 file, under an hour, in blast radius | \u2014 |\n| 4 | Unread count badge and document.title mirror | S | ACCEPTED | 1 file, under an hour | \u2014 |\n| 5 | \"Back to previous landing page\" link during rollout | S | ACCEPTED | Per-member escape hatch and bounce-back signal | Remove at 100% rollout |\n| 6 | Empty-state copy pointing at the primary action | S | ACCEPTED | Copy only | \u2014 |\n| 7 | Keyboard shortcuts for quick actions | S | DEFERRED | Shortcut conflict audit needed; not on the metric path | Dashboard owner runs the conflict audit after 100% rollout |\n| 8 | Prefetch /api/dashboard during login redirect | S | DEFERRED | Touches login flow, outside blast radius | If client TTFB p95 > 800ms at 100% |\n| 9 | Post-login redirect-to-resume experiment arm | M | DEFERRED, provisional (taste T1) | Skips alerts the plan says members need; touches login flow; attribution needs its own arm | Final Approval Gate may flip to \"run concurrently\" |\n| 10 | Ranked \"next up\" card with live updates | XL | DEFERRED | New ranking + push infrastructure | After dashboard metric data at 100% |\n| 11 | ETag / short TTL cache on the endpoint | S | DEFERRED | Wait for p95 at 100% rollout | Dashboard owner checks endpoint p95 one week after 100% |\n| 12 | Token-only styling: PR review checklist item now, lint rule later | S | ACCEPTED (checklist) / DEFERRED (lint) | Keeps dark mode viable; lint needs design-system owner | Design-system owner adds lint rule |\n| 13 | Approach C: aggregate `GET /api/dashboard` with per-panel `PanelResult` envelope and `serverTime` | M | ACCEPTED, provisional (taste T2) | Only approach that gives per-panel error states in one round trip and a server clock for the read snapshot | Gate may choose B (client composes existing endpoints) |\n| 14 | Shared `PanelFrame` (state chrome) and shared `Toast` primitive | S | ACCEPTED, provisional (taste T4) | Three panels share one state switch; a11y policy requires a live region and no toast exists; shared placement is the same code in a reusable folder | Gate may choose inline status text over toast |\n| 15 | QuickActions as visual primary; fixed column order at sm/md/lg | S | ACCEPTED | Only panel that drives the metric; three equal cards is the generic pattern | \u2014 |\n| 16 | Keep confirmation modal for \"Mark all as read\" | S | ACCEPTED, provisional (taste T3) | No undo/restore API exists and the plan forbids new mutation APIs; confirm is the honest safety net | Gate may choose direct action + undo (needs a new mutatLine truncated
},
"messageId": "msg_011CeuY3xtntQ4z7XESaBmS7",
"requestId": "req_011CeuY3vfLs9WfLbPDaQsYb"
},
{
"sessionId": "9b7779e9-18f9-4f8d-84ac-9e8bf4458a8e",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T09:39:41.652Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_015XKfdk4d1H8xZ8uVSKe1to",
"kind": "result",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "9b7779e9-18f9-4f8d-84ac-9e8bf4458a8e",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T09:41:37.413Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01BbKwZ7JFFdm2FLFdcNQXPq",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Edit",
"input": {
"replace_all": false,
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-uaCq3n/tmp/gstack-hermetic-2101964-HvDZyN/skill-home-zgCNxG/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-RnwL2i/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md",
"old_string": "**Glossary.** *Blast radius*: the files this plan creates or modifies plus their direct importers. *Find vs. do*: time from login to starting an action, versus time from starting to completing it. *CC*: Claude Code implementation time, as opposed to human-team time.\n\n**Assumptions.** The feature-flag framework, request/error metrics, and analytics events named in the source plan exist (this repository contains no source, so they are unverified). Item #1 (baseline pull) precedes item #2 (numeric rollback triggers), because the triggers are expressed against the baseline.",
"new_string": "**Glossary.** *Blast radius*: the files this plan creates or modifies plus their direct importers. *Find vs. do*: time from login to starting an action, versus time from starting to completing it. *CC*: Claude Code implementation time, as opposed to human-team time. *Effort scale* (human team): S under 1 day, M 1 to 5 days, L 1 to 3 weeks, XL over 3 weeks. *Previous landing page*: the post-login destination in use before this plan (the existing default route members see today; name it in the flag config when implementing).\n\n**Acceptance principle.** In SELECTIVE EXPANSION, an expansion inside the blast radius that costs under an hour is accepted on cost alone, whether or not it moves the metric (#3, #4, #6). Items outside the blast radius, or that need an audit or new infrastructure, are deferred even when cheap (#7, #8).\n\n**Assumptions.** The feature-flag framework, request/error metrics, and analytics events named in the source plan exist (this repository contains no source, so they are unverified). Item #1 (baseline pull) precedes item #2 (numeric rollback triggers), because the triggers are expressed against the baseline. **Fallback if the analytics events do not exist:** instrument login, action start, and action completion first, collect at least 7 days of data before any cohort rollout, and keep the 75s walkthrough figure as the stand-in with the target widened to \"at least 30% faster than measured baseline\" until the pull succeeds.\n\n**Carried from the source plan (not additions):** the per-panel state machine (loading \u2192 ok / empty / error \u2192 retry) and the instrumentation set (metrics, alerts, structured logs) are already required by the source plan's accepted CEO obligations; this document ratifies them without a proposal row."
},
"messageId": "msg_011CeuYDnRH9L1Qoom8gBVdc",
"requestId": "req_011CeuYDk9cAd6Yozh8QnH62"
},
{
"sessionId": "9b7779e9-18f9-4f8d-84ac-9e8bf4458a8e",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T09:41:38.993Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01BbKwZ7JFFdm2FLFdcNQXPq",
"kind": "result",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "9b7779e9-18f9-4f8d-84ac-9e8bf4458a8e",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T09:41:40.421Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01W9d5F6LgadaG9o9maU8kaT",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Edit",
"input": {
"replace_all": false,
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-uaCq3n/tmp/gstack-hermetic-2101964-HvDZyN/skill-home-zgCNxG/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-RnwL2i/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md",
"old_string": "The member arrives, sees one thing, and does it. Effort: human ~3 weeks / CC ~1 day. Deferred: needs a ranking service and push infrastructure that do not exist.",
"new_string": "The member arrives, sees one thing, and does it. Effort: XL, infrastructure-bound rather than implementation-bound (ranking service and push channel must exist first; no CC figure given). Deferred: needs a ranking service and push infrastructure that do not exist."
},
"messageId": "msg_011CeuYDnRH9L1Qoom8gBVdc",
"requestId": "req_011CeuYDk9cAd6Yozh8QnH62"
},
{
"sessionId": "9b7779e9-18f9-4f8d-84ac-9e8bf4458a8e",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T09:41:43.424Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01YXZEmM6gthBvGshzGE4zYb",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Edit",
"input": {
"replace_all": false,
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-uaCq3n/tmp/gstack-hermetic-2101964-HvDZyN/skill-home-zgCNxG/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-RnwL2i/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md",
"old_string": "| 1 | Pull real login-to-first-task baseline (median/p90) and find-vs-do split from existing analytics before locking 45s | S | ACCEPTED | Data already exists; the 75s walkthrough number is a stand-in | \u2014 |",
"new_string": "| 1 | Pull real login-to-first-task baseline (median/p90) and find-vs-do split from existing analytics before locking 45s | S | ACCEPTED | Data already exists; the 75s walkthrough number is a stand-in | Dashboard owner re-locks the target in this document after the pull |"
},
"messageId": "msg_011CeuYDnRH9L1Qoom8gBVdc",
"requestId": "req_011CeuYDk9cAd6Yozh8QnH62"
},
{
"sessionId": "9b7779e9-18f9-4f8d-84ac-9e8bf4458a8e",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T09:41:47.171Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01SYiANcdq3hLqGxEhDQVNJf",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Edit",
"input": {
"replace_all": false,
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-uaCq3n/tmp/gstack-hermetic-2101964-HvDZyN/skill-home-zgCNxG/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-RnwL2i/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md",
"old_string": "| 3 | Relative timestamps with absolute on hover/focus in ActivityFeed | S | ACCEPTED | 1 file, under an hour, in blast radius | \u2014 |\n| 4 | Unread count badge and document.title mirror | S | ACCEPTED | 1 file, under an hour | \u2014 |",
"new_string": "| 3 | Relative timestamps with absolute on hover/focus in ActivityFeed | S | ACCEPTED | 1 file, under an hour, in blast radius (cost-alone acceptance) | \u2014 |\n| 4 | Unread count badge and document.title mirror | S | ACCEPTED | 1 file, under an hour, in blast radius; also shortens the \"find\" half of find-vs-do | \u2014 |"
},
"messageId": "msg_011CeuYDnRH9L1Qoom8gBVdc",
"requestId": "req_011CeuYDk9cAd6Yozh8QnH62"
},
{
"sessionId": "9b7779e9-18f9-4f8d-84ac-9e8bf4458a8e",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T09:41:57.679Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01LgaibBToDfuxGNFBKew9PS",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Edit",
"input": {
"replace_all": false,
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-uaCq3n/tmp/gstack-hermetic-2101964-HvDZyN/skill-home-zgCNxG/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-RnwL2i/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md",
"old_string": "| 12 | Token-only styling: PR review checklist item now, lint rule later | S | ACCEPTED (checklist) / DEFERRED (lint) | Keeps dark mode viable; lint needs design-system owner | Design-system owner adds lint rule |\n| 13 | Approach C: aggregate `GET /api/dashboard` with per-panel `PanelResult` envelope and `serverTime` | M | ACCEPTED, provisional (taste T2) | Only approach that gives per-panel error states in one round trip and a server clock for the read snapshot | Gate may choose B (client composes existing endpoints) |\n| 14 | Shared `PanelFrame` (state chrome) and shared `Toast` primitive | S | ACCEPTED, provisional (taste T4) | Three panels share one state switch; a11y policy requires a live region and no toast exists; shared placement is the same code in a reusable folder | Gate may choose inline status text over toast |\n| 15 | QuickActions as visual primary; fixed column order at sm/md/lg | S | ACCEPTED | Only panel that drives the metric; three equal cards is the generic pattern | \u2014 |",
"new_string": "| 12 | Token-only styling: PR review checklist item now, lint rule later | S | ACCEPTED (checklist) / DEFERRED (lint) | Keeps dark mode viable; lint needs design-system owner | Design-system owner adds the lint rule before the dark-mode plan starts, or when a second token-only consumer appears, whichever is first |\n| 13 | Approach C: aggregate `GET /api/dashboard` with per-panel `PanelResult` envelope and `serverTime` | M | ACCEPTED, provisional (taste T2) | Only approach that gives per-panel error states in one round trip and a server clock for the read snapshot. Cost: the endpoint owns per-panel timeout budgets and a partial-success contract (HTTP 200 with per-panel error codes), which is the main reason B could win at the Gate | Gate may choose B (client composes existing endpoints) |\n| 14 | Shared `PanelFrame` (state chrome) and shared `Toast` primitive | S | ACCEPTED, provisional (taste T4) | The three panels would otherwise duplicate identical loading/empty/error chrome; extracting it is the same code in one place. A11y policy requires a live region for nonblocking feedback and no toast exists | Gate may choose inline status text over toast |\n| 15 | QuickActions as visual primary; fixed panel order | S | ACCEPTED | Only panel that drives the metric; three equal cards is the generic pattern. Order: QuickActions, NotificationsPanel, ActivityFeed, left to right at lg; at md QuickActions spans the top row above Notifications and Activity; at sm the same order stacked | \u2014 |"
},
"messageId": "msg_011CeuYDnRH9L1Qoom8gBVdc",
"requestId": "req_011CeuYDk9cAd6Yozh8QnH62"
},
{
"sessionId": "9b7779e9-18f9-4f8d-84ac-9e8bf4458a8e",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T09:42:00.503Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01VqJFXfD5cfdjiar1gAjpkV",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Edit",
"input": {
"replace_all": false,
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-uaCq3n/tmp/gstack-hermetic-2101964-HvDZyN/skill-home-zgCNxG/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-RnwL2i/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md",
"old_string": "- Confirmation modal on the existing dialog primitive (#16)\n- Per-panel state machine and instrumentation (metrics, alerts, structured logs) as specified in the source plan's accepted CEO obligations",
"new_string": "- Confirmation modal on the existing dialog primitive (#16)"
},
"messageId": "msg_011CeuYDnRH9L1Qoom8gBVdc",
"requestId": "req_011CeuYDk9cAd6Yozh8QnH62"
},
{
"sessionId": "9b7779e9-18f9-4f8d-84ac-9e8bf4458a8e",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T09:42:01.075Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01W9d5F6LgadaG9o9maU8kaT",
"kind": "result",
"isError": false
}
]
}
test/fixtures/autoplan-final-gate-ao.json
Vendored
-322
View File
@@ -1,322 +0,0 @@
{
"source": {
"proof": ".context/ship-source-ao-delta-paid-20260910-v1/ap-final-gate-boundary-plan-v1/proof.json",
"proofSHA256": "84ba8ef415caa29f72cfe48e72e9ee71346aff7ba51d605bdc3a1e3622975efa",
"publicSHA256": "49df000a7ac8251c7b56438baec010308f403388a2d3082759e525f3f93f3091",
"screenSHA256": "b22329efffdf54e9648a62d7e45595c6124498abca3ddae8fe9eef772c78982a"
},
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-6rS7wY/tmp/gstack-autoplan-chain-yq1CGO",
"commandStartedAt": 1789040142580,
"lowerBoundNote": "Owned parent launch lower bound from retained proof; exact slash-command time unavailable.",
"observedAt": 1789043120577,
"screen": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-6rS7wY/tmp/gstack-hermetic-2826645-EaQl2D/with-skills/.claude/plans/velvety-kindling-pretzel.md\n\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\n \u2610 Approval\n\n\u2502 D2 \u2014 Final Approval Gate: approve the reviewed plan?\n\u2502 Project/branch/task: gstack-autoplan-chain-yq1CGO on main, /autoplan review of the User Dashboard plan.\n\u2502 ELI10: Four review passes (strategy, design, developer experience, engineering) ran with auto-decisions and turned\n\u2502 your one-page plan into a full spec with 69 logged decisions and 41 tasks. Your scope was kept intact. Six calls were\n\u2502 close enough that reasonable people could pick differently (listed above as T1-T6), and one reviewer wants to drop the\n\u2502 confirmation modal (C1). Approving locks the recommendations; overriding changes specific calls; revising re-runs the\n\u2502 affected phases.\n\u2502 Stakes if we pick wrong: approving with a call you disagree with means implementing something you will later rip out;\n\u2502 revising costs another review cycle (max 3).\n\u2502 Recommendation: A because every taste call defaults to your stated direction or the more complete option, and C1 keeps\n\u2502 your modal unless you say otherwise.\n\u2502 Note: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\n\u2502 Net: approve now and adjust T1-T6 or C1 in code review, or spend one more cycle changing them in the plan first.\n\n\u276f 1. Approve as-is (recommended)\n \u2705 All six taste calls and C1 stay on your stated direction or the complete option; plan is ready for E0 and\n /ship.\ufffd\u2705 Writes review logs so the /ship dashboard shows CEO, design, DX and eng as reviewed via /autoplan.\ufffd\u274c Any\n disagreement with T1-T6 or C1 has to be raised later, in the consolidated spec or in code review.\n 2. Approve with overrides or challenge responses\n \u2705 Pick which of T1-T6 to flip, or accept C1 (drop the modal); I amend the plan and re-run Eng on the amended\n plan.\ufffd\u2705 Keeps everything else approved; counts as one of the three revision cycles.\ufffd\u274c Flipping T1 (three panel\n calls) or T2 (defer ActivityFeed) reshapes several accepted blocks and takes a full Eng re-run.\n 3. Interrogate a decision first\n \u2705 Ask about any of the 69 decisions, a finding, or a subagent's reasoning before deciding; I answer and re-present\n this gate.\ufffd\u2705 No plan changes until you choose; nothing is lost.\ufffd\u274c Delays approval by one round trip.\n 4. Revise the plan or reject\n \u2705 Revise: name what changes (scope -> CEO rerun, UI -> design, DX, tests or architecture -> eng); Eng always\n re-runs last. Reject: start over from the restore point.\ufffd\u2705 The restore point holds the original plan bytes, so\n rejection is safe.\ufffd\u274c A revise cycle re-dispatches the affected reviewers and takes roughly as long as the phase\n did the first time.\n 5. Type something.\n\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\n 6. Chat about this\n\nEnter to select \u00b7 \u2191/\u2193 to navigate \u00b7 Esc to cancel\n",
"call": {
"sessionId": "4ef369ef-d229-4f75-869d-1182aa56cff5",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01WyqMZCRbD4LvJX2AdyF2qq",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D2 \u2014 Final Approval Gate: approve the reviewed plan?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-autoplan-chain-yq1CGO on main, /autoplan review of the User Dashboard plan.\nELI10: Four review passes (strategy, design, developer experience, engineering) ran with auto-decisions and turned your one-page plan into a full spec with 69 logged decisions and 41 tasks. Your scope was kept intact. Six calls were close enough that reasonable people could pick differently (listed above as T1-T6), and one reviewer wants to drop the confirmation modal (C1). Approving locks the recommendations; overriding changes specific calls; revising re-runs the affected phases.\nStakes if we pick wrong: approving with a call you disagree with means implementing something you will later rip out; revising costs another review cycle (max 3).\nRecommendation: A because every taste call defaults to your stated direction or the more complete option, and C1 keeps your modal unless you say otherwise.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: approve now and adjust T1-T6 or C1 in code review, or spend one more cycle changing them in the plan first.",
"header": "Approval",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Approve as-is (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 All six taste calls and C1 stay on your stated direction or the complete option; plan is ready for E0 and /ship.\n\u2705 Writes review logs so the /ship dashboard shows CEO, design, DX and eng as reviewed via /autoplan.\n\u274c Any disagreement with T1-T6 or C1 has to be raised later, in the consolidated spec or in code review."
},
{
"label": "Approve with overrides or challenge responses",
"description": "\u2705 Pick which of T1-T6 to flip, or accept C1 (drop the modal); I amend the plan and re-run Eng on the amended plan.\n\u2705 Keeps everything else approved; counts as one of the three revision cycles.\n\u274c Flipping T1 (three panel calls) or T2 (defer ActivityFeed) reshapes several accepted blocks and takes a full Eng re-run."
},
{
"label": "Interrogate a decision first",
"description": "\u2705 Ask about any of the 69 decisions, a finding, or a subagent's reasoning before deciding; I answer and re-present this gate.\n\u2705 No plan changes until you choose; nothing is lost.\n\u274c Delays approval by one round trip."
},
{
"label": "Revise the plan or reject",
"description": "\u2705 Revise: name what changes (scope -> CEO rerun, UI -> design, DX, tests or architecture -> eng); Eng always re-runs last. Reject: start over from the restore point.\n\u2705 The restore point holds the original plan bytes, so rejection is safe.\n\u274c A revise cycle re-dispatches the affected reviewers and takes roughly as long as the phase did the first time."
}
]
}
],
"answered": false,
"failed": false
},
"gateUse": {
"sessionId": "4ef369ef-d229-4f75-869d-1182aa56cff5",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T12:22:06.810Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01WyqMZCRbD4LvJX2AdyF2qq",
"kind": "use",
"name": "AskUserQuestion",
"input": {
"questions": [
{
"question": "D2 \u2014 Final Approval Gate: approve the reviewed plan?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-autoplan-chain-yq1CGO on main, /autoplan review of the User Dashboard plan.\nELI10: Four review passes (strategy, design, developer experience, engineering) ran with auto-decisions and turned your one-page plan into a full spec with 69 logged decisions and 41 tasks. Your scope was kept intact. Six calls were close enough that reasonable people could pick differently (listed above as T1-T6), and one reviewer wants to drop the confirmation modal (C1). Approving locks the recommendations; overriding changes specific calls; revising re-runs the affected phases.\nStakes if we pick wrong: approving with a call you disagree with means implementing something you will later rip out; revising costs another review cycle (max 3).\nRecommendation: A because every taste call defaults to your stated direction or the more complete option, and C1 keeps your modal unless you say otherwise.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: approve now and adjust T1-T6 or C1 in code review, or spend one more cycle changing them in the plan first.",
"header": "Approval",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Approve as-is (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 All six taste calls and C1 stay on your stated direction or the complete option; plan is ready for E0 and /ship.\n\u2705 Writes review logs so the /ship dashboard shows CEO, design, DX and eng as reviewed via /autoplan.\n\u274c Any disagreement with T1-T6 or C1 has to be raised later, in the consolidated spec or in code review."
},
{
"label": "Approve with overrides or challenge responses",
"description": "\u2705 Pick which of T1-T6 to flip, or accept C1 (drop the modal); I amend the plan and re-run Eng on the amended plan.\n\u2705 Keeps everything else approved; counts as one of the three revision cycles.\n\u274c Flipping T1 (three panel calls) or T2 (defer ActivityFeed) reshapes several accepted blocks and takes a full Eng re-run."
},
{
"label": "Interrogate a decision first",
"description": "\u2705 Ask about any of the 69 decisions, a finding, or a subagent's reasoning before deciding; I answer and re-present this gate.\n\u2705 No plan changes until you choose; nothing is lost.\n\u274c Delays approval by one round trip."
},
{
"label": "Revise the plan or reject",
"description": "\u2705 Revise: name what changes (scope -> CEO rerun, UI -> design, DX, tests or architecture -> eng); Eng always re-runs last. Reject: start over from the restore point.\n\u2705 The restore point holds the original plan bytes, so rejection is safe.\n\u274c A revise cycle re-dispatches the affected reviewers and takes roughly as long as the phase did the first time."
}
]
}
]
},
"messageId": "msg_011CeukPbjmuqmh8XYNSdXeU",
"requestId": "req_011CeukPaZpPTJpJLbrjgz73"
},
"transcript": {
"status": "ready",
"calls": [
{
"sessionId": "4ef369ef-d229-4f75-869d-1182aa56cff5",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Ud1CJ8i13mtFvQyy7aLWZs",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 \u2014 Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: fixture repo on main, running /autoplan.\nELI10: gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules. These rules tell Claude which skill to invoke when you ask for things like bug hunting, shipping, or plan review, so you don't have to remember slash-command names. Without them, skills only run when you type them by hand.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Skipping means more manual invocation; adding means one extra committed section in CLAUDE.md.\nRecommendation: A because routing makes the rest of gstack discoverable with zero ongoing cost.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: convenience now vs. keeping CLAUDE.md untouched. This only happens once per project.",
"header": "Routing",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Natural-language requests auto-route to the right gstack skill.\n\u2705 Teammates using the repo get the same routing behavior.\n\u274c Adds a committed section to CLAUDE.md (created if missing)."
},
{
"label": "No thanks, I'll invoke skills manually",
"description": "\u2705 CLAUDE.md stays exactly as it is, no new commit.\n\u2705 You keep full control over when skills run.\n\u274c Skills only fire when you type the slash command yourself."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 \u2014 Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: fixture repo on main, running /autoplan.\nELI10: gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules. These rules tell Claude which skill to invoke when you ask for things like bug hunting, shipping, or plan review, so you don't have to remember slash-command names. Without them, skills only run when you type them by hand.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Skipping means more manual invocation; adding means one extra committed section in CLAUDE.md.\nRecommendation: A because routing makes the rest of gstack discoverable with zero ongoing cost.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: convenience now vs. keeping CLAUDE.md untouched. This only happens once per project.": "Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T11:36:36.415Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "4ef369ef-d229-4f75-869d-1182aa56cff5",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01WyqMZCRbD4LvJX2AdyF2qq",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D2 \u2014 Final Approval Gate: approve the reviewed plan?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-autoplan-chain-yq1CGO on main, /autoplan review of the User Dashboard plan.\nELI10: Four review passes (strategy, design, developer experience, engineering) ran with auto-decisions and turned your one-page plan into a full spec with 69 logged decisions and 41 tasks. Your scope was kept intact. Six calls were close enough that reasonable people could pick differently (listed above as T1-T6), and one reviewer wants to drop the confirmation modal (C1). Approving locks the recommendations; overriding changes specific calls; revising re-runs the affected phases.\nStakes if we pick wrong: approving with a call you disagree with means implementing something you will later rip out; revising costs another review cycle (max 3).\nRecommendation: A because every taste call defaults to your stated direction or the more complete option, and C1 keeps your modal unless you say otherwise.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: approve now and adjust T1-T6 or C1 in code review, or spend one more cycle changing them in the plan first.",
"header": "Approval",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Approve as-is (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 All six taste calls and C1 stay on your stated direction or the complete option; plan is ready for E0 and /ship.\n\u2705 Writes review logs so the /ship dashboard shows CEO, design, DX and eng as reviewed via /autoplan.\n\u274c Any disagreement with T1-T6 or C1 has to be raised later, in the consolidated spec or in code review."
},
{
"label": "Approve with overrides or challenge responses",
"description": "\u2705 Pick which of T1-T6 to flip, or accept C1 (drop the modal); I amend the plan and re-run Eng on the amended plan.\n\u2705 Keeps everything else approved; counts as one of the three revision cycles.\n\u274c Flipping T1 (three panel calls) or T2 (defer ActivityFeed) reshapes several accepted blocks and takes a full Eng re-run."
},
{
"label": "Interrogate a decision first",
"description": "\u2705 Ask about any of the 69 decisions, a finding, or a subagent's reasoning before deciding; I answer and re-present this gate.\n\u2705 No plan changes until you choose; nothing is lost.\n\u274c Delays approval by one round trip."
},
{
"label": "Revise the plan or reject",
"description": "\u2705 Revise: name what changes (scope -> CEO rerun, UI -> design, DX, tests or architecture -> eng); Eng always re-runs last. Reject: start over from the restore point.\n\u2705 The restore point holds the original plan bytes, so rejection is safe.\n\u274c A revise cycle re-dispatches the affected reviewers and takes roughly as long as the phase did the first time."
}
]
}
],
"answered": false,
"failed": false
}
],
"assistantMessages": [
{
"sessionId": "4ef369ef-d229-4f75-869d-1182aa56cff5",
"text": "I'll start the /autoplan pipeline. First, the preamble to get session status.",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T11:35:57.737Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "4ef369ef-d229-4f75-869d-1182aa56cff5",
"text": "The preamble fired a one-time routing-injection instruction. I'll ask that question and pull repo context in parallel.",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T11:36:19.372Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "4ef369ef-d229-4f75-869d-1182aa56cff5",
"text": "I've completed phase 0 intake: using `ui-heavy-feature.md` as the source plan, `main` as the base branch (no remote), and only the Claude adversarial subagent as the outside voice since Codex reviews are disabled. Now setting up the restore point and snapshot.\n\n",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T11:37:28.689Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "4ef369ef-d229-4f75-869d-1182aa56cff5",
"text": "Phase 0 confirms UI and DX are in scope, no design doc exists, and Codex is disabled per config. Moving into Phase 1 (CEO), starting with binding the methodology.",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T11:37:54.148Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "4ef369ef-d229-4f75-869d-1182aa56cff5",
"text": "Now I read the CEO methodology in all four required ranges.",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T11:38:03.152Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "4ef369ef-d229-4f75-869d-1182aa56cff5",
"text": "All four CEO methodology ranges read through EOF (lines 1-2260). Now binding the CEO phase input snapshot and running the pre-review system audit.",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T11:38:20.183Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "4ef369ef-d229-4f75-869d-1182aa56cff5",
"text": "The repo only has README.md and the plan file, so I can't verify the plan's referenced contracts against actual code \u2014 I'll treat them as stated dependencies and flag that at the gate. Now dispatching the independent Claude CEO subagent with the snapshot tool's prompt.\n\n",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T11:38:45.898Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "4ef369ef-d229-4f75-869d-1182aa56cff5",
"text": "Waiting for the independent CEO reviewer to finish. Per the phase's completion barrier, no further review work until its result lands.",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T11:38:56.493Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "4ef369ef-d229-4f75-869d-1182aa56cff5",
"text": "The CEO subagent completed with a matching input hash and 13 findings (3 high, 10 medium, 0 critical). Codex is disabled, so the outside cell is N/A. Now I run the full primary CEO review and write every required output into the plan file's Review record.",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T11:41:17.126Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "4ef369ef-d229-4f75-869d-1182aa56cff5",
"text": "Next I need the CEO `amend` check on the plan file and the adversarial spec review of the CEO plan archive. They are independent, so both go now.",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T11:46:45.187Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "4ef369ef-d229-4f75-869d-1182aa56cff5",
"text": "The amend check passed and reorganized the plan so the accepted block now sits in the Implementation plan for later phases to see. I'll read the file back in full as required while the spec reviewer runs.\n\n",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T11:47:04.940Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "4ef369ef-d229-4f75-869d-1182aa56cff5",
"text": "Plan file readback confirms structure: the accepted CEO block now sits in the Implementation plan for downstream reviewers, and the full Review record with all 21 audit rows is intact. The only open item before closing Phase 1 is the adversarial spec review of the CEO plan archive, which is still running. Waiting for it.",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T11:47:23.788Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "4ef369ef-d229-4f75-869d-1182aa56cff5",
"text": "The spec reviewer scored the CEO archive 4/10 with 23 issues. About half come from the archive lacking the base plan context (by design it is a decision log), but several are real: no per-source timeout on the aggregate, persistent error toasts can starve the queue, one live region for mixed severities, `returnTo` validation rule unstated, quick actions not enumerated, provider mounted app-wide. I'll fix the archive, record the refinements in the plan's Review record for the design and eng phases to absorb, and re-dispatch the reviewer (iteration 2 of 3).",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T11:48:40.613Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "4ef369ef-d229-4f75-869d-1182aa56cff5",
"text": "CEO plan archive rewritten with a baseline scope section and concrete definitions. Refinements R1 through R8 recorded in the plan for the design and eng phases to absorb. Spec review iteration 2 is running; nothing else in Phase 1 can proceed until it returns.",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T11:50:00.087Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "4ef369ef-d229-4f75-869d-1182aa56cff5",
"text": "Iteration 2 scored 7/10 with 14 issues, most of them precise definitional gaps (closed error-code set, the N in the toast copy, zero-unread detection with more pages, alert windows, the join key for the metric, timeout not cancelling queries). I'll fix all of them, simplify the toast stack to one visible toast per region, and run iteration 3 (the last permitted).",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T11:51:39.833Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "4ef369ef-d229-4f75-869d-1182aa56cff5",
"text": "Iteration 3 (the final permitted round) is running against the updated archive. Whatever it returns closes the loop: remaining issues get recorded as Reviewer Concerns, then Phase 1 closes and Phase 2 (design) begins.",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T11:52:41.335Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "4ef369ef-d229-4f75-869d-1182aa56cff5",
"text": "Iteration 3 scored 7/10 again with 18 new, finer-grained issues. That is the cap, so the loop stops. I'll decide each item with the principles, persist them as Reviewer Concerns in the archive and as refinements in the plan, log the spec-review metrics, and close Phase 1.",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T11:54:47.613Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "4ef369ef-d229-4f75-869d-1182aa56cff5",
"text": "Phase 1 finished: Codex disabled, Claude subagent found 13 issues (none critical), with 3 single-voice disagreements queued for the gate. Moving into Phase 2, a design review since UI scope was detected, and loading its methodology now.\n\n",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T11:55:32.012Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "4ef369ef-d229-4f75-869d-1182aa56cff5",
"text": "Waiting for the independent design reviewer. Per the completion barrier, no further design review work runs until its result arrives.",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T11:56:13.689Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "4ef369ef-d229-4f75-869d-1182aa56cff5",
"text": "The design subagent completed with a matching input hash: 14 findings (3 critical: panel order, read/unread model, toast count source), plus 12 ranked ambiguities. Codex is disabled, so the outside column is N/A. Now the full primary design review: Step 0 rating, litmus scorecard, all 7 passes, and the amendments written into the plan.",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T11:59:30.380Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "4ef369ef-d229-4f75-869d-1182aa56cff5",
"text": "The probe confirms no OpenAI API key is available, so mockups can't be generated this run \u2014 I'll note that and move on to the text review, now writing the Phase 2 outputs.\n\n",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T12:00:46.401Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "4ef369ef-d229-4f75-869d-1182aa56cff5",
"text": "Next I'll design the audit-trail rows edit, followed by the amend check\u2014running the edit first since amend depends on it landing beforehand.\n\n",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T12:03:13.177Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "4ef369ef-d229-4f75-869d-1182aa56cff5",
"text": "Phase 2 is done: Codex disabled, the Claude subagent found 14 issues, and taste item T6 is queued. Next I'll pull the readback of the moved block, the DX phase section, and the DX methodology binding, which can all be done independently.\n\n",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T12:03:43.147Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "4ef369ef-d229-4f75-869d-1182aa56cff5",
"text": "Confirmed the design block is now correctly placed after the CEO block. Moving into Phase 2.5 (DX): I'll read the DX methodology across all four ranges and create the DX snapshot, which can be done independently.\n\n",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T12:04:00.674Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "4ef369ef-d229-4f75-869d-1182aa56cff5",
"text": "DX methodology read through EOF (2115 lines), snapshot created. Dispatching the independent DX subagent with the tool's prompt verbatim, as the only call this turn.",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T12:04:19.052Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "4ef369ef-d229-4f75-869d-1182aa56cff5",
"text": "Waiting for the independent DX reviewer. Per the completion barrier, no further DX review work runs until its result arrives.",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T12:04:34.291Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "4ef369ef-d229-4f75-869d-1182aa56cff5",
"text": "The DX subagent completed with a matching hash: 21 findings, one critical (the response `data` shape is stated two ways: bare array vs `{items, hasMore}`), six high. It framed the developer as the implementing and maintaining engineer, which is the right lens for an internal feature. Now the full primary DX review and its outputs.",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T12:07:49.173Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "4ef369ef-d229-4f75-869d-1182aa56cff5",
"text": "Phase 2.5 is complete\u2014DX amend passed, all pre-Phase 3 checks are in place\u2014so I'm moving on to Phase 3 (Eng), the required gate.\n\n",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T12:11:24.933Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "4ef369ef-d229-4f75-869d-1182aa56cff5",
"text": "Readback confirms the DX block landed. Reading the eng methodology in all three ranges and creating the eng snapshot in parallel.",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T12:11:37.488Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "4ef369ef-d229-4f75-869d-1182aa56cff5",
"text": "Waiting for the independent eng reviewer. Per the completion barrier, no eng review work runs until its result lands.",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T12:12:10.633Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "4ef369ef-d229-4f75-869d-1182aa56cff5",
"text": "The eng subagent completed with a matching hash: 30 findings across architecture, edge cases, tests, security and hidden complexity, with five flagged as resolve-before-implementation (mandatory query cancellation, flag-off API behavior, authorization tests, no-store cache header, two spec conflicts). Now the full primary eng review, the test plan artifact, and the eng accepted block.",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T12:16:00.959Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "4ef369ef-d229-4f75-869d-1182aa56cff5",
"text": "Eng audit-trail rows, the eng `amend` check, and the Phase 4 aggregator section are the remaining items; the read is independent of the two writes.",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T12:19:54.219Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "4ef369ef-d229-4f75-869d-1182aa56cff5",
"text": "Pre-gate verification passes: every required output is present in the plan (premise challenge, error and rescue registry, failure modes registries, NOT-in-scope and what-exists sections for all four phases, dream state delta, consensus tables, litmus scorecard, DX scorecard and checklist, journey map, empathy narrative, TTHW, architecture diagram, test diagram, test plan artifact, cross-phase themes) and the audit trail holds 69 decision rows. Aggregation produced 41 tasks across four phases. Presenting the Final Approval Gate.\n\n## /autoplan Review Complete\n\n### Plan Summary\nA new post-login `/dashboard` with three panels (quick actions, notifications, activity), one aggregate endpoint with a per-key result envelope, a confirmation dialog for mark-all-as-read, and a toast system. The review kept the user's scope intact and made it a normative spec: partial-failure contract, cancellation, panel states and copy, instrumentation, rollout with kill criterion, shared types/config/copy/fixtures, and 47 planned test paths with zero critical failure-mode gaps.\n\n### Decisions Made: 69 total (62 auto-decided, 6 taste choices, 1 user challenge)\n\n### User Challenges\n\n**Challenge C1: confirmation modal for \"Mark all as read\"** (from CEO phase; single voice, Codex disabled)\nYou said: a modal dialog confirms \"Mark all as read\".\nThe Claude subagent recommends: drop the modal; use a single button with inline state.\nWhy: the action is idempotent and snapshot-bounded, so a confirmation reads as friction on a low-stakes action.\nWhat we might be missing: there is no \"mark unread\" API, so the action is not reversible for the member, and the team may have chosen the modal from support history.\nIf we're wrong, the cost is: members lose a safety step before an irreversible bulk change, and a one-line UI change later.\nYour call. Your original direction stands unless you change it. The modal's copy, in-flight behavior and focus rules are fully specified either way.\n\n### Your Choices (taste decisions)\n\n**T1: aggregate endpoint vs three parallel panel calls** (CEO). I recommend the aggregate endpoint with a per-key envelope (completeness 9/10, one round trip, one latency budget). Three panel calls (7/10) would need a new eligibility endpoint anyway and triple the instrumentation points.\n**T2: keep ActivityFeed in v1** (CEO). I recommend keeping it, per your direction; the content rule and kill criterion make it removable with data. Deferring it would shrink v1 to two panels and a smaller first release.\n**T3: toast system vs inline feedback** (CEO). I recommend the toast system, because policy requires a live region and nothing exists today. Inline-only feedback avoids a new provider but leaves the live-region requirement unmet.\n**T4: keyboard shortcuts for quick actions deferred** (CEO). I recommend deferring to TODOS; the accessibility announcement design is not settled. Including them adds two or three files and conflict risk.\n**T5: `returnTo` deep-link preservation touches login code** (CEO spec review). I recommend keeping it; it is the one accepted item outside the dashboard blast radius and it fixes a real deep-link regression. Dropping it means every signed-out deep link lands on the dashboard instead of the intended page.\n**T6: \"Resume assigned work\" as the primary button** (Design). I recommend making it primary; it is the task-start action the metric depends on and this is static hierarchy, not personalization. Equal-weight buttons keep the panel neutral but slow the first scan.\n\n### Auto-Decided: 62 decisions (see Decision Audit Trail in the plan file)\n\n### Review Scores\n- CEO: SELECTIVE EXPANSION; approach A; 15 expansions proposed, 9 accepted, 4 deferred, 2 skipped; 0 critical gaps. Spec-review loop 3 iterations, score 4 to 7/10, remaining items resolved by decision.\n- CEO Voices: Codex disabled; Claude subagent 13 issues (0 critical); Consensus N/A (outside disabled).\n- Design: 4/10 to 8/10; Pass 5 stays at 7 because no DESIGN.md exists; 14 decisions added.\n- Design Voices: Codex disabled; Claude subagent 14 issues (3 critical); Consensus N/A.\n- DX: 4.5/10 to 8/10; TTHW from over 10 minutes to about 3 minutes via a fixtures module and a dev-only state switch.\n- DX Voices: Codex disabled; Claude subagent 21 issues (1 critical); Consensus N/A.\n- Eng: 17 issues across architecture, quality and performance plus 8 test findings, all folded in; 47 planned test paths; 0 critical failure-mode gaps; 5 parallel lanes.\n- Eng Voices: Codex disabled; Claude subagent 30 issues (4 high); Consensus N/A.\n\nOutside coverage is disabled for all four phases by config (`codex_reviews=disabled`). All outside voices were same-harness Claude subagents with fresh context.\n\n### Cross-Phase Themes\n- **Partial failure must never blank the page**: flagged independently in all four phases. Resolved by the envelope, 1 s deadline with cancellation, stale state and two-tier parsing.\n- *Line truncated
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T12:21:51.719Z"
}
]
},
"hits": [
{
"phase": 1,
"ts": 1789041332012
},
{
"phase": 2,
"ts": 1789041823147
}
],
"observedAtSource": "Retained boundary capture.at"
}
test/fixtures/autoplan-overwrite-progress-ax.json
Vendored
-61
View File
@@ -1,61 +0,0 @@
{
"qualification": "Exact public 92-line and 106-line permission screens plus content-free successful Write identity pairs. Payloads removed; only fields used for progress correlation retained. Original AX cancellation remains a failure.",
"before": " +. \n 78 +- Server snapshot-time validation; client same-origin route validation; text-only rendering of notification/activ\n +ity content. \n 79 +- Observability (handler logs, metrics, Server-Timing, client events, alerts, day-1 dashboard, runbook), staged f\n +lag rollout with flag-off rollback, experiment design with production baseline (sized as one P1 task, human ~4 h \n +/ CC ~30 min). \n 80 \n 81 ## Deferred to TODOS.md\n 82 - Next-item hero card \u2014 needs assigned-items query; revisit after the experiment reads out.\n ...\n 85 - Cache action eligibility per member \u2014 only if Server-Timing shows predicates > 100 ms p95.\n 86 - Remove old landing redirect and flag branch \u2014 after the experiment decides 100%.\n 87 \n 48 -## Open at the Final Gate (not decided here) \n 49 -- Challenged premise: should a redirect-to-single-next-item ship as v0 before or instead of the dashboard? (Nativ\n -e subagent argues yes; primary review keeps the user's direction because the plan names three member jobs.) \n 50 -- Approach A (client-parallel to existing endpoints) vs Approach C (aggregate envelope). Recommended C. \n 51 -- Keep the confirmation modal for mark-all-read (recommended, one-way action) vs direct action. \n 52 -- QuickActions-first hierarchy (recommended) vs equal panels. \n 88 +## Open at the Final Gate (provisional decisions, not settled here) \n 89 +1. **Challenged premise:** ship a redirect-to-single-next-item as v0 before or instead of the dashboard? The nati\n +ve subagent argues yes. The primary review keeps the user's direction because the plan names three member jobs, a\n +nd because the redirect needs the same assigned-items data source that deferred proposal 9 lacks, so it is not ch\n +eaper than it looks for this release. The user decides. \n 90 +2. Approach A (client-parallel to existing endpoints, 7/10) vs Approach C (aggregate envelope, 10/10). Recommende\n +d C; accepted scope above assumes C. \n 91 +3. Keep the confirmation modal for mark-all-read (recommended: one-way action, no unread-restore API) vs direct a\n +ction with live-region confirmation. \n 92 +4. QuickActions-first hierarchy (recommended) vs equal panels. \n\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\n Do you want to overwrite 2026-09-11-user-dashboard.md?\n \u276f 1. Yes\n 2. Yes, and switch to accept edits (auto-approve file edits and common file commands) for this session; Yes, and\n always allow access to /tmp/gstack-paid-shard-OALVx0/tmp/gstack-native-review-state-K0cbcP/projects/gstack-autopla\n n-chain-fviI7n/ceo-plans for this session (shift+tab)\n\n 3. No\n\n Esc to cancel \u00b7 Tab to amend\n",
"after": " +th \"Updated X ago\", CTA empty states, landmark sections, independently mountable panels (no registry; static orde\n +r). \n 89 - App-root toast primitive as specified above, no theming/positioning API in v1.\n 90 - Mark-all-read confirmation dialog as specified above (**provisional: keep modal vs direct action at the gate**)\n .\n 91 - Server snapshot-time validation; client same-origin route validation; text-only rendering of notification/activ\n ity content.\n ...\n 95 - Next-item hero card \u2014 needs assigned-items query; revisit after the experiment reads out.\n 96 - Optimistic mark-all-read \u2014 after v1 ships; measure whether the confirm\u2192toast latency is noticed.\n 97 - Prefetch dashboard data on login \u2014 login-flow change; separate PR.\n 85 -- Cache action eligibility per member \u2014 only if Server-Timing shows predicates > 100 ms p95. \n 98 +- Cache action eligibility per member \u2014 only if `Server-Timing` `quickActions;dur` shows > 100 ms p95. \n 99 +- Server-side `unreadCount` \u2014 when `20+` proves insufficient or the notifications repo gains a count method. \n 100 - Remove old landing redirect and flag branch \u2014 after the experiment decides 100%.\n 101 \n 88 -## Open at the Final Gate (provisional decisions, not settled here) \n 102 +## Open at the Final Gate (three provisional scope decisions + one challenged premise) \n 103 1. **Challenged premise:** ship a redirect-to-single-next-item as v0 before or instead of the dashboard? The nat\n ive subagent argues yes. The primary review keeps the user's direction because the plan names three member jobs,\n and because the redirect needs the same assigned-items data source that deferred proposal 9 lacks, so it is not\n cheaper than it looks for this release. The user decides.\n 90 -2. Approach A (client-parallel to existing endpoints, 7/10) vs Approach C (aggregate envelope, 10/10). Recommend\n -ed C; accepted scope above assumes C. \n 104 +2. Approach A (client-parallel to existing endpoints, 7/10) vs Approach C (aggregate envelope, 10/10). Recommend\n +ed C; the Contracts section assumes C and is rewritten first if A wins. \n 105 3. Keep the confirmation modal for mark-all-read (recommended: one-way action, no unread-restore API) vs direct\n action with live-region confirmation.\n 106 4. QuickActions-first hierarchy (recommended) vs equal panels.\n\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\n Do you want to overwrite 2026-09-11-user-dashboard.md?\n \u276f 1. Yes\n 2. Yes, and switch to accept edits (auto-approve file edits and common file commands) for this session; Yes, and\n always allow access to /tmp/gstack-paid-shard-OALVx0/tmp/gstack-native-review-state-K0cbcP/projects/gstack-autopla\n n-chain-fviI7n/ceo-plans for this session (shift+tab)\n\n 3. No\n\n Esc to cancel \u00b7 Tab to amend\n",
"beforeEvents": [
{
"sessionId": "53d424c8-2e93-47fb-93d6-9adbbb763a6f",
"timestamp": "2026-09-11T02:25:05.912Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01RBorP8UERrbVheRiXSN1v4",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Write",
"input": {
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-OALVx0/tmp/gstack-native-review-state-K0cbcP/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-fviI7n/ceo-plans/2026-09-11-user-dashboard.md"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "53d424c8-2e93-47fb-93d6-9adbbb763a6f",
"timestamp": "2026-09-11T02:25:08.955Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01RBorP8UERrbVheRiXSN1v4",
"kind": "result",
"isError": false
}
],
"afterEvents": [
{
"sessionId": "53d424c8-2e93-47fb-93d6-9adbbb763a6f",
"timestamp": "2026-09-11T02:25:05.912Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01RBorP8UERrbVheRiXSN1v4",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Write",
"input": {
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-OALVx0/tmp/gstack-native-review-state-K0cbcP/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-fviI7n/ceo-plans/2026-09-11-user-dashboard.md"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "53d424c8-2e93-47fb-93d6-9adbbb763a6f",
"timestamp": "2026-09-11T02:25:08.955Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01RBorP8UERrbVheRiXSN1v4",
"kind": "result",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "53d424c8-2e93-47fb-93d6-9adbbb763a6f",
"timestamp": "2026-09-11T02:28:24.850Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01RPGbV4z5AAMcnzwD4qcx9p",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Write",
"input": {
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-OALVx0/tmp/gstack-native-review-state-K0cbcP/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-fviI7n/ceo-plans/2026-09-11-user-dashboard.md"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "53d424c8-2e93-47fb-93d6-9adbbb763a6f",
"timestamp": "2026-09-11T02:28:26.532Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01RPGbV4z5AAMcnzwD4qcx9p",
"kind": "result",
"isError": false
}
],
"sourceFrameReplaySha256": "b238735abcfecdd9912ff9ded124dcdb1321477dd7b0394afbc918aa75465c01"
}
test/fixtures/autoplan-rendered-batch-at.json
Vendored
-543
View File
@@ -1,543 +0,0 @@
{
"provenance": {
"sourceHead": "5301119aa8f6f681fe3cae3cd229a3263e5419ab",
"run": "ship-source-at-delta-paid-20260910-v1",
"originalOutcome": "operator-cancelled-incomplete",
"paidOutcomesReclassified": false,
"publicProjection": "Exact ten public tool-use/result records from the current native message plus exact hook, panel, current CEO file, and actual stat; no private reasoning.",
"sourcePublicToolsSha256": "6cd0cc4712a8ec806329c254012b9624537a31da9835b1e05da4903ef6606ca4",
"sourceRetentionSha256": "dc2cef8545d98501fa0299a38d75a17f5b818515351c1c2e1068b8b148692a4c",
"commandTimeSource": "Public native /autoplan user record timestamp; launcher pre-send Date.now is not separately persisted."
},
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-KPXlt1/tmp/gstack-autoplan-chain-bwDe8x",
"config": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-KPXlt1/tmp/gstack-hermetic-520393-t0LmZZ/with-skills/.claude",
"stateRoot": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-KPXlt1/tmp/gstack-hermetic-520393-t0LmZZ/skill-home-xglsi4/.gstack",
"commandStartedAt": "2026-09-10T19:25:39.048Z",
"viewportCapturedAt": "2026-09-10T19:54:24.849181+00:00",
"hook": {
"version": 1,
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-KPXlt1/tmp/gstack-autoplan-chain-bwDe8x",
"config": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-KPXlt1/tmp/gstack-hermetic-520393-t0LmZZ/with-skills/.claude",
"stateRoot": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-KPXlt1/tmp/gstack-hermetic-520393-t0LmZZ/skill-home-xglsi4/.gstack",
"seenIds": [
"toolu_01LxFkwANWPHMvRc38BbweND",
"toolu_01XK6iDRvEoYgew9ZsqSxRhd",
"toolu_01CATB2T5xanKtDmNTJz273q",
"toolu_0199q2iK6Pa1xTqiZGNqq81u",
"toolu_01CUMXbu7C4ZsyVgWHckUhbx"
],
"pending": {
"source": "pre_tool_use",
"sessionId": "e291cda3-52ee-498b-9ef9-d203694d23ef",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01CUMXbu7C4ZsyVgWHckUhbx",
"tool": "Edit",
"file": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-KPXlt1/tmp/gstack-hermetic-520393-t0LmZZ/skill-home-xglsi4/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-bwDe8x/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T19:47:37.846Z",
"transcriptPath": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-KPXlt1/tmp/gstack-hermetic-520393-t0LmZZ/with-skills/.claude/projects/-tmp-gstack-paid-shard-KPXlt1-tmp-gstack-autoplan-chain-bwDe8x/e291cda3-52ee-498b-9ef9-d203694d23ef.jsonl",
"editDigest": {
"version": 1,
"beforeSHA256": "f941bbb7b61adcf233e087c84cd14a971e7aacb9fcbc46c331212a59294ec2b8",
"requestSHA256": "85fc0df395bcdcf47bd146348f0b6306fe691723030059d031fd8b9ba7ad02e4",
"oldLineHashes": [
"d5a7f576bb1f287ca80c52efa9703af2ea51e5b52ae15159a311044d1950c461"
],
"newLineHashes": [
"d5a7f576bb1f287ca80c52efa9703af2ea51e5b52ae15159a311044d1950c461",
"431e7895d9a7a414a198d1d0dc136aca01368e6169b43faaac2a2a63535e41f0",
"754a91e46c322bfac19f3dbe7a60385f5205300a41e5bf524cf67dd5fb89e187"
],
"clippedAdditions": {
"version": 1,
"status": "complete",
"startLine": 85,
"lines": [
{
"line": 86,
"lineHash": "431e7895d9a7a414a198d1d0dc136aca01368e6169b43faaac2a2a63535e41f0",
"nextLineHash": "754a91e46c322bfac19f3dbe7a60385f5205300a41e5bf524cf67dd5fb89e187",
"suffixHashes": [
"4565dd032aa07711ca9ae60f41895e1fbafdd41e7200b05747fd1406f3d53ff5",
"1688a6e2fabe0e6bccbabfc8d18d9c92475e8bb4614ec26c6a3f1ee46459c971",
"2fa85cd972529b9bde4286fe99ac9ebb2ae8bd453f3d253a8d2f73b57f77264b",
"d8e368f3b7375d8da6489c439f9769350b7ec7818d64577a005de29a761ee208",
"1b31943ae9356bfcbf6737cbec8c0f7fccf358beb4471ff9cb0623782825585e",
"d98190e24ede1420c1cbfc21c49c92680d34c195b003dcd819d7c09c35dfca81",
"edb0dc513a230ff334dc1ae87fefca055c0b72684574a16915062f2e855b6d4b",
"0491a6e5f6e9e29c0c2bf2458986046a7c5c06f7b6137272e47aa938d74eb612",
"550fa3952e7dfb4b95a6b920e2f6ff8aaaf3218acef66e9e4699a07fae0d1faa",
"841ecf9f86902834e703c2c388af7c66c06f05c2e38e309d6a288f7c1e9f37f6",
"d5783ba0885015127b915397fb6cdbcde2fd96c8f2f42013ba888c1dd3d09dfa",
"e734a4ebcc6ca09da3b93bcbc1a07a28fda83462b145caae0ce1fa4072372898",
"419162c4f5cca10ebc99a838f04f16d15dd4d2ab3078aad83ddbf39287b0f300",
"53341909cae254886a9f1ef0da462bf6c5f795c7988ce76f63d9d8d056424e5d",
"42bcf2b6f8f67587666e56f239367c3bd2ccc1614143859b571c3c01bb7ddde3",
"4609adf037849e8b748d8fb20bd16f7f7ef35caba6fc41e2e84d1bde84a03edf",
"b735f1ddf4130612a83670fadbd8fa7380d60da3f87ca314124a5bafef63dd1a",
"15d02c684d978a53d3e7a6023fa33f69425d2ebbc5f865bd6375031fbe523559",
"44d0b73bd9e02e5573b288c513b09a09042df755e569fd4896d8b3859952294e",
"9cc9ee22ee02f75a30c1b5d28f79478a143aec8cd2327f2c9eb37f6bd8926601",
"710ba1b1c9445cc36fab3b51c677fab3d873091c74b0c3fce57dbb94dc41e245",
"eb016f44f4e9d36b86cc81bb35bdea2966d8a3fb7b8247af77ba535a69ea8dda",
"b482ea2a980ec2ec7fcc2c428911e1aaf3c02efc6be791da22ae100be8a3f8fd",
"8a54fda9a6512bf40b684f4aa0850123c61fd7eee07007ff31b38bb70caec2dc",
"657ce090d7fecf4603065efd206ca865df41a5e96db3d6a9c157d5d1145cbad2",
"3785c0fac831945238a9d2709dea4755b492fcead2423a0638c36b2e94508d12",
"d4ad80a85ff71c1da8cd9c39bc803432c2371d455b11b083334b42df9b1638b2",
"ea4cb83350ac6c7fa30b9cc20a44d2b5c74bd294930fbb5410d6827c3b6b41c2",
"b0c92289e46a7e4f46e9ac2680addfa84f7733ff0e1d5ed1243a4ce4cd4f319d",
"45fd429b9449cf08e54d0d3bc848a6d29dbbad3d935bbac846eb28e3fdb07e3c",
"d04a135bdfc3bab3d61a2cd8fbe4046cb4b0a1ab28af281efbff9d34298c33ac",
"014145c5734cb004bb435779d94ecdd99fd7b36173384a151d85f7c304662e6b",
"dbccec0f49194a71a0cb864da0902eab7f9e10c4c0d8d4a4d1926f5b94cc7ffb",
"ca81bb890ed0d7b04cc6cd8527f830bf9bc48a7eb14de9e5e017f952d9daefcf",
"1976fa461e88a812158b2d949b969ea2b611aaa55b0e7d755a6c73d1b5498287",
"4bbff4fd8390c87470ec7896bc8efb3796b039d7ab953b02a9e0f13f8115ca8f",
"c5a08378357b7596bd930a236a00678e61694b581ea168c727f51cc39f155c9e",
"ac855ba505c8d56684d11fb2ca62a3b205825329b59adc79a1ad4efe3905a6ae",
"5decc815869948780754fdfb2948a0f7d033c88495fda8ce6db6014ca28c484a",
"799248a7e3147a0e53aa5667bf7305b002659200f27fbc1422ed4bf8879c5381",
"227d566e3cd8884cdb952a8b39ce5ed52fc34844a4c12709fac211bd42f140a7",
"ef2d6573df7f34e75b527d893a27403117aa0200796d7ef1cf94a4291c170b2f",
"07bf6af1daa8912b64d454ed72ebb3fa037759b2fdcc109502143a2f308014fb",
"fbdf3ba6bd627cec5d1a0f4ac811d0941c17b3c0574b984b340ce23d3fdac8ad",
"ba9730697787a07aaeccecb65d09fdd7029f9425b5c3d45ecdf5fa0384eda6a4",
"b90cc3bf78f2d58a478f48adee27e58ba0b5a4ee87fc6985bcb6e94677719ec8",
"552f88d7d74a2fff306050748508e01801595b7882c0d87a6a406829e09fcdd1",
"77ce0be5f0fcf4ba3e5828638cf48293f8ac0eb1ff0d1838f8b0de1003bed12a",
"c1d213690f1412a4b866ea527df62b8e0ac5daeb8cb2bd448748eed77b22b9f2",
"7f03c1cc0d2c69e08bd233d02c44d9dae0fad452fa3e020ae9dd01068f0efd25",
"88788def1f32502daa5c90973a615141dc2c0f4741b3683b33808fe3d447bb40",
"ee61cad8038609d9fc53df9779b0e6ad161bed09094ed8cfff3898f0c6c08797",
"e48dcfbdae1f76b7ca4cad21814aa3a467accf6994c082da70f2ee3ac375e260",
"699cfe8b2b55fb61cc53f426cba5bb81c0ee398afd823802546bf09e4cce5555",
"fef295280e3419a9f7b1fc7ce160421b221d494aee3784356b1729f5d78a58a7",
"0e02b5886d9bdc0436863aa47e09e13fbea8f481c85c8ca2743050c5cf45c171",
"65c409d053e84948d3114b62269c5fdffc2a24757984979d5dd4ad94495d69f6",
"659670ee18deafe6048fea0a018d5ae46097a1a4ab206c00fbb4f54c0d6c6f91",
"ac8cf3d3b8f91460c3a7b97aef215134fe3a19c272ad1ef36b992769b738767b",
"bf13fd12cb439e91d215ac30ea6c1aed24363bab9012f1b512cf82e4e1a94cc9",
"b484f99d61c49df8f1fbe6d09e0799b9e5ef799c76a7f67a3015b8e952ae22a5",
"42b2fbb824ea8cc7065653932b8ed82f4122b5e4c43071d6ead5192baaab4eb1",
"fa4a4eb972879182ea588c362a5d007800958f6789d46d3b4669375890933683",
"b875f6ebd4bd92c484e2c0ee180d1d6e61787f8737fce605b819242e9e6c4327",
"a5cef5f94d4b0570f6b022688b28c95d2a077aa98bc869a1106d3f67493ac0be",
"f8e3e7294a63eb506fc4beb803990d869825727f5e659f3cf8f22a8edaa726f9",
"46f71cd7456b03e3e368950596c7d23667f7672443d05159acf10c5c83093f16",
"732cbb451dae40181329dd468036695e4ed2e9f7e3e2600510c672e3b8588b41",
"fe6737f24a396744d65c996018619ea44e2a92aece2f2aca38f4cfab397860ee",
"7de9ae55553f8d0821759b3fdc492c0e8ee4ca3fc36db1a0eaf1fecc6ed48a46",
"861c80c294bac4b0fff1d28a09f96bc448dd2b2f4654dc898c1f76945418bcc0",
"ce417d789ddeb93b56519e40d5784c41650d76761d7af2c033309a6bd0c0f65a",
"fc7e13c3d2c4a86dcdaffb7a236e51f2bc8b741f59431fbf882f414c8664fdab",
"19ac98c74af9615aae31d671280f7d7e9fbf04e21c251fa0c6f2ccc699c56f27",
"6dadde17c8c3e0309c004cb17fbb2b7896c707e5b7fb9dcd89edc502293bedf3",
"c316b9dadedabff066aad4e90ed74f20b13b1112ec1855c25fc9c28810a7a047",
"48b7752aeb8176b29093955b74f83169ff1184713a1ad699d2d04f16638e0fb4",
"1b30ec7c25d728fca5b8ac85b2ea4a7ad46c7c6a039da8bf93726e6ac5a35cb8",
"8844607162ad3d537ffbf6dae5d8a3e15860a8ce402cefb0d365c8806ed28e51",
"ba8bcd2586253907e357afcc363be79fa27f3a166fbe265e0b58c11e68ab9568",
"6e2536849f0bcf7b6add07c2eab85fbcf8f3748d7a917c715a5a45ce9f219d54",
"a1672e1bdccba2b1fd95145461082a6123e6b48967ac3dd9e20ba705e56aec0d",
"25aca5581ccb46c70f626e6257e1f6eb64f27a9d86a4735f30cc624c7f4c817e",
"78be546a1390dc0c8ad25f80a5dd2f6e410646160940e2fcdae72d71b78e5e3b",
"c745afa3c1989a1390f6f5765b3a74bf68c488e95bb03bde1eeef9578aa5dfdc",
"7ad001c50750b8fcff8d42277229b493577326fd7947c21ca89a220970a11d4b",
"e4b514e1849143b137b7fbf836afa752ed7d48e733d6bec732677a887688fd59",
"0a8025b9f2f6168ba2fe162121d754072c0b0fde78869494de2a7f684dba6b17",
"1782076353b29e9aa70e34b9e6584d1682ea36fd71736a98890f793c3b40a487",
"e76e7eabd88b2d9a47a4cdf4e7e3111a3db3acd772bc022a16bd845979d67e43",
"5ff3ddbe1e0c0ba38dc17df1bac2077fa5893378f4bf45b91871734fa1e7b019",
"9f000390dc6576df0ef9d2440597075f3988e92d1541239e06fde333b6348240",
"ff6567a31a2d5f12631d816c8d09e95078153d9d800110acf00e33616144a765",
"a8e3779e38fe7777bd8c721e10f75df9c5bf40504af2320e07abb0de23eed455",
"d365ef610f3d5e2784014b56f84eddff3a0d1e9b372d0dc29eb5b543aa334161",
"02e5101f2e30645b2d8e9f2c5b7fdd45eb436faaae713cd7fe8cf276fd9a4626",
"891ea81e83a3553e53e41f4af95420443f513554e74f770c4a9b333e63472fde",
"385360a8906a48acafe834429776b14192eb7174c223085c92b8c0850f581b1a",
"3655a7870c96d75f0cc5e35ffeb55cf8d8b1102e8644d233d18055908a8f7c21",
"9b1a0de81350f33228abb553f2e8a7b320afbd63a39dfbc2ab42cc10cba29273",
"ab0aec35a452bac1777ad5f14b6d0adc940bec4793356e06d1b14e8f3be40e28",
"c16d7d6acf15c085a62c825f6bf1cfe47620bbfc1184c45e7e6e0b6c97de716f",
"4d0f9b5a85c272becbfe6e839f7ae4101c3d6df97ed5a0ae7533d921047a826a",
"b601fc8f36ea8e355eb4d521623ba59f3afa751a05a077756caeaeedf7f01f80",
"bc3993f349fdf1cd3e1f9a4cb1c83670b1086bc04bfbb8159d92a4ffb35136c8",
"1901de8531d2d6aa4d5f5b70b4435c16cdbfd7afb2be6e0df1669951bf23d472",
"4f9435c5336a6bba87ac5d98eacefba2aac542001be8bfa98ffffd3ffce48b9b",
"c34ca550b7692350254b0b5dcd014c5cac334cabfc87e2d59720a24976279fb3",
"931c849df9556279b252cbf6b5cb3e7f6803f069bc458235c2a4c786eee9adce",
"fc4669b38ca2578cd0e8a71c57de040e270ef7ce6a74c413f61d4afacdb33759",
"0a9026c56dc9bd32a73aa9fc76b041cf47061e436f95b710b313c24474c31b1f",
"463c408650701aa1bcad93f664ad46aa78306fc7acf590ea49f6f62c8ee8bc2a",
"a307f59ce791cebc8a0f6bc643f2f9ca59f34417b1a7a52c5e878c9f68d2b922",
"85a27f8180fb97fca0cf88ef4b3e8dce725bbc8b1085ffccc4ba4b2589bf65af",
"5c43077be99ca6333f5ef7d536bb6b666da6931cde44473f7f8e211ce568e193",
"6201332476ce4d8e531f355e05a0c8f7f8b27d11d4329b4d76b42dd75e4d96bb",
"1d5dabcba28b5ad73fc46d4821317a0fbb3bb4c2f87a2188af41acf88d1c972d",
"b8bcabf19d608988c65da6b029ebad8cd268c1ac3a78d9da5b31fdb39ca9828b",
"28ec164fdc6ae2d8e9adecc6e05001aaacb0fb6644f953b0141f4665fa4716e9",
"9cc9750b642db223501cfa2a9db306ff42f782b38ef835a3e01a80920fcb2dc5",
"8978d027fc010dbb5bf448d85fe021496e6367af106ff39c9da4b5515d84aa1c",
"af0cafcd7cc5ec445d4eb9885850ec0af3f64689cdf9cc25a0c09be58d5d88c1",
"fcadda40c2bc8c7bafa93baa4747cce5180c181fdf99ce56afb7ab5b4c61397a",
"8a194ee7af6083071af6f028dfaec6e154eed349d7c527317d7bbc044948955e",
"17d7189139ce49a6dcf31cc40b2c4ed259a2158df2c1b61cf4a5ee6775f3c975",
"82976aed6b242a69026716af7818d121f306f3ce2f6d4aa434c6eb9346739faa",
"a0a5930017a03be5f12e7a1359b9f334f9865c4442bd15d76c45f44ee283a889",
"96424feeb33b2883ba6f1bf6527d6b48018768ff50f0dc9593f5fac8eaefb928",
"8e04a83c1bfed39fbd4cd020782ea71b4e6e19b49ac1994b8d10bc65c2e9e9b4",
"5a6d8300090bb7ac45bbb562bfe070d990a7fe9ec6653bcd60455f31e367755b",
"e88393902eab745e3fd9ee3a512f9f8df20bdf4948ff5807c238644a0753af77",
"4bba600308b08bd64d48b62224b1d98ef4b97cf197806f61637e862eebe1e96e",
"7d5743c46eb02c5143f14a8560f497f6720065b17c1b6aacb15406013c3a9815",
"fd1dd883eb31b2c26d011dc235aae521c97a846caf5baa8c1528912dddcfc144",
"126768878faaa22b8acbe12490bcad87bc2a61088ed0b5097c2298aa6ef7f4d7",
"343b8bb1fcf29ac71cf8f91074816b6292b344e9f857375968a69bda20863bb5",
"ab6f48b4e6a8bfa40ccce5232b51ca88ba372dd6b0b1bf511a0d2a97ae4b7ea7",
"ef4f2ce11181f370837e46c5cfa5a42643b8c6df6ee434fb55a62d745488576f",
"ac24887b4b934e0963d554f2a6b11def93127e2db0659407414aeafed292c8d0",
"0e290e46663fd56b0c341979e33873649affbf020006f957a0aab1810907f348",
"5899fe180f0da0858639160f7da9452d07444001230e464fee319aad322ff1f6",
"0b9d600f57933b2acc21725ecc7e66d698410385e9d6dba9f922251b8350b7b2",
"497691b766755960dec9a16e092a614e4f373396e8a0164b67a381baaf39ca80",
"40b5f44353df5517ab7b258bc706961929154501b4b9d0c82b6ca60b7d0fe2ae",
"3551765bff6d243afd8eafcbecaa678f9c06931b1d76f192b8523b7fe5591f29",
"fe1d2c0853c6649e2b162c8812161698ffe676f5a5292302296698629da972d1",
"7e73aca19764ef7a0bf3b141028fbce6149eb0f4a016c514fddc1f31183bf6fb"
]
},
{
"line": 87,
"lineHash": "754a91e46c322bfac19f3dbe7a60385f5205300a41e5bf524cf67dd5fb89e187",
"nextLineHash": "e3b0c44298fc1c149afbf4c8996fb92427ae41e4649b934ca495991b7852b855",
"suffixHashes": [
"b6f214ce7561c83e4e2ab54d9ea9f975d06a7ec273752ba709ff0df410fca4d6",
"8ee11761c21f15c2914725b610f4acc17df3c8e9e6bbe7c9776d7655561855fa",
"142dcadb1fa86618527532a8dc70af2862e7000631f982ff92e7b61ac1e242b6",
"cd071389af87bd43cef839ece3b49906cafe9a66f0125229c41ce99e293a9f02",
"dfb27ebed44304d1598d36f8f20296309952b6976f351125a9528114d502e644",
"6ac928d69a333c4e87d90a517b19e99a59dc55fea457a028a4c63da2128e4db3",
"a9f077bca216d7c9721ae1ecd3dc9b75185545f46bcf1f1392905e75cd7512b9",
"7e10379de3b047231e4a8fd03660ed253b3e2a2b8745629b8b1fae195ae73654",
"7a3af089a5a80aa0ed18712e77119f739257c0438f4407ea256481e452976c9d",
"cee6b8832937c6f28423b2abeca2ed41043b186757a4c7d96152c0f595d883be",
"26490bda13f7ba2dd1174a830fef4003bc66c2ca6a3b5c0ad07c89a3a01d648d",
"e1a94d9c3e5e692b0b32c6182a5eb6efcef4efd17ad7ff5027c5d47dfb56b9b2",
"a92ecdd55c794211722fba0b3b52e4ab51cdcdd1daa9fd3afe6e38dc642475b1",
"08dad87f0626e2f8b80d1c8ab5625b3ad588d74b6cf8c86b89d207e8f3a1a345",
"33a4086e9d20c1cf10d3d5d20d537ebf88785ba422512fd2fd7ffd5f7261e285",
"7baf2bd019e389ceb8093b206ffe5a373ef8b14cd48eb68e3f0bb19eff63cd6c",
"73751265e5a2b625aa720766456e83b1693e19d3118577e7cd121854a425b800",
"fd4c22bb0372e6a5d574a6a37788d7255898256fae5a3525cf6989b5304fac0f",
"fc556fa6c4ace57b0a0a2df545e12885c727d18aa198ef82c8c4666006bb3d1d",
"a56ce83678240ac2bac4e453fff0bee54ccc9c6692967db75ce30bbced9c327e",
"967ab03a8b26bfca6b1b5ed66ffbb42a2626da5ca2348c7e155168f30a47bdc1",
"ebbc0dd6f1007c804d0a9175af38d5905f5a98d077dc2eeba21b22a47d3703b9",
"373038d316e730bbf1a4bbf86e140c60169ea50de2305d9754d409eeb434d4a5",
"ebf64db5d6d32044683f998055fcc49025ebd97fb401afc03995ffe42621b194",
"8c03e7912935bbd782e13f33bff30eeeec9f5b6b6c4b865da0f0a1d3140c749b",
"cbebca71ee7bd9c17c04490555f120997d4a00f0a842fa1ba667aab2ff636954",
"2d2c78037d8d83a4c7107483da4fcad4c28972101136ddf5ac1ba72f0096ffdb",
"78df7a3d882742a770f4f653a683d8f81574160c302e56143d6fc0ef8b04840d",
"a407efd353ce11a29733057063f4ec5549a5e4cbaf689611164bab14fe415545",
"a8483ba351e8628ef7c63b807cdc0e4331481e614d0b274b65a7253cee206b60",
"884c752fc97542a5d3e90a327c8fe33e8df005d880f9af74e0f5f33f40f500a4",
"b51e81e3e0c49e5ee52e12df1a819c239fcd33e86a550b7c2b1eb597c8f1c09c",
"308f121c9fc59033507cdefa8218f27bf06ee6ee56267fe4a51fb5f53821619d",
"3373d326d7d989f2dcd7e21e72e3914f051dc7dc57ef6defa7d29270adbe03de",
"b2d6c40fbbc9ed4583dc87ac893c26b846dbf9204f0e7c5b88f3ad6b002d5c7f",
"1f19f33941d55d0275836bfcf12c2c5f13de3c0cab1958a03ada6ebf51c45515",
"ab7c188eec58a28296da123b59d11bba323db25d06312ac2537bbd3a151a845f",
"77f89c0b1d4c5ec432f503c5d41cd40c21b3cd8b215922223e7b9ac9d1b6eb81",
"10d89db4d6098ee9d90ef3d44ee809df90be907dfa4468c57bee5f7c85a31d74",
"fa80a9ed44dfcd216cd87418639e5759ac4c136bd1e8fd9218512747936cf058",
"b5ff71b6c2e8fca4072b1cc74985cdad46581290d821124e5980c82f42da41f7",
"f507f9ff237a0dc9df65d906e4e2f3d251dad17f47de227e63f3d3984ef29333",
"0e2d28ee8d098fb07268cac4f759c5fa4a87c315a978a098fecc66dfa7aa90d0",
"8678b9af158437a4c7d5964b5fa1cafb8c5c101ece7fe64b93ada4c04b5f1a87",
"b719a6e3f35942b8bbb6576975c7af20492fdfff42ef8723abadee8609c1b847",
"f610b5989ee2bc15ce4c5dd478e11a0363195fcf0d76e95cf5c1732568929c4d",
"73dc139ae9e3cf1ce185b800848a0bb03a64984e382d5946f64135fcb1072862",
"578ec9c2c8b82c59c3600110ba01be266358a85514054974efc37bf260602ab0",
"0bc8c65f0791486db41cb2b5b40eada5431454230b06b9b48a8af81577223f74",
"bf6534142b0ec5b795ac5d796e632587c38220c9288a901f5ebf67338fe24e9f",
"04b0e64283e34e412451e00216df1d13f175432e117a7089f48b78beddb969a9",
"1deb5cb676693a00229149c54b34e21de3deb6b37140a710dea1090fba0c513c",
"cf41e2b5ebb90c9047ce2b6a447314e2c926d0e655b8928aed8e8f121f5c3e74",
"70a2606b4678239c1662187d2a49015dc069b10dfb37f16b3fb78583c241d021",
"b4f5bb0625ea74d14e673e5a9a9b0871764dd87d143c123421565e304ac2ddcf",
"018a2e6fbf4c051126bb3f4ad843570a8a2ff0b767c4be2e34381ed25ed7019f",
"2177332a87678ac879d206f7262e23d70373fa4a3816f5c92e397efdb0e79793",
"1c438deca3702131147a40e1f4046af291655bfb187ecdc72213c98123c54f15",
"a77a749bec448e5e97a9bf66e009cd9346605750d3eae3dcf89272e4f80c8327",
"5d0d9dcde5fd448fe02651f55997790efd6dfe8a0f4f3681b2f3b14e046ac659",
"4fe7faae9680c9e56a59496cb8dc73707e4c3f9177decb1c008fa4ff81e4c5b0",
"724b1ba5f6fee8a8454263da60e9a8950a6ae1c659a98553f6af8d3e5aa2579e",
"d5a11cdcdd46e906da91904ba716a5937146d87b2a538c48ebb6ec22dcd6a373",
"2b47acd86057f734d39474789e5c4d9bf384a8b881da595d4aa4ab43c001d65b",
"9eed3060759c632935e014a415ad9932097bbc3cd1626d74953f5e8b8b9283e5",
"a425672bd943c888b1d8e9b260070c0053ff93e6c5d1997f69270b529dd0bf5a",
"d116184b6ea015dbaf75f39e9cc7f2bd04d6c3addb845ff5c25291e5218aa891",
"f0d6408958039d36f83a8e2a3df7167f14d788f5bb3e2f05036975604a2f8066",
"342724cfce10c573d481b261d1f6b9889e78d767782aff854317f43614ae63a3",
"65f823923766dbcbe70a4028da5e212ddbbeedac13dc0bdd3d4bac36b39d9a13",
"ff66c0e219613fd76da2764c8c39d93514b0930cdb684858a52b51fa1b8f32e3",
"70280a7370cd883e7879fd3a132b910d681aea5c1b6456e23a5254987c1a212b",
"9610aa7ff5e2be7b6e64abe2478316d445a7418dadbff5c8ad33b935bce60152",
"d67a1d39494d6d4aa1ccf0d4907500da058127f8928bc3e90b0551754d110526",
"0efd80d8b994e303b432108efd7c1231e240b51274dc2e7241c802abdd5a2413",
"02f6d6e7b971f8f30ee9edce6c9af240f6a6023042c0fae918ef5ecee708a046",
"40ad74e266d2ca3a08b82235628546f2037144c5d90782908587d2fd3a35314b",
"fcd9b4ad50fd3fb861623639a27f07f515a7a307899f37ea0c617f7f3a58cf23",
"e1249d3b3107b724b00c5eb8046138b0ba43fc96d3cce98d6be11099fe4f4a89",
"6807b3e525db9a39aebc7305061c0df45264a14a00635be72a78aa168362c975",
"8f21eabf6e78506e49152707511c696529aee3aea2e6132720d02e926130dbcd",
"7540aeda0f7c2cc5fdf51f5389f0b6ff9ffedde2c6bb4a408bee467fb1931362",
"96a991118a3c23c22e610d487ae9199a3cf00634a24bff9a00a6a52ee3034c93",
"9cef7565d9daedfd23ba3b38ddd456adc97a79caa1944690be3499b9bc72472d",
"24003dc9d0a4fd2adefe738c8971eda6f3e933cde48432fa8c780e19db16e257",
"b07f2a071fe299be834947c640f5a07a545e21dda46bbe766bf7f5cc94686681",
"09482094169605798e9bc7076c47bbfcd8d24a6a096f6ce9b522a28f50d121f2",
"dd5b84685704a5ea2a7fa29b921c3e46a3215139d8c1b69de4b7227c542559ae",
"1123aa629cfbdc472ad8f7f8b9559548003b98bb8755f9fc6531e81011765ff5",
"36d402606f013992dcb3f66a6ad4d436f10e06359a5464255e4077ff2ec7cba7",
"bed7fcb0e3b59db8847653c482f022662f664e429219d0907e6e2b6ee1fe59d6",
"49bec20aa86c22a68cded72d9799a24d2e1ab3db4ffe0a36165e0785e58bedb6",
"52f167a79b9b63762fa749e2f273c47387f5edad8cf6df2d1176ecb610186d11",
"9ddc6b2b2287a176f096a31d43be3d61d60639909c0a324d1b2819d1de9f2495",
"350f805e76d5fc3295aedcbf294b634c79698eb7ac221005d8eafb925fce52ed",
"b02585f7a3438375a5f02e20a90ae72580588b33fd28ffad68804a315290d3c7",
"31d23b531ca55aba93f0d260a115fdd4f3c9240cdfedef98440708b8ff6dfbe0",
"fdf7071166e81da8c1feb2ddf48ba9ac0f59db6cb0d38ff238081509645ec478",
"4cf0ba724fddf6da4e7631ca56ea984b0c582af3c8010c766a43488b4ce8cc7f",
"9c64b57caf4f3686eeb121d11d66e4038935e8e481fcfb41d7729905a2cbe081",
"1f606ec14abfd4bb9578af2ad223a2f5e53b3f1a882ad440fc3489517bd68064",
"312470445dac5cc7ea38a8dad35384f050acd396633b5c87d5fcd088e1be2929",
"ba16647b6c3a6d31086b968a2763bef381a1ce4d9be4d67c3fc6293a290e93d0",
"aa090293ba9c2f7e3530b3557e46f517e82e6064397a780c3401577531da12c1",
"72980090ba635ea075bf04fb58fb46e54bd50bc8c23352630d388a345dfb7f33",
"e2dfcd5fef4187450cb9e265fedcd306d9d9a620dc0ae98b964ac6ca1fb9f9d9",
"c3fe543b774e63d842f58714a65817f7420062ab347109a4df21c03bcfbe28c1",
"8ea7072b3090f40d96fe407175ef8c238dd539a177a6a64c3d11f306b9ec7bd3",
"f4923a422ae259cebad17ec255fd6a28e66b5d4bbbfbf335b4189de9aa91d834",
"336eeb6d6c760c4038e9fc33b80d4cdc8cc05352ab6f761d9ec66fb1a047ff39",
"9834fc5b4176194364e9b7687bb037d84cd3fe9425b6b5891e2e3cc296b7bafe",
"1ff141f012c4c40861f5f0a27bf976996d9b71e8c48e3a97498218fe5ef868fe",
"1811c61b470d1591ed2bd5ff4b468adce1430ffbef1a887eef0ff9ad3730d45c",
"bb6c7f01358d38a41afcf0a15dc38d8a345cfef8b4db47bb12981d2a91bb930f",
"6f5de21d04c3031f306897ff739a8bd11e4f4324ef0246da619178930ac6d9e2",
"089e8ecf57baea76ef889fa88a67dc320b6a066df713f9e44e9c81a36936ccbe",
"5daaf8de323eb3923293a8851981f4750b27695ad75c314e8c1e5e7cecf31738",
"06cdb027e584a3d559249c06756a8e4dd62f3570a95dbeff3548061d51d8799f",
"c0e69650be68ef3209131f825ecf0f24213073a1f05e6e0cefa565adc84ecb53",
"52ae5ac5e0e900229843f832b4c3603a098d01585343affbdea70f33099f3c1c",
"187fd78cc3a411dbd4dce04a4eec588113c3682ef701795a540e9288e5c46626",
"ca3487f944724544acf9ea17c6d71c62a2fe8d3e1ac0a8d8c91ad8080a5f5089",
"f8bbffc3bb1c7467da7bb1191733f195d0fa6e0d3869dad42e7c173bb4790059",
"254c618e079227318544611295b95e3c830ebea9b5a7b85274661742cd607a10",
"55f479b93bb5a80ce11e98973c1ad1b65c7efb1992d2343d17bff389b74f6b35",
"5289c0ede69f8408de20e65b354155d36e7f0e8ec0e6f1487c13214a67eb76e8",
"905da378b20dd56bc850cfcd9ddb3da1ef1cd850d905da91b83dc7df321e6208",
"ff589918f4326dffd891cf0dd5bb68c57d7adb81d049865a3b7d8217defa4517",
"5a3ba8fc91c0fb572bd7af4f5fb8c20093e097b0317d5bfc311f356fd493e4af",
"34525faf30a28422c7f6e372208b114d835c35dac033519a86e32d9d4970c666",
"ce43ebef2bc587471bfa6e88f48614da79ff01ec63f5b06086ba322ac833fd27",
"6330b3414adad2da82a42c7399a4090f0a814d1396374c52047b2c003447b6ea",
"d0a67d31dc17fa32ae98ff1fc264a3fc6e219fcbf83a381f730cc7493a828b9a",
"1383785ba1f2074cd011125c33703fa17b26b048306c13989e1c08293ad18b1b",
"3ec61457752c6f71ada665c3f909b79c500f93c98496c43b6220604c8f3f8542",
"bb6fd5cae601df64a93fb7dd867a7f16f1c2a0f9d2ae7da4486e9adb1f28e519",
"74d2814ae3023605b580956c6dd0ee3fd8ff9588bc2b4e23e789c1b3f1c679cf",
"9649eb97477acd8e70c0ec6145676156983b6b15be3f3742389d87de6fb7bb6d",
"93af2e334189228b0753519d562d412973dc02aa711757bb2951b344a91ccc0a",
"301c59624c3d488f4b2807a44015de3fcab9c43daad5a3380de3a848f05fef2b",
"a7e2b7837550ab0502c12fa27b39f26fb24c4843d43834a03b897d1591974765",
"7f76b42f392b5a7c5a59ca64684d5bc6dc74a8bdb01cbee024d0b2013a2be409",
"f02ef52254ea5b1afaeb620d9bdf06785850cff776f610c2e4808767fa8ce24e",
"71a3cc5432bd8fe72c83154ca6590dddd0ad452096b4cdc23d2d29d3249c55de",
"9ada5d2cc1c44481d8b7c9021f5927eb1ad1c0eafe609179d33fcff9b53f9b2c",
"63260ee1daf9b0c292ae333a8434c95429180d035c57e74abf97d788eb163917",
"d8e2721e97cb26c77c868458662c23abf2dc5bac25f8a715b0ecb917816c18ef",
"1293771ef75d1e69383de3893e437d13e245a169f97b6e940fe928235f1ec0a9",
"e2d878eaec356ccb6908a3b07696a6aae2dfe4db7cac8db3b187c7d9d84cfed9",
"cc20fa7d30f99756de49f22a94c4261ffe91955030ef02262e369fd9654638d9",
"62be64e5d9bd6b9857e9ad5a6a884ba02ec8e1808b817fc07238d2253df557df",
"1f66017edf22c807f24d90c86906d72a59221638450bf929804595a5ae5985b3",
"7ddcee36f226a5f9b359ac05ba48b7193ba28b64861f6aae5bfb75e0f850a59a",
"239a72db49e3760e5b593d03604281c445f0852d82b904cd332808a98b097bab",
"dfbb2a47fd5bfd90bcf591edc81d71773599fe4ae586afb01c76361c9706616a",
"311de091264ca575eeb3143305ae63d6a5270358a21f7e367fe296fdfa84ce08",
"9ef1da773ddf43c3193de41f86bc5627bfa0268cc9b80b5881a43ab2ce93337f",
"2f0d4c8bae74934d5e76a9e9297cd369329fcaaa9387166a97fafeb10687b9c9",
"d61dac375134f9eadbc0e55b6cffe349fcab1dc562096f045434d5ce7a6d00b1",
"76143a67653135801199e64c7cb545572864f1f023960e38c84da09a6bda5c5a",
"baae616b768a3e88628192123f65e1ea3a7ca3a8e1864070cf35d45bad1fab2a",
"446604676fc7b864f0e11c4a8030b0a808e440b34c7060fb4282a19d675bdd0a",
"c5cda7cc17b5eb4e4ee9578866f2d3605640cbdfb9a89cbafd2a89409afd6354",
"c38aff39792262d8ab6fa41ada37cb89361eb058fb7be50393502744e305ce43",
"17fa8d1f47ef5fab060582862706e33fd58af51efb829ae5884ade741df89923",
"765dda3be6aee81b9f51e401a214548c90e76143be644ef78c98a35c8caaa6e0",
"fb9e59000a412fae5e909320392b3a91d2d7813ed3242c6970a91fe7465e3545",
"1f3bb21be1897d8949a8ce9f4f329537e1b56fd5e10ff09bfdbb1003779c052a",
"224b9aa58488c2dd2f38cb7730df0ad9b657f04ca09027e39acc87de9de74e53",
"b79e4eed729079538e2805a0d44eac1263e452aacb629dd36fb3cdce22e14666",
"6bd2c71132ab7c246716b3560f9709be993a3269b83f0ae87263a341d3758251",
"2abad270c6be5e71d777369a1f9e3ea9dc163d37111b860672bc8816216f4cbe",
"5ae3789fb2d4c7b19a209c30af5bee3cdc5598ed62aa5d641d0313d2a7506ae1",
"f9288e2ecffa57d66577e87cc5bc5ccb40431b9468a4005dfdd6d5409495aabe",
"71b9d2db403d0728790e00a781c3c0bdd610f0982840ba5090cb67a44accbd3d",
"5af31c08e49d44c943c83cbdbbd9002cdb0fdaffb3efc94c2f5efd1962b0104d",
"2755ed3f04df5fd6d393eda67569968106d3fde91b4af9c6721fdbca9b6e83b5",
"6e5a6ff241ca507d42b2be77e0b301d3a376067fe5a4a5b2483333d522cdc110",
"f416c0fa6f303c7b7636f85b154e943fd07105060edebb6851e93385a3f7384b",
"b9ce1d7e426225bb99ba382a5ab6a161e450cc111bd8fabe4f014be17505b6b9",
"2d050118def570b7ea3946ea3d5c98cb188e8d0278318d37aeddecfb07c0e961",
"44f0261b64d21a6a413fe82f61b8fa45fba281fc2965dda6fb1566276633f122"
]
}
]
}
}
},
"sessionId": "e291cda3-52ee-498b-9ef9-d203694d23ef"
},
"publicTools": [
{
"sessionId": "e291cda3-52ee-498b-9ef9-d203694d23ef",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T19:46:51.648Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01XK6iDRvEoYgew9ZsqSxRhd",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Edit",
"input": {
"replace_all": false,
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-KPXlt1/tmp/gstack-hermetic-520393-t0LmZZ/skill-home-xglsi4/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-bwDe8x/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md",
"old_string": "Definition: for each login, the elapsed time to the first `action completion` event by that member within the same session, windowed to 24 hours after login (logins with no completion in the window count as non-completions in the completed-task-rate guardrail, not as infinite durations in the median).",
"new_string": "Definition: for each login, the elapsed time to the first `action completion` event by that member within 24 hours after login, regardless of session boundaries (logins with no completion in the window count as non-completions in the completed-task-rate guardrail, not as infinite durations in the median)."
},
"messageId": "msg_011CevLPEAgvJCT26jXyiWXZ",
"requestId": "req_011CevLPDBQp3UnWKbrA6Uz3"
},
{
"sessionId": "e291cda3-52ee-498b-9ef9-d203694d23ef",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T19:46:56.842Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01CATB2T5xanKtDmNTJz273q",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Edit",
"input": {
"replace_all": false,
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-KPXlt1/tmp/gstack-hermetic-520393-t0LmZZ/skill-home-xglsi4/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-bwDe8x/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md",
"old_string": "**Queue of 3** means at most three toasts are visible; a fourth waits and appears when one dismisses (oldest visible dismisses first when its timer ends; nothing is dropped). **Persistent errors** means error toasts have no auto-dismiss timer and stay until the member dismisses them.",
"new_string": "**Queue of 3** means at most three toasts are visible; a fourth waits and appears when one dismisses; nothing is dropped except under overflow: when all three visible toasts are persistent and a new toast arrives, the oldest persistent toast is dismissed to admit it. **Persistent errors** means error toasts have no auto-dismiss timer and stay until the member dismisses them. Identical toasts (same error code and same message text) coalesce.\n\nAccepted Scope as written assumes taste decision T1 resolves to the aggregate endpoint (the recommended option). If T1 resolves to per-panel fetches, the hook, retry, `generatedAt`, and envelope items below are rewritten before implementation."
},
"messageId": "msg_011CevLPEAgvJCT26jXyiWXZ",
"requestId": "req_011CevLPDBQp3UnWKbrA6Uz3"
},
{
"sessionId": "e291cda3-52ee-498b-9ef9-d203694d23ef",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T19:46:59.863Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_0199q2iK6Pa1xTqiZGNqq81u",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Edit",
"input": {
"replace_all": false,
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-KPXlt1/tmp/gstack-hermetic-520393-t0LmZZ/skill-home-xglsi4/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-bwDe8x/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md",
"old_string": "`dashboard_action_clicked{actionId}`, `dashboard_view_all_clicked{panel}`, `dashboard_return_visit`. Logs and events ship with the dark deploy.",
"new_string": "`dashboard_action_clicked{actionId}`, `dashboard_row_clicked{panel}`, `dashboard_view_all_clicked{panel}`, `dashboard_return_visit`. Logs and events ship with the dark deploy."
},
"messageId": "msg_011CevLPEAgvJCT26jXyiWXZ",
"requestId": "req_011CevLPDBQp3UnWKbrA6Uz3"
},
{
"sessionId": "e291cda3-52ee-498b-9ef9-d203694d23ef",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T19:47:03.729Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01CUMXbu7C4ZsyVgWHckUhbx",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Edit",
"input": {
"replace_all": false,
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-KPXlt1/tmp/gstack-hermetic-520393-t0LmZZ/skill-home-xglsi4/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-bwDe8x/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md",
"old_string": " - A3: the new route inherits the existing rate limits. Verify by reading the middleware chain. Fallback: register the route in the rate-limit configuration.",
"new_string": " - A3: the new route inherits the existing rate limits. Verify by reading the middleware chain. Fallback: register the route in the rate-limit configuration.\n - A4: the bulk-read API returns the affected count. Verify by reading its response type. Fallback: success toast reads \"Marked your notifications as read.\" without a number.\n - A5: the notifications list response exposes a total unread count. Verify by reading the list method's return type. Fallback: badge shows the count of unread items among the 20 fetched and \"20+\" when all 20 are unread."
},
"messageId": "msg_011CevLPEAgvJCT26jXyiWXZ",
"requestId": "req_011CevLPDBQp3UnWKbrA6Uz3"
},
{
"sessionId": "e291cda3-52ee-498b-9ef9-d203694d23ef",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T19:47:08.294Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01YJu2pihYoGmopTKqTQRJsN",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Edit",
"input": {
"replace_all": false,
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-KPXlt1/tmp/gstack-hermetic-520393-t0LmZZ/skill-home-xglsi4/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-bwDe8x/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md",
"old_string": "- Kill criterion (defaults to confirm at the gate): at the end of the 50% stage, if the cohort's median login-to-first-completed-task is not at least 20% better than control, or completed-task rate or permission-error rate is worse than control, the flag is turned off and only the component that moved the metric is kept.",
"new_string": "- Kill criterion (defaults to confirm at the gate): at the end of the 50% stage, if the cohort's median login-to-first-completed-task is not at least 20% better than control, or completed-task rate or permission-error rate is more than 2 percentage points worse than control, the flag is turned off. Nothing remains live after flag-off; the credited panel, if any, is re-scoped into a follow-up plan. \"Guardrails flat\" at stage exits means within 2 percentage points of control. The 20% floor is deliberately below the 40% improvement the 75 s → 45 s target implies."
},
"messageId": "msg_011CevLPEAgvJCT26jXyiWXZ",
"requestId": "req_011CevLPDBQp3UnWKbrA6Uz3"
},
{
"sessionId": "e291cda3-52ee-498b-9ef9-d203694d23ef",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T19:47:20.169Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01TvHnrQGfDfhLs2KBYfc6pB",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Edit",
"input": {
"replace_all": false,
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-KPXlt1/tmp/gstack-hermetic-520393-t0LmZZ/skill-home-xglsi4/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-bwDe8x/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md",
"old_string": "- Unauthenticated on `GET /api/dashboard` redirects to login with `/dashboard` as the return path.\n- Metric window: elapsed time from `login` to the member's first `action completion` within 24 h, regardless of session boundaries. Logins with no completion count against the completed-task-rate guardrail and are excluded from the median. `dashboard_return_visit` is a `/dashboard` view not preceded by a `login` event within 60 s on the same day. A new event `dashboard_row_clicked{panel}` records deep-link follows.\n- Kill-criterion attribution: the panel whose `dashboard_action_clicked` or `dashboard_row_clicked` event immediately precedes the first `action completion` is credited; on flag-off, panels with credited completions are candidates to keep. The 20% kill floor is deliberately below the 40% improvement the 75 s → 45 s target implies.",
"new_string": "- Unauthenticated on `GET /api/dashboard` returns the existing typed unauthenticated error (HTTP 401 JSON, no redirect); the client hook navigates to login with `/dashboard` as the return path. The API route is gated by the same member-cohort flag as the page route and returns the typed forbidden error for off-cohort members.\n- Each panel retains the `generatedAt` of the response that populated it; after a per-panel retry, only the errored panel adopts the new response, and mark-all-read uses the notifications panel's retained value.\n- Metric window: elapsed time from `login` to the member's first `action completion` within 24 h, regardless of session boundaries. Logins with no completion count against the completed-task-rate guardrail and are excluded from the median. `dashboard_return_visit` is a `/dashboard` view by a member whose most recent `login` event is more than 60 s earlier. `dashboard_row_clicked{panel}` records deep-link follows.\n- Kill-criterion attribution: the panel whose `dashboard_action_clicked` or `dashboard_row_clicked` event immediately precedes the first `action completion` is credited; this informs the follow-up plan after a flag-off, nothing more.\n\n## Reviewer Concerns\n\nThree adversarial review rounds ran (the cap). Scores 5/10, 7/10, 7/10. Every issue from rounds 1 and 2 was fixed or held with a stated justification. Round 3's 13 issues were addressed after the loop closed and were not re-reviewed:\n- Held with justification from round 1: toast primitive at app root (live region must mount at the root); alerts configured before the internal stage (configuration only); three small shared units each with two or three day-one consumers.\n- Addressed without re-review from round 3: metric definition aligned; toast overflow rule reconciled; A4 and A5 added; `dashboard_row_clicked` added to the event list; T1 dependency stated; per-panel retained `generatedAt`; typed 401 instead of redirect; API route flag-gated; kill flag-off leaves nothing live; guardrail tolerance 2 points; return-visit rule reworded; toast identity defined."
},
"messageId": "msg_011CevLPEAgvJCT26jXyiWXZ",
"requestId": "req_011CevLPDBQp3UnWKbrA6Uz3"
},
{
"sessionId": "e291cda3-52ee-498b-9ef9-d203694d23ef",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T19:47:23.728Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01XK6iDRvEoYgew9ZsqSxRhd",
"kind": "result",
"content": "The file /tmp/gstack-paid-shard-KPXlt1/tmp/gstack-hermetic-520393-t0LmZZ/skill-home-xglsi4/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-bwDe8x/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md has been updated successfully. (file state is current in your context — no need to Read it back)",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "e291cda3-52ee-498b-9ef9-d203694d23ef",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T19:47:24.498Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Co6PBLXL5jGu4TQBDmSXKZ",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Bash",
"input": {
"command": "cd /tmp/gstack-paid-shard-KPXlt1/tmp/gstack-hermetic-520393-t0LmZZ/with-skills/.claude/plans\necho \"--- accepted block copies ---\"; grep -c \"autoplan-accepted:ceo -->\" rosy-conjuring-clover.md\necho \"--- headings ---\"; grep -n \"^## \\|^# \" rosy-conjuring-clover.md | head -60\necho \"--- check ---\"\nbun /home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/bin/gstack-autoplan-snapshot.ts check ceo \"$PWD/rosy-conjuring-clover.md\" \"$HOME/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-bwDe8x/autoplan-ceo-J5MX7p/ceo-implementation.md\" changed | jq '{phase, changed, recordedObligations}'\nwc -l rosy-conjuring-clover.md",
"description": "Verify amended plan structure and retention check"
},
"messageId": "msg_011CevLPEAgvJCT26jXyiWXZ",
"requestId": "req_011CevLPDBQp3UnWKbrA6Uz3"
},
{
"sessionId": "e291cda3-52ee-498b-9ef9-d203694d23ef",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T19:47:30.760Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01CATB2T5xanKtDmNTJz273q",
"kind": "result",
"content": "The file /tmp/gstack-paid-shard-KPXlt1/tmp/gstack-hermetic-520393-t0LmZZ/skill-home-xglsi4/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-bwDe8x/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md has been updated successfully. (file state is current in your context — no need to Read it back)",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "e291cda3-52ee-498b-9ef9-d203694d23ef",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T19:47:37.783Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_0199q2iK6Pa1xTqiZGNqq81u",
"kind": "result",
"content": "The file /tmp/gstack-paid-shard-KPXlt1/tmp/gstack-hermetic-520393-t0LmZZ/skill-home-xglsi4/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-bwDe8x/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md has been updated successfully. (file state is current in your context — no need to Read it back)",
"isError": false
}
],
"before": "---\nstatus: ACTIVE\n---\n# CEO Plan: User Dashboard Page\nGenerated by /plan-ceo-review (via /autoplan) on 2026-09-10\nBranch: main | Mode: SELECTIVE EXPANSION\nRepo: gstack-autoplan-chain-bwDe8x (no remote)\nSource plan: `.claude/plans/ui-heavy-feature.md` (this document records scope decisions; the full reviewed plan with obligations lives in the active plan file)\n\n## Baseline plan (what the source plan asks for)\n\nA new page at `/dashboard` that members land on after login, behind the existing member-cohort feature flag. Three panels: `QuickActions` (the existing action registry's three actions: create an item, resume assigned work, invite a member, each with a stable ID, label, route target, and server-side eligibility predicate), `NotificationsPanel` (member-specific alerts with persistent read state, from the existing member-scoped list method, latest 20), `ActivityFeed` (immutable workspace audit history, from the existing workspace-scoped list method, latest 20). One new endpoint `GET /api/dashboard` composes those three existing repository calls. A \"Mark all as read\" confirmation modal calls the existing idempotent member-scoped bulk-read API, which marks only notifications at or before a supplied snapshot time. A toast system gives nonblocking feedback. The \"current landing\" page is whatever members see after login today; the flag's rollback target.\n\n## Constraints (from the source plan)\n\n- No schema migration. No new mutation API. The only write reuses the existing bulk-read API.\n- Member and workspace IDs come from the request context (cookie session plus workspace membership middleware); never from query parameters. Mutations require CSRF tokens.\n- Dark mode and personalization are separate plans; action ranking does not exist and is not built here.\n- Existing primitives to reuse: Tailwind tokens, responsive page shell, buttons, links, dialog primitive (focus trap, Escape, focus return), typed HTTP errors (unauthenticated, forbidden, validation, retryable-service, network), Vitest, React Testing Library, Playwright, fixtures (authenticated member, another workspace, empty lists, service failures), feature flags, request and error metrics.\n- Accessibility policy: named controls, live region for nonblocking feedback, sufficient contrast, reduced-motion support.\n- Blast radius for auto-approved expansions: the dashboard page, its panels, the new endpoint, and their direct importers. The login flow and global key handling are outside it.\n\n## Success metric\n\n- Metric: login-to-first-completed-task time. Events already recorded: `login`, `action start`, `action completion`, `permission error`. Definition: for each login, the elapsed time to the first `action completion` event by that member within 24 hours after login, regardless of session boundaries (logins with no completion in the window count as non-completions in the completed-task-rate guardrail, not as infinite durations in the median).\n- Baseline: 75 s median from a team task walkthrough. This is not member data. Before the 10% rollout stage, the real distribution is pulled from the existing events and the target is restated relative to it.\n- Target: 45 s median (from the source plan), restated as a relative improvement once the real baseline is measured.\n- Guardrails: completed-task rate and permission-error rate must not be worse in the cohort than in control.\n- Secondary: `dashboard_return_visit` rate (a page redirected-to but never returned-to is not a home).\n\n## Vision\n\n### 10x Check\nThe dashboard as a start-of-day surface that talks back. A member logs in and the page already knows their one assigned item and shows it as the single primary button. The moment a teammate mentions them, the alert appears without a refresh. Concrete shape: server-side next-action ranking, an SSE channel for live updates, keyboard-first quick actions. Effort for that vision: human ~3 weeks / CC ~5 h. Not this plan: ranking and personalization are the user's separate plans and SSE is new infrastructure. This plan builds the surface those features attach to.\n\n### Effort for the accepted scope of this plan\nBaseline plan plus all accepted items, hardening, instrumentation, rollout, and tests: human ~6 to 7 days / CC ~2 to 2.5 hours.\n\n## Scope Decisions\n\n| # | Proposal | Effort | Decision | Reasoning |\n|---|----------|--------|----------|-----------|\n| 1 | Unread count in the document title | S | ACCEPTED | In blast radius (page component); a background tab tells the member something changed |\n| 2 | Snapshot-rule copy in the mark-all-read modal | XS | ACCEPTED | Makes the existing API's snapshot semantics visible; depends on assumption A2 below, with a fallback |\n| 3 | Relative timestamps with absolute time in `title` and `<time datetime>` | S | ACCEPTED | One small util used by two panels; screen-reader and hover clarity |\n| 4 | Skeletons sized to the final layout (no layout shift) | S | ACCEPTED | Part ofLine truncated
"targetStat": {
"mtimeNs": "1789069657746529128",
"ctimeNs": "1789069657750529128",
"mode": "0o100644",
"permissions": "0o644",
"size": 17724,
"device": 65040,
"inode": 93170439
},
"viewport": " e, flag-off landing), endpoint p95 check on staging.\n\n● Update(~/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-bwDe8x/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md)\n\n● Update(~/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-bwDe8x/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md)\n\n● Update(~/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-bwDe8x/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md)\n\n● Bash(cd /tmp/gstack-paid-shard-KPXlt1/tmp/gstack-hermetic-520393-t0LmZZ/with-skills/.claude/plans\n echo \"--- accepted block copies ---\"; grep -c \"autoplan-accepted:ce…)\n ⎿  Waiting…\n\n────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\n Edit file\n …-520393-t0LmZZ/skill-home-xglsi4/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-bwDe8x/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md\n╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌\n 83 - A1: the activity list method preloads actor display names (no N+1). Verify by reading the method and its query.\n Fallback: add the preload to the existing method (small change to existing code, flagged as its own task).\n 84 - A2: the bulk-read API accepts a caller-supplied snapshot time and validates or clamps it (rejecting future time\n s). Verify by reading the API handler. Fallback if it rejects caller-supplied times: send no snapshot and let the A\n PI use server-now at submit; keep the modal copy but phrase it as \"received before now\". Fallback if it accepts unv\n alidated future times: flag as an existing-API finding; the dashboard still sends `generatedAt`, which is always in\n the past.\n 85 - A3: the new route inherits the existing rate limits. Verify by reading the middleware chain. Fallback: register\n the route in the rate-limit configuration.\n 86 + - A4: the bulk-read API returns the affected count. Verify by reading its response type. Fallback: success toast \n +reads \"Marked your notifications as read.\" without a number. \n 87 + - A5: the notifications list response exposes a total unread count. Verify by reading the list method's return ty\n +pe. Fallback: badge shows the count of unread items among the 20 fetched and \"20+\" when all 20 are unread. \n 88 \n 89 ## Clarifications from spec review round 2\n 90 \n╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌\n Do you want to make this edit to 2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md?\n ❯ 1. Yes\n 2. Yes, and switch to accept edits (auto-approve file edits and common file commands) for this session (shift+tab)\n 3. No\n\n Esc to cancel · Tab to amend\n"
}
test/fixtures/autoplan-repeated-header-ak.json
Vendored
-41
View File
@@ -1,41 +0,0 @@
{
"sourceCommit": "04c62ac678bb7bc1a22090f72f7ed51c451c22b9",
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-R1Epd7/tmp/gstack-autoplan-chain-RWuak5",
"ownedStateRoot": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-R1Epd7/tmp/gstack-hermetic-1325468-PiGFgQ/skill-home-ifHsqQ/.gstack",
"pending": {
"source": "pre_tool_use",
"sessionId": "cc8879c8-8129-4a97-8740-0c847bca26ec",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01M4G37jNLHYYwR5pdAsBz2k",
"tool": "Edit",
"file": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-R1Epd7/tmp/gstack-hermetic-1325468-PiGFgQ/skill-home-ifHsqQ/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-RWuak5/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T07:02:05.600Z"
},
"viewport": " \n\u25cf Update(~/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-RWuak5/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md)\n \n\u25cf Update(~/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-RWuak5/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md)\n \n\u25cf Update(~/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-RWuak5/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md)\n \n\u25cf Update(~/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-RWuak5/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md)\n \n\u25cf Update(~/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-RWuak5/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md)\n \n\u25cf Update(~/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-RWuak5/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md)\n \n\u25cf Update(~/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-RWuak5/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md)\n \n\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\n Edit file\n \u20261325468-PiGFgQ/skill-home-ifHsqQ/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-RWuak5/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md\n\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\n 20 | Dependency | Used by | Reuse effort (human / CC) | Build-first effort if absent (human / CC) | Status |\n 21 |---|---|---|---|---|\n 22 | Cookie sessions + workspace membership middleware supplying member and workspace IDs | A-1 | included | ~2 days /\n ~30 min | UNVERIFIED |\n 23 -| Activity and notification list methods (latest 20 + cursor, indexed) | A-1 | included | ~1 day / ~20 min | UNVERI\n -FIED | \n 23 +| Activity and notification list methods (latest 20 + cursor, indexed); notification record carries a `read` boolea\n +n | A-1, A-5 | included | ~1 day / ~20 min | UNVERIFIED | \n 24 | Action registry with three actions and server-side eligibility predicates | A-4 | ~2h / ~5 min | ~1 day / ~20 min\n | UNVERIFIED |\n 25 | Member-scoped idempotent bulk-read API accepting a snapshot time | A-5 | included | ~1 day / ~20 min (a new mutat\n ion API, which the plan currently forbids; needs a decision, see A-11) | UNVERIFIED |\n 26 | Typed HTTP client errors (five kinds above) | A-1, A-2 | included | ~4h / ~10 min | UNVERIFIED |\n\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\n Do you want to make this edit to 2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md?\n \u276f 1. Yes\n 2. Yes, and switch to accept edits (auto-approve file edits and common file commands) for this session (shift+tab)\n 3. No\n\n Esc to cancel \u00b7 Tab to amend\n",
"viewportCapturedAt": 1789023827035,
"events": [
{
"sessionId": "cc8879c8-8129-4a97-8740-0c847bca26ec",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T06:59:16.372Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01R8TPTAoUnmsr2pbcE9cLuY",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Write",
"input": {
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-R1Epd7/tmp/gstack-hermetic-1325468-PiGFgQ/skill-home-ifHsqQ/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-RWuak5/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md",
"content": "---\nstatus: ACTIVE\n---\n# CEO Plan: User Dashboard Page\nGenerated by /plan-ceo-review (via /autoplan) on 2026-09-10\nBranch: main | Mode: SELECTIVE EXPANSION\nRepo: gstack-autoplan-chain-RWuak5 (no remote)\n\n## Glossary\n- **CC**: Claude Code (AI-assisted) implementation time. Effort is shown as `human / CC`.\n- **md breakpoint**: Tailwind default, 768px min-width. \"Below md\" means viewports narrower than 768px (this includes the 640px `sm` step and the base range under it). Test widths used throughout: 375px (below md), 768px (md), 1280px (lg).\n- **Tokens**: the app's existing Tailwind theme (spacing, color, typography scales in the Tailwind config). \"Token-only\" means no literal hex/rgb/px values in dashboard or feedback components.\n- **PanelResult**: the per-panel result envelope defined under A-1 below.\n- **Holdout**: a flag cohort that keeps today's post-login behavior so the dashboard cohort can be compared against it.\n- **Typed client error kinds**: the five existing HTTP client error kinds: `unauthenticated`, `forbidden`, `validation`, `retryable-service`, `network`.\n\n## Verified-dependencies checklist (blocks implementation start, see A-11)\nThe plan's \"existing contracts\" section describes these as already built. This repository contains only README.md and the plan, so none could be verified during review (Final Gate item PC-1). Each row must be confirmed by the implementer before work starts; an absent dependency flips its row to \"build minimal version first\" and its effort to the build-first column.\n\n| Dependency | Used by | Reuse effort (human / CC) | Build-first effort if absent (human / CC) | Status |\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n| Cookie sessions + workspace membership middleware supplying member and workspace IDs | A-1 | included | ~2 days / ~30 min | UNVERIFIED |\n| Activity and notification list methods (latest 20 + cursor, indexed) | A-1 | included | ~1 day / ~20 min | UNVERIFIED |\n| Action registry with three actions and server-side eligibility predicates | A-4 | ~2h / ~5 min | ~1 day / ~20 min | UNVERIFIED |\n| Member-scoped idempotent bulk-read API accepting a snapshot time | A-5 | included | ~1 day / ~20 min (a new mutation API, which the plan currently forbids; needs a decision, see A-11) | UNVERIFIED |\n| Typed HTTP client errors (five kinds above) | A-1, A-2 | included | ~4h / ~10 min | UNVERIFIED |\n| Analytics events: login, action start, action completion, permission error | A-6, A-7 | included | ~1 day / ~20 min; if build-first, use the A-7 baseline fallback | UNVERIFIED |\n| Feature flags with member-cohort assignment | A-7 | included | ~1 day / ~20 min | UNVERIFIED |\n| Tailwind tokens, page shell, button, link, dialog primitive (focus trap, Escape, focus return) | A-2, A-5, A-10 | included | ~1 day / ~20 min | UNVERIFIED |\n| Toast primitive | A-3 | reuse if present | ~1 day / ~15 min (the plan states none exists) | UNVERIFIED |\n| Vitest, RTL, Playwright in CI; fixtures for authenticated member, other workspace, empty lists, service failures | A-9 | included | ~1 day / ~20 min | UNVERIFIED |\n| Request metrics with per-route RPS (for the load figure in A-7 step 2) | A-7 | included | ~4h / ~10 min | UNVERIFIED |\n\n## Vision\n\n### 10x Check\nThe page that already knows your next task. A member lands and the dashboard has picked the item they were going to open: \"Resume: Invoice review (3 waiting)\". No scanning three pages, no choosing. Concrete shape: eligibility-filtered quick actions today (v1), per-action eligible counts and \"new since your last visit\" markers next (deferred: they need new count queries and last-seen persistence, which the v1 plan forbids). v1 lays the rails: one endpoint returning per-panel results, one panel shell, one shared toast primitive, and a rollout with a holdout so the team can prove the page moves login-to-first-completed-task from the measured baseline toward 45s.\n\n### Platonic Ideal\nNot produced in SELECTIVE EXPANSION mode.\n\n## Metrics\n- **Primary metric**: login-to-first-completed-task time, p50 and p90. Definition: elapsed time from the existing `login` analytics event to the first existing `action completion` event for that member in the same session.\n- **Baseline**: TBD. If the analytics dependency is present: pull the production p50 and p90 over the trailing 28 days before the first cohort is enabled and record both here. If the analytics dependency is build-first: no historical baseline exists; the first 7 days of the holdout cohort's p50/p90 become the baseline, and the relative target (dashboard beats holdout) becomes primary while the absolute 45s target is secondary. The plan's 75s figure came from a single internal walkthrough and is never the baseline.\n- **Target**: dashboard-cohort p50 lower than holdout p50 over the same window (primary), and dashboard p50 \u2264 45s (secondary when the baseline is the holdout).\n- **Guardrails** (dashboard cohort vs holdout, same window): compLine truncated
}
},
{
"sessionId": "cc8879c8-8129-4a97-8740-0c847bca26ec",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T06:59:19.075Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01R8TPTAoUnmsr2pbcE9cLuY",
"kind": "result",
"content": "The file /tmp/gstack-paid-shard-R1Epd7/tmp/gstack-hermetic-1325468-PiGFgQ/skill-home-ifHsqQ/.gstack/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-RWuak5/ceo-plans/2026-09-10-user-dashboard.md has been updated successfully. (file state is current in your context \u2014 no need to Read it back)",
"isError": false
}
],
"provenance": {
"all100PublicToolsProofSHA": "7638fb4cb24cd5b8da3bc984dd5fe5981aad28169c228d87fd9f586f7c165945",
"beforeMatchesLatestSuccessfulWrite": true,
"projection": "Only latest successful same-file Write/result retained here; all100 original public events are separately retained and replayed in context."
}
}
test/fixtures/autoplan-routing-label-ap.json
Vendored
-82
View File
@@ -1,82 +0,0 @@
{
"source": {
"sourceHead": "5e7b66c7f41942ea2b0840405385612cec046d78",
"capture": {
"path": ".context/ship-source-ap-delta-paid-20260910-v1/ap-routing-pending-plan-v1/capture.json",
"sha256": "7fa0590775087885a695e9d4d47d9a5c009b4d547460e41d9e16db732696d91a",
"bytes": 2664
},
"pending": {
"path": ".context/ship-source-ap-delta-paid-20260910-v1/ap-routing-pending-plan-v1/pending-question.json",
"sha256": "39dd3ac32611da09f43fabcc09f15533ef7410bb592741ed9906a5c1aebb1fdc",
"bytes": 2479
},
"observation": {
"path": ".context/ship-source-ap-delta-paid-20260910-v1/ap-routing-pending-plan-v1/observation.json",
"sha256": "3b5036d40511c5d073b1d9c7db71c4f0cefa4623f78d801e7d2ff8a12a6ae983",
"bytes": 3581
},
"screen": {
"path": ".context/ship-source-ap-delta-paid-20260910-v1/ap-routing-pending-plan-v1/terminal.screen.log",
"sha256": "497a3ee936d0486a15aae5a67f4967eeb6b05205d211aba7e7f68fabd9db7940",
"bytes": 3342
},
"counterfactuals": {
"path": ".context/ship-source-ap-delta-paid-20260910-v1/ap-routing-pending-plan-v1/counterfactuals-v2.json",
"sha256": "4d9d232169faab39081e5092e3674397d039caf7dd3e8e745d06b7e7dca3c40b",
"bytes": 17401
}
},
"commandLowerBound": 1789045492400,
"capturedAt": "2026-09-10T13:07:28.000952+00:00",
"pendingState": {
"version": 1,
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-b3Fzw0/tmp/gstack-autoplan-chain-hcbFgG",
"configDir": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-b3Fzw0/tmp/gstack-hermetic-3157181-H1BIrP/with-skills/.claude",
"seenIds": [
"toolu_01SzT1NJ3ZpEqEyPeYQU3ohZ"
],
"pending": {
"sessionId": "0051ce69-e94a-4414-8583-9473737f09e8",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01SzT1NJ3ZpEqEyPeYQU3ohZ",
"transcriptPath": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-b3Fzw0/tmp/gstack-hermetic-3157181-H1BIrP/with-skills/.claude/projects/-tmp-gstack-paid-shard-b3Fzw0-tmp-gstack-autoplan-chain-hcbFgG/0051ce69-e94a-4414-8583-9473737f09e8.jsonl",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T13:06:16.893Z",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-autoplan-chain on main, no CLAUDE.md exists yet.\nELI10: gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules. These rules tell Claude which gstack skill to reach for when you say things like \"ship this\" or \"find the bug\", so you don't have to type slash commands. Without them, skills only run when you invoke them by name.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Without routing, future sessions may skip a helpful skill; with routing, a 15-line section lands in CLAUDE.md (and in plan mode, the write waits until planning ends).\nRecommendation: A because routing is a one-time, low-cost setup that makes every later session smoother.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nA) Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (recommended)\n ✅ Future requests like \"review this\" or \"ship it\" auto-route to the right gstack skill\n ✅ Teammates who clone the repo inherit the same routing behavior from the committed file\n ❌ Adds a new CLAUDE.md file and a commit to the repo; in plan mode this is deferred until planning ends\nB) No thanks, I'll invoke skills manually\n ✅ Repo stays untouched; no new file or commit is created\n ✅ You keep explicit control over when each skill runs\n ❌ You have to remember and type each /skill name yourself every time\nNet: a small committed file versus manual skill invocation forever.",
"header": "Routing",
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (recommended)",
"description": "Create CLAUDE.md with the gstack routing section and commit it (after plan mode ends)."
},
{
"label": "B) No thanks, I'll invoke skills manually",
"description": "Record routing_declined; re-enable later with gstack-config."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
]
},
"sessionId": "0051ce69-e94a-4414-8583-9473737f09e8"
},
"nativeTranscript": {
"status": "ready",
"calls": [],
"assistantMessages": [
{
"sessionId": "0051ce69-e94a-4414-8583-9473737f09e8",
"text": "I'll run the /autoplan pipeline. First, the preamble to get session status.",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T13:05:07.879Z"
}
]
},
"observedScreen": " ⎿  Allowed by auto mode classifier\n\n● Bash(bun \"/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/bin/gstack-autoplan-snapshot.ts\" init\n \"/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-b3Fzw0/tmp/gstack-autoplan-chain-hcbFgG/.claude/plans/ui-heavy-fe…)\n ⎿  Waiting…\n────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\nPlanning:\n/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-b3Fzw0/tmp/gstack-hermetic-3157181-H1BIrP/with-skills/.claude/plans/flickering-gathering-nest.md\n────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\n ☐ Routing\n\n│ D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to CLAUDE.md?\n│ Project/branch/task: gstack-autoplan-chain on main, no CLAUDE.md exists yet.\n│ ELI10: gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules. These rules tell Claude which\n│ gstack skill to reach for when you say things like \"ship this\" or \"find the bug\", so you don't have to type slash\n│ commands. Without them, skills only run when you invoke them by name.\n│ Stakes if we pick wrong: Without routing, future sessions may skip a helpful skill; with routing, a 15-line section\n│ lands in CLAUDE.md (and in plan mode, the write waits until planning ends).\n│ Recommendation: A because routing is a one-time, low-cost setup that makes every later session smoother.\n│ Note: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\n│ A) Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (recommended)\n│ ✅ Future requests like \"review this\" or \"ship it\" auto-route to the right gstack skill\n│ ✅ Teammates who clone the repo inherit the same routing behavior from the committed file\n│ ❌ Adds a new CLAUDE.md file and a commit to the repo; in plan mode this is deferred until planning ends\n│ B) No thanks, I'll invoke skills manually\n│ ✅ Repo stays untouched; no new file or commit is created\n│ ✅ You keep explicit control over when each skill runs\n│ ❌ You have to remember and type each /skill namen yourself every time\n│ Net: a small committed file versus manual skill invocation forever.\n\n❯ 1. A) Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (recommended)\n Create CLAUDE.md with the gstack routing section and commit it (after plan mode ends).\n 2. B) No thanks, I'll invoke skills manually\n Record routing_declined; re-enable later with gstack-config.\n 3. Type something.\n────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\n 4. Chat about this\n\nEnter to select · ↑/↓ to navigate · Esc to cancel\n",
"limits": [
"Exact owned public hook state, native public projection, and terminal screen; no private journal.",
"The lower bound is owned process start, not a claimed exact slash-command timestamp.",
"Observed screen has a separate unmatched display character and must remain waiting for this action-only repair.",
"Tests construct complete native panels from the unchanged exact native question; those panels are synthetic counterfactuals, not observed live screens."
]
}
test/fixtures/autoplan-routing-n-screen.txt
Vendored
-39
View File
@@ -1,39 +0,0 @@
│ D1 — Add skill routing rules to CLAUDE.md? <gstack-qid:routing-injection>
│
│ Project/branch: gstack-autoplan-chain-309S8Y / main — User Dashboard plan about to enter full review pipeline.
│
│ ELI10: When you type something natural like "review my plan" or "check the design," gstack can automatically pick the
│ right skill (/autoplan, /plan-design-review, etc.) without you needing to type the exact slash command. This works
│ through routing rules in your project's CLAUDE.md. Right now no CLAUDE.md exists here, so automatic routing isn't
│ active. This is a one-time setup that benefits the whole team.
│
│ Stakes if we pick wrong: Low — you can always add routing rules later or remove them. Without routing, you manually
│ invoke skills; with routing, natural language triggers them.
│
│ Recommendation: A — hands-free skill dispatch beats remembering slash commands.
│ Note: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.
│
│ Pros / cons:
│ A) Add routing to CLAUDE.md (Recommended)
│ ✅ Natural language triggers skills automatically — type "review the plan" and the right skill fires without exact
│ command syntax
│ ✅ Committed to repo — teammates using gstack get the same routing with no extra setup
│ ❌ Adds a CLAUDE.md file (and a commit) to the repo; routing opinions are baked in and would need to be updated if
│ your skill preferences change
│ B) Skip — invoke manually
│ ✅ Zero new files or commits; no routing opinions imposed on the repo
│ ✅ Explicit control — you choose which skill runs each time
│ ❌ Must always type exact slash commands like /autoplan or /ship; natural language won't trigger skills
│
│ Net: Convenience vs. explicitness — routing makes gstack hands-free; skipping keeps it a consciously invoked tool.
❯ 1. Add routing rules (Recommended)
Append skill routing section to CLAUDE.md and commit it. Enables natural language skill dispatch for you and
teammates.
2. Skip, invoke manually
No CLAUDE.md changes. Continue using explicit slash commands like /autoplan, /ship, /review.
3. Type something.
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
4. Chat about this
Enter to select · ↑/↓ to navigate · Esc to cancel
test/fixtures/autoplan-routing-o-screen.txt
Vendored
-39
View File
@@ -1,39 +0,0 @@
⎿  Allowed by auto mode classifier
● Bash(# Phase 0: UI and DX scope detection
PLAN="/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-KqNWnL/tmp/gstack-autoplan-chain-E6SYLb/.claude/plans/ui-heavy-feature.md"…)
⎿  === UI SCOPE DETECTION ===
20
# Plan: User Dashboard Page
… +15 lines (ctrl+o to expand)
⎿  Allowed by auto mode classifier
● Now I have all the Phase 0 context. Let me read the CEO phase section, then write the initial plan file structure.
Read 1 file (ctrl+o to expand)
● Let me write the initial plan structure and then handle the routing instruction.
● Updated plan
⎿  /plan to preview
● Now I need to handle the routing instruction that fired at skill start. This is required before continuing with the
main review.
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Planning:
/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-KqNWnL/tmp/gstack-hermetic-1924999-9eI1jB/with-skills/.claude/plans/cuddly-sparking-magpie.md
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
☐ Routing rules
│ gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules. Add them now?
❯ 1. Add routing rules (Recommended)
Append skill routing rules to CLAUDE.md so Claude automatically invokes the right skill (/autoplan, /ship, /qa,
etc.) without you having to type the command. One-time setup, committed to the repo.
2. Skip for now
Invoke skills manually going forward. You can re-enable later by asking Claude to add routing rules.
3. Type something.
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
4. Chat about this
Enter to select · ↑/↓ to navigate · Esc to cancel
test/fixtures/autoplan-setup-ad-v2-packet.json
Vendored
-50
View File
@@ -1,50 +0,0 @@
{
"provenance": {
"kind": "Actual complete public setup packet and current visible first pane",
"label": "ship-source-ad-full-paid-20260909-v2",
"capturedAt": "2026-09-09T19:05:10.548Z",
"sourceHead": "7fac51e9bd8619665960657462ceab2773d142f5",
"observationSha256": "ef98690ff24589a177027e57b5159144d2e9269ff3b7ee706bd9f57f51f4b492",
"screenSha256": "8ca0a32e2e894ba5dd4fad2c10e225f847e8a64792e7f0aeea13d6183e5b4503",
"outcome": "live case waiting; no input/pass or retrospective coverage from fixture"
},
"pendingCall": {
"sessionId": "e40afe62-b71e-4372-9ff1-981ced50de14",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01RyKcb3VJtBWLqb3h56DPBJ",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 \u2014 Add gstack skill routing rules to CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-autoplan-chain on main, about to /autoplan the User Dashboard plan.\nELI10: gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules. This repo has no CLAUDE.md yet. Routing rules tell the agent which skill to reach for (bugs \u2192 /investigate, ship \u2192 /ship) so you don't have to name skills by hand. Stakes: without it, skills only run when you invoke them explicitly.\nStakes if we pick wrong: mild \u2014 either a small extra file in the repo, or slightly more manual skill invocation.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules are a one-time, low-cost file that makes every future session smoother.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: a committed CLAUDE.md section vs. manual skill invocation. Note: we are in plan mode, so the file write and commit happen after plan approval, not now.",
"header": "Routing",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Future requests auto-route to the right skill without you naming it. \u2705 One-time setup, committed once, shared with teammates. \u274c Adds a CLAUDE.md file to a repo that has none today (written after plan approval)."
},
{
"label": "No thanks, I'll invoke skills manually",
"description": "\u2705 Repo stays minimal, no new files added. \u2705 You keep full control over when skills run. \u274c Skills never fire proactively; you type each one yourself."
}
]
},
{
"question": "D2 \u2014 Run /office-hours first for a design doc?\nProject/branch/task: same repo, no design doc found for this branch.\nELI10: No design doc found for this branch. /office-hours produces a structured problem statement, premise challenge, and explored alternatives \u2014 it gives this review much sharper input to work with. Takes about 10 minutes. The design doc is per-feature, not per-product \u2014 it captures the thinking behind this specific change. Stakes: the CEO review phase leans on a design doc to judge premises; without one it works from the plan text alone.\nStakes if we pick wrong: either 10 extra minutes up front, or a CEO review with slightly less context on why this dashboard exists.\nRecommendation: B because the plan already carries a detailed 'Existing product and application contracts' section with the problem (75s median to find next task), success metric (45s), and guardrails, which is most of what office-hours would produce.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=8/10\nNet: 10 minutes of upfront problem framing vs. proceeding on an already well-grounded plan.",
"header": "Design doc",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Run /office-hours now",
"description": "\u2705 Produces a formal problem statement and alternatives the CEO review can challenge directly. \u2705 Leaves a committed design doc for teammates. \u274c Adds ~10 minutes (human: ~30 min / CC: ~10 min) before the review starts, and this plan already states its problem and metric."
},
{
"label": "Skip \u2014 proceed with standard review (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Review starts immediately using the plan's existing problem statement and success metrics. \u2705 The plan's contracts section already covers most of what office-hours would surface. \u274c No separate design doc artifact; premise challenge works from plan text only."
}
]
}
],
"answered": false,
"failed": false
},
"screen": "\n\u25cf Bash(eval \"$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null)\"\n echo \"SLUG=$SLUG BRANCH=$BRANCH\"\u2026)\n \u23bf \u00a0SLUG=gstack-autoplan-chain-f8hO0F BRANCH=main\n --- RECENT ARTIFACTS ---\n {\n \u2026 +32 lines (ctrl+o to expand)\n \u23bf \u00a0Allowed by auto mode classifier\n\n\u25cf Everything checks out \u2014 I found one plan file for a user dashboard page, but no design doc or CLAUDE.md. Two gates\n triggered before running: the routing-rules onboarding and the office-hours offer. \u00b7\u00a0summarized\n\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\nPlanning:\n/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-GJoH2D/tmp/gstack-hermetic-1636446-Otiddj/with-skills/.claude/plans/cheerful-moseying-robin.md\n\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\n\u2190 \u2610 Routing \u2610 Design doc \u2714 Submit \u2192\n\n\u2502 D1 \u2014 Add gstack skill routing rules to CLAUDE.md?\n\u2502 Project/branch/task: gstack-autoplan-chain on main, about to /autoplan the User Dashboard plan.\n\u2502 ELI10: gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules. This repo has no CLAUDE.md yet.\n\u2502 Routing rules tell the agent which skill to reach for (bugs \u2192 /investigate, ship \u2192 /ship) so you don't have to name\n\u2502 skills by hand. Stakes: without it, skills only run when you invoke them explicitly.\n\u2502 Stakes if we pick wrong: mild \u2014 either a small extra file in the repo, or slightly more manual skill invocation.\n\u2502 Recommendation: A because routing rules are a one-time, low-cost file that makes every future session smoother.\n\u2502 Note: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\n\u2502 Net: a committed CLAUDE.md section vs. manual skill invocation. Note: we are in plan mode, so the file write and\n\u2502 commit happen after plan approval, not now.\n\n\u276f 1. Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (recommended)\n \u2705 Future requests auto-route to the right skill without you naming it. \u2705 One-time setup, committed once, shared\n with teammates. \u274c Adds a CLAUDE.md file to a repo that has none today (written after plan approval).\n 2. No thanks, I'll invoke skills manually\n \u2705 Repo stays minimal, no new files added. \u2705 You keep full control over when skills run. \u274c Skills never fire\n proactively; you type each one yourself.\n 3. Type something.\n\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\n 4. Chat about this\n\nEnter to select \u00b7 Tab/Arrow keys to navigate \u00b7 Esc to cancel\n"
}
test/fixtures/autoplan-setup-z-packet.json
Vendored
-41
View File
@@ -1,41 +0,0 @@
{
"pendingCall": {
"sessionId": "fdd778bd-7b37-48e2-a9ef-8a23236eb739",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01PCZUJyfaiLWEa1TsnuffPp",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 \u2014 Add gstack skill routing rules to CLAUDE.md? <gstack-qid:routing-injection>",
"header": "Routing rules",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Add routing rules (Recommended)",
"description": "Appends a skill routing section to CLAUDE.md so future sessions automatically invoke the right skill (e.g. /autoplan for reviews, /ship for deploys) without you needing to type the command each time. One-time setup per project."
},
{
"label": "Skip, I'll invoke manually",
"description": "No change to CLAUDE.md. You'll continue calling skills yourself with /skill-name as you do now."
}
]
},
{
"question": "D2 \u2014 No design doc found for this branch. Run /office-hours first to sharpen the review input?",
"header": "Design doc",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Skip, proceed with review",
"description": "Start the full CEO \u2192 Design \u2192 DX \u2192 Eng review pipeline now using the plan as-is. Recommended when the plan context is already rich enough. (Recommended)"
},
{
"label": "Run /office-hours first",
"description": "Produces a structured problem statement, premise challenge, and explored alternatives before the review. Takes ~10 min. Gives the review sharper, better-grounded input."
}
]
}
],
"answered": false,
"failed": false
},
"screen": " bun -e 'console.log(require(\"fs\").realpathSync(process.argv[1]))'\n \"$HOME/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-autoplan-snapshot.ts\" 2>/dev/n\u2026)\n \u23bf \u00a0/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/bin/gstack-autoplan-snapshot.ts\n RESTORE_PATH=/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-VpofCc/tmp/gstack-hermetic-2786306-ZTxUr3/skill-home-SKSZlS/.gstack/projec\n ts/gstack-autoplan-chain-OmAEGg/main-autoplan-restore-20260909-120209.md\n \u2026 +3 lines (ctrl+o to expand)\n \u23bf \u00a0Allowed by auto mode classifier\n\n\u25cf Bash(SNAPSHOT_TOOL=\"/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/bin/gstack-autoplan-snapshot.ts\"\n SOURCE_PLAN=\"/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-VpofCc/tmp/gstack-autoplan-chain-OmAEGg/.claude/\u2026)\n \u23bf \u00a0{\n \"sourcePlan\": \"/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-VpofCc/tmp/gstack-autoplan-chain-OmAEGg/.claude/plans/ui-heavy-feature\n .md\",\n \u2026 +57 lines (ctrl+o to expand)\n \u23bf \u00a0Allowed by auto mode classifier\n\n\u25cf Phase 0 initialized. Scope detected: UI scope (dashboard/component/modal/layout/button terms) and DX scope\n (API/endpoint/integration/implement terms). Phases 1, 2, 2.5, and 3 will all run.\n\n Now handling the GSTACK_INSTRUCTION routing block before proceeding:\n\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\nPlanning: /tmp/gstack-paid-shard-VpofCc/tmp/gstack-hermetic-2786306-ZTxUr3/with-skills/.claude/plans/expressive-twirling\n-wigderson.md \n\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\n\u2190 \u2610 Routing rules \u2610 Design doc \u2714 Submit \u2192\n\nD1 \u2014 Add gstack skill routing rules to CLAUDE.md? <gstack-qid:routing-injection>\n\n\u276f 1. Add routing rules (Recommended)\n Appends a skill routing section to CLAUDE.md so future sessions automatically invoke the right skill (e.g.\n /autoplan for reviews, /ship for deploys) without you needing to type the command each time. One-time setup per\n project.\n 2. Skip, I'll invoke manually\n No change to CLAUDE.md. You'll continue calling skills yourself with /skill-name as you do now.\n 3. Type something.\n\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\n 4. Chat about this\n\nEnter to select \u00b7 Tab/Arrow keys to navigate \u00b7 Esc to cancel\n"
}
test/fixtures/ceo-annotation-aj.json
Vendored
-457
View File
@@ -1,457 +0,0 @@
{
"sourceHead": "a6eaafacb846bdb018a1ead13985be9c05e2c2df",
"evidence": ".context/ship-source-aj-delta-paid-20260910-v1/ceo-first-terminal-ledger-v1/proof.json",
"evidenceSha256": "3615811b654f38f21bff2fe907c9a18504188bdea50fc4171f2fefe736c1f36e",
"cases": {
"paired": {
"capture": {
"skill": "plan-ceo-review",
"runId": "ship-source-aj-delta-paid-20260910-v1-4",
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-rGMMii/tmp/gstack-plan-count-knpyoQ",
"claudeConfigDir": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-rGMMii/tmp/gstack-hermetic-1054183-PR2vOl/with-skills/.claude",
"at": "2026-09-10T05:47:58.520Z"
},
"calls": [
{
"sessionId": "a9f1e8d0-71c2-4c5d-8eb8-e2ae6883b58d",
"toolUseId": "toolu_0157dCDX8MR1dwx2WLrM5w8p",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-knpyoQ on main, CEO review of PLAN.md (payment test coverage).\nELI10: gstack wants a short block in CLAUDE.md that tells Claude which skill to reach for (bugs → /investigate, scope → /plan-ceo-review, etc.). It is a one-time setup prompt, not part of the plan review. Note: plan mode blocks editing CLAUDE.md and committing right now, so option A would be recorded and applied only after you leave plan mode; this repo is also a review fixture, so the block may not be wanted here.\nStakes if we pick wrong: pick A on a fixture and you get an unwanted CLAUDE.md commit later; pick B and future sessions in this repo won't auto-route to gstack skills (re-enable anytime with gstack-config).\nRecommendation: A because that is gstack's default onboarding path, but B is equally reasonable for a throwaway fixture.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nA) Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (recommended)\n ✅ Future sessions in this repo auto-route requests to the right gstack skill\n ✅ Standard gstack onboarding; matches every other gstack-enabled project\n ❌ Cannot be applied in plan mode; lands as a deferred CLAUDE.md edit + commit after this review\nB) No thanks, I'll invoke skills manually\n ✅ No edits or commits to a review-fixture repo; nothing deferred past this session\n ✅ Records the decline in ~/.gstack config so this prompt never fires again here\n ❌ Skill routing stays manual for this project until you flip the config back\nNet: convenience for future sessions in this repo versus keeping a fixture repo untouched.",
"header": "Routing",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Add routing rules (recommended)",
"description": "Append the gstack skill-routing section to CLAUDE.md and commit it once plan mode ends."
},
{
"label": "No thanks, manual skills",
"description": "Set routing_declined=true in gstack config; leave CLAUDE.md untouched."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-knpyoQ on main, CEO review of PLAN.md (payment test coverage).\nELI10: gstack wants a short block in CLAUDE.md that tells Claude which skill to reach for (bugs → /investigate, scope → /plan-ceo-review, etc.). It is a one-time setup prompt, not part of the plan review. Note: plan mode blocks editing CLAUDE.md and committing right now, so option A would be recorded and applied only after you leave plan mode; this repo is also a review fixture, so the block may not be wanted here.\nStakes if we pick wrong: pick A on a fixture and you get an unwanted CLAUDE.md commit later; pick B and future sessions in this repo won't auto-route to gstack skills (re-enable anytime with gstack-config).\nRecommendation: A because that is gstack's default onboarding path, but B is equally reasonable for a throwaway fixture.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nA) Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (recommended)\n ✅ Future sessions in this repo auto-route requests to the right gstack skill\n ✅ Standard gstack onboarding; matches every other gstack-enabled project\n ❌ Cannot be applied in plan mode; lands as a deferred CLAUDE.md edit + commit after this review\nB) No thanks, I'll invoke skills manually\n ✅ No edits or commits to a review-fixture repo; nothing deferred past this session\n ✅ Records the decline in ~/.gstack config so this prompt never fires again here\n ❌ Skill routing stays manual for this project until you flip the config back\nNet: convenience for future sessions in this repo versus keeping a fixture repo untouched.": "Add routing rules (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T05:43:09.369Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "a9f1e8d0-71c2-4c5d-8eb8-e2ae6883b58d",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01PjbbZEfu1qtNuKovC9byvG",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D2 — Let gstack search learnings from your other projects on this machine?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-knpyoQ on main, CEO review of PLAN.md (payment test coverage).\nELI10: gstack keeps a local file of lessons it learns per project (pitfalls, command fixes, patterns). It can also read the lessons from your OTHER projects on this machine and apply the ones that match. Nothing leaves the machine. This is a one-time config choice; this project currently has zero learnings either way.\nStakes if we pick wrong: enable it on a machine with several client codebases and one client's project quirks could color advice in another; keep it scoped and you lose cross-pollination of generic lessons (test patterns, CLI fixes).\nRecommendation: A because gstack recommends it for solo developers and the data stays local; choose B if you work across multiple client codebases.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nA) Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)\n ✅ Generic lessons (test-factory pitfalls, tooling fixes) carry over between your projects\n ✅ Stays on this machine; sets one local config key you can flip back anytime\n ❌ Lessons from unrelated client codebases can surface where they don't apply\nB) Keep learnings project-scoped only\n ✅ Hard wall between codebases; nothing from another client's project appears here\n ✅ Simplest mental model: each repo's learnings file is the whole story\n ❌ Every new project starts cold and relearns the same tooling pitfalls\nNet: faster compounding across projects versus a strict per-repo boundary.",
"header": "Learnings",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Enable cross-project (recommended)",
"description": "Set cross_project_learnings=true; searches learnings across all your local projects."
},
{
"label": "Project-scoped only",
"description": "Set cross_project_learnings=false; only this repo's learnings are searched."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D2 — Let gstack search learnings from your other projects on this machine?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-knpyoQ on main, CEO review of PLAN.md (payment test coverage).\nELI10: gstack keeps a local file of lessons it learns per project (pitfalls, command fixes, patterns). It can also read the lessons from your OTHER projects on this machine and apply the ones that match. Nothing leaves the machine. This is a one-time config choice; this project currently has zero learnings either way.\nStakes if we pick wrong: enable it on a machine with several client codebases and one client's project quirks could color advice in another; keep it scoped and you lose cross-pollination of generic lessons (test patterns, CLI fixes).\nRecommendation: A because gstack recommends it for solo developers and the data stays local; choose B if you work across multiple client codebases.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nA) Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)\n ✅ Generic lessons (test-factory pitfalls, tooling fixes) carry over between your projects\n ✅ Stays on this machine; sets one local config key you can flip back anytime\n ❌ Lessons from unrelated client codebases can surface where they don't apply\nB) Keep learnings project-scoped only\n ✅ Hard wall between codebases; nothing from another client's project appears here\n ✅ Simplest mental model: each repo's learnings file is the whole story\n ❌ Every new project starts cold and relearns the same tooling pitfalls\nNet: faster compounding across projects versus a strict per-repo boundary.": "Enable cross-project (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T05:43:27.436Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "a9f1e8d0-71c2-4c5d-8eb8-e2ae6883b58d",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01CYrgmg182hJ1Hbxm3XAhgS",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D3 — Where and how should the two processPayment tests be structured?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-knpyoQ on main, CEO review of PLAN.md (payment test coverage).\nELI10: The plan adds two tests: one for a successful charge, one for two 502s exhausting the single retry. The structural choice is where they live and whether to add shared assertion helpers. This question is about shape only; what each test asserts is decided separately in the findings that follow.\nStakes if we pick wrong: put the tests in the adapter suite and they never exercise processPayment's own receipt-shaping and retry-exhaustion path; add helpers for two call sites and you get an abstraction nobody else uses yet.\nRecommendation: A because two focused tests in the caller's own suite is the smallest diff that fully proves both contracts, and helpers for two call sites is premature abstraction.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=10/10, C=4/10\nA) Two focused tests in the existing processPayment suite, using the current factory, Stripe mock and virtual sleeper as planned (recommended) (human: ~1h / CC: ~5 min)\n ✅ Exercises processPayment's real caller path: receipt shaping and retry exhaustion\n ✅ Zero new files, zero new helpers; reuses every fixture the plan already names\n ❌ Assertions are spelled out inline per test rather than through a shared helper\nB) Same two tests plus small shared helpers (expectReceipt, expectRetryTrace) in the payment test factory (human: ~2h / CC: ~10 min)\n ✅ Future processPayment tests get exact receipt and retry assertions for free\n ✅ One place to update if the sleeper record or receipt shape ever changes\n ❌ Two call sites do not justify a helper; it is premature abstraction and widens the diff into the factory\nC) Add the assertions to the existing Stripe adapter suite instead of the processPayment suite (human: ~1h / CC: ~5 min)\n ✅ Keeps all Stripe-related tests in one suite\n ✅ Adapter suite already has 502-recovery scaffolding to copy from\n ❌ Adapter coverage does not prove processPayment's own receipt or PaymentUnavailable path; the stated contracts are the caller's\nNet: A and B cover the same contracts; A wins on diff size and avoids abstraction for two uses. C misses the caller path entirely.",
"header": "Approach",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A: Two tests in processPayment suite (recommended)",
"description": "As planned: reuse factory, Stripe mock, virtual sleeper; inline assertions. Completeness 10/10."
},
{
"label": "B: Two tests + factory helpers",
"description": "Same tests plus expectReceipt/expectRetryTrace helpers in the factory. Completeness 10/10, wider diff."
},
{
"label": "C: Put them in the adapter suite",
"description": "Cover via Stripe adapter suite instead. Completeness 4/10; misses caller path."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D3 — Where and how should the two processPayment tests be structured?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-knpyoQ on main, CEO review of PLAN.md (payment test coverage).\nELI10: The plan adds two tests: one for a successful charge, one for two 502s exhausting the single retry. The structural choice is where they live and whether to add shared assertion helpers. This question is about shape only; what each test asserts is decided separately in the findings that follow.\nStakes if we pick wrong: put the tests in the adapter suite and they never exercise processPayment's own receipt-shaping and retry-exhaustion path; add helpers for two call sites and you get an abstraction nobody else uses yet.\nRecommendation: A because two focused tests in the caller's own suite is the smallest diff that fully proves both contracts, and helpers for two call sites is premature abstraction.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=10/10, C=4/10\nA) Two focused tests in the existing processPayment suite, using the current factory, Stripe mock and virtual sleeper as planned (recommended) (human: ~1h / CC: ~5 min)\n ✅ Exercises processPayment's real caller path: receipt shaping and retry exhaustion\n ✅ Zero new files, zero new helpers; reuses every fixture the plan already names\n ❌ Assertions are spelled out inline per test rather than through a shared helper\nB) Same two tests plus small shared helpers (expectReceipt, expectRetryTrace) in the payment test factory (human: ~2h / CC: ~10 min)\n ✅ Future processPayment tests get exact receipt and retry assertions for free\n ✅ One place to update if the sleeper record or receipt shape ever changes\n ❌ Two call sites do not justify a helper; it is premature abstraction and widens the diff into the factory\nC) Add the assertions to the existing Stripe adapter suite instead of the processPayment suite (human: ~1h / CC: ~5 min)\n ✅ Keeps all Stripe-related tests in one suite\n ✅ Adapter suite already has 502-recovery scaffolding to copy from\n ❌ Adapter coverage does not prove processPayment's own receipt or PaymentUnavailable path; the stated contracts are the caller's\nNet: A and B cover the same contracts; A wins on diff size and avoids abstraction for two uses. C misses the caller path entirely.": "A: Two tests in processPayment suite (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T05:43:53.548Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "a9f1e8d0-71c2-4c5d-8eb8-e2ae6883b58d",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01NVdw9AQyubkBhpzuZTvCPg",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D4 — Finding F1 (Section 6, Test Review): the success test asserts only that the receipt is truthy. What should it assert?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-knpyoQ on main, CEO review of PLAN.md (payment test coverage).\nELI10: The plan's own contract says a 1000-cent USD charge with Stripe id ch_paid must return exactly { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }. Test 1 as written only checks that the receipt is not null/undefined/false. An empty object {} is truthy. A receipt with amountCents 100000 (cents/dollars mix-up), currency \"usd\", or chargeId undefined would all pass. The test cannot fail for any of the bugs it exists to catch.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a refactor of receipt building ships with a wrong amount or missing chargeId and the suite stays green; customers see wrong receipts and refunds cannot be matched to Stripe charges.\nRecommendation: 1A because the plan already states the exact receipt; the assertion is a direct translation of the retained contract, and deep equality also rejects extra or missing fields.\nCompleteness: 1A=10/10, 1B=7/10, 1C=2/10\n1A) Assert the receipt deep-equals { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" } (recommended) (human: ~15 min / CC: ~1 min)\n ✅ Rejects wrong amount, wrong currency case, missing chargeId, and any extra or missing field in one assertion\n ✅ Failure output is a field-level diff, so a 3-week-later regression is diagnosable from the test log alone\n ❌ If the receipt legitimately gains a new field later, this test must be updated (that is the point)\n1B) Assert only receipt.chargeId === \"ch_paid\" (human: ~10 min / CC: ~1 min)\n ✅ Proves the Stripe id flows through to the receipt\n ✅ Tolerates receipt shape changes without edits\n ❌ Leaves amountCents and currency unverified; the cents/dollars bug the contract exists to prevent slips through\n1C) Keep the truthy-only assertion as planned (human: ~5 min / CC: ~1 min)\n ✅ Matches the plan text verbatim\n ✅ Never needs updating\n ❌ Passes for {} and for every wrong-value receipt; the test protects nothing the contract states\nNet: 1A is the stated contract written as code; anything less is a test that cannot fail for the bugs it targets.",
"header": "F1 receipt",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "1A: Deep-equal full receipt (recommended)",
"description": "toEqual({ chargeId: 'ch_paid', amountCents: 1000, currency: 'USD' }). Completeness 10/10."
},
{
"label": "1B: Assert chargeId only",
"description": "Check chargeId === 'ch_paid'; amount and currency unverified. Completeness 7/10."
},
{
"label": "1C: Keep truthy-only",
"description": "As planned; passes for {} and any wrong values. Completeness 2/10."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D4 — Finding F1 (Section 6, Test Review): the success test asserts only that the receipt is truthy. What should it assert?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-knpyoQ on main, CEO review of PLAN.md (payment test coverage).\nELI10: The plan's own contract says a 1000-cent USD charge with Stripe id ch_paid must return exactly { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }. Test 1 as written only checks that the receipt is not null/undefined/false. An empty object {} is truthy. A receipt with amountCents 100000 (cents/dollars mix-up), currency \"usd\", or chargeId undefined would all pass. The test cannot fail for any of the bugs it exists to catch.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a refactor of receipt building ships with a wrong amount or missing chargeId and the suite stays green; customers see wrong receipts and refunds cannot be matched to Stripe charges.\nRecommendation: 1A because the plan already states the exact receipt; the assertion is a direct translation of the retained contract, and deep equality also rejects extra or missing fields.\nCompleteness: 1A=10/10, 1B=7/10, 1C=2/10\n1A) Assert the receipt deep-equals { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" } (recommended) (human: ~15 min / CC: ~1 min)\n ✅ Rejects wrong amount, wrong currency case, missing chargeId, and any extra or missing field in one assertion\n ✅ Failure output is a field-level diff, so a 3-week-later regression is diagnosable from the test log alone\n ❌ If the receipt legitimately gains a new field later, this test must be updated (that is the point)\n1B) Assert only receipt.chargeId === \"ch_paid\" (human: ~10 min / CC: ~1 min)\n ✅ Proves the Stripe id flows through to the receipt\n ✅ Tolerates receipt shape changes without edits\n ❌ Leaves amountCents and currency unverified; the cents/dollars bug the contract exists to prevent slips through\n1C) Keep the truthy-only assertion as planned (human: ~5 min / CC: ~1 min)\n ✅ Matches the plan text verbatim\n ✅ Never needs updating\n ❌ Passes for {} and for every wrong-value receipt; the test protects nothing the contract states\nNet: 1A is the stated contract written as code; anything less is a test that cannot fail for the bugs it targets.": "1A: Deep-equal full receipt (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T05:44:41.784Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "a9f1e8d0-71c2-4c5d-8eb8-e2ae6883b58d",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01PFhyS7ji9nKUsiHERMy8Jx",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D5 — Finding F2 (Sections 2 and 6): the repeated-502 test asserts only that processPayment rejects with PaymentUnavailable. Should it also prove the retry contract?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-knpyoQ on main, CEO review of PLAN.md (payment test coverage).\nELI10: The plan's contract says two 502s with max_retries=1 mean exactly two charge attempts, one recorded 100 ms backoff, then PaymentUnavailable. The test as written checks only the final rejection. An implementation that never retries (one attempt, no backoff) passes. One that retries five times with no backoff also passes, as long as it eventually throws PaymentUnavailable. The factory already exposes the Stripe mock call history and the sleeper's recorded backoffs, so the evidence is free; the plan just says it will not look at it.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a retry-loop regression (zero retries, or an unbounded loop that hammers Stripe during an outage) ships green; users get instant failures on transient blips, or Stripe rate-limits the account during an incident.\nRecommendation: 2A because the plan states exact counts (two attempts, one 100 ms backoff) and Section 6 rules forbid weakening an exact count to a lower bound; the mock history and sleeper record are already exposed for exactly this purpose.\nCompleteness: 2A=10/10, 2B=7/10, 2C=3/10\n2A) Assert rejection is an instance of PaymentUnavailable AND Stripe mock call history has exactly 2 charge calls AND the sleeper record deep-equals one 100 ms backoff; build a fresh factory inside the test so both records start empty (recommended) (human: ~30 min / CC: ~2 min)\n ✅ Rejects zero-retry, over-retry, and wrong-backoff regressions; the whole stated contract becomes executable\n ✅ Fresh factory per test prevents call-history bleed from earlier tests, so the exact count cannot flake; failure prints the recorded arrays\n ❌ Three assertions instead of one; must match the sleeper's actual record shape (number vs object) when implementing\n2B) Assert PaymentUnavailable AND exactly 2 charge calls, but skip the backoff assertion (human: ~20 min / CC: ~1 min)\n ✅ Catches zero-retry and over-retry regressions\n ✅ Does not depend on the sleeper record's shape\n ❌ A retry loop that drops the backoff and hammers Stripe immediately still passes; the 100 ms contract goes unverified\n2C) Keep rejection-only as planned (human: ~10 min / CC: ~1 min)\n ✅ Matches the plan text verbatim\n ✅ Smallest possible test body\n ❌ Passes with zero retries, five retries, or no backoff; the retry contract the plan states is not tested at all\nNet: 2A turns the plan's own sentence about two attempts and one 100 ms backoff into assertions; 2B and 2C leave part or all of it as prose.",
"header": "F2 retries",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "2A: Rejection + 2 calls + [100ms] backoff (recommended)",
"description": "Full contract: instanceof PaymentUnavailable, mock calls === 2, sleeper record equals one 100 ms entry, fresh factory per test. Completeness 10/10."
},
{
"label": "2B: Rejection + 2 calls only",
"description": "Skip the backoff assertion. Completeness 7/10."
},
{
"label": "2C: Keep rejection-only",
"description": "As planned; retry count and backoff unverified. Completeness 3/10."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D5 — Finding F2 (Sections 2 and 6): the repeated-502 test asserts only that processPayment rejects with PaymentUnavailable. Should it also prove the retry contract?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-knpyoQ on main, CEO review of PLAN.md (payment test coverage).\nELI10: The plan's contract says two 502s with max_retries=1 mean exactly two charge attempts, one recorded 100 ms backoff, then PaymentUnavailable. The test as written checks only the final rejection. An implementation that never retries (one attempt, no backoff) passes. One that retries five times with no backoff also passes, as long as it eventually throws PaymentUnavailable. The factory already exposes the Stripe mock call history and the sleeper's recorded backoffs, so the evidence is free; the plan just says it will not look at it.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a retry-loop regression (zero retries, or an unbounded loop that hammers Stripe during an outage) ships green; users get instant failures on transient blips, or Stripe rate-limits the account during an incident.\nRecommendation: 2A because the plan states exact counts (two attempts, one 100 ms backoff) and Section 6 rules forbid weakening an exact count to a lower bound; the mock history and sleeper record are already exposed for exactly this purpose.\nCompleteness: 2A=10/10, 2B=7/10, 2C=3/10\n2A) Assert rejection is an instance of PaymentUnavailable AND Stripe mock call history has exactly 2 charge calls AND the sleeper record deep-equals one 100 ms backoff; build a fresh factory inside the test so both records start empty (recommended) (human: ~30 min / CC: ~2 min)\n ✅ Rejects zero-retry, over-retry, and wrong-backoff regressions; the whole stated contract becomes executable\n ✅ Fresh factory per test prevents call-history bleed from earlier tests, so the exact count cannot flake; failure prints the recorded arrays\n ❌ Three assertions instead of one; must match the sleeper's actual record shape (number vs object) when implementing\n2B) Assert PaymentUnavailable AND exactly 2 charge calls, but skip the backoff assertion (human: ~20 min / CC: ~1 min)\n ✅ Catches zero-retry and over-retry regressions\n ✅ Does not depend on the sleeper record's shape\n ❌ A retry loop that drops the backoff and hammers Stripe immediately still passes; the 100 ms contract goes unverified\n2C) Keep rejection-only as planned (human: ~10 min / CC: ~1 min)\n ✅ Matches the plan text verbatim\n ✅ Smallest possible test body\n ❌ Passes with zero retries, five retries, or no backoff; the retry contract the plan states is not tested at all\nNet: 2A turns the plan's own sentence about two attempts and one 100 ms backoff into assertions; 2B and 2C leave part or all of it as prose.": "2A: Rejection + 2 calls + [100ms] backoff (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T05:45:03.909Z"
}
]
},
"distinct": {
"capture": {
"skill": "plan-ceo-review",
"runId": "ship-source-aj-delta-paid-20260910-v1-4",
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-rGMMii/tmp/gstack-plan-count-XMrFHU",
"claudeConfigDir": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-rGMMii/tmp/gstack-hermetic-1054183-PR2vOl/with-skills/.claude",
"at": "2026-09-10T05:54:50.782Z"
},
"calls": [
{
"sessionId": "c28b8f0e-b2ad-4c33-9441-a93b68c440f2",
"toolUseId": "toolu_019mAdWcT7psVdpKNQ3kGAfZ",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-XMrFHU on main, reviewing PLAN.md (Payment Processing Integration).\nELI10: gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules. These tell the agent which slash skill to invoke when you say things like 'review this' or 'ship it', so you get the right workflow without naming it. This is a one-time setup prompt per project.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Nothing breaks either way. Without routing you invoke skills by name manually.\nRecommendation: A because routing makes skill invocation automatic and costs one small CLAUDE.md append. Note: plan mode is active, so the append and commit happen after this review exits plan mode.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: convenience now versus keeping CLAUDE.md untouched.",
"header": "Routing",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Add routing rules (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Future requests like 'review this plan' auto-route to the right gstack skill without naming it. ✅ One-time small append to CLAUDE.md, committed as a chore. ❌ Adds a section to CLAUDE.md that this test fixture repo may not want; edit deferred until plan mode exits."
},
{
"label": "B) No thanks, invoke manually",
"description": "✅ CLAUDE.md stays exactly as seeded, no extra commit in the fixture repo. ✅ Config records the decline so this prompt never reappears here. ❌ You must type skill names explicitly every time."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-XMrFHU on main, reviewing PLAN.md (Payment Processing Integration).\nELI10: gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules. These tell the agent which slash skill to invoke when you say things like 'review this' or 'ship it', so you get the right workflow without naming it. This is a one-time setup prompt per project.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Nothing breaks either way. Without routing you invoke skills by name manually.\nRecommendation: A because routing makes skill invocation automatic and costs one small CLAUDE.md append. Note: plan mode is active, so the append and commit happen after this review exits plan mode.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: convenience now versus keeping CLAUDE.md untouched.": "A) Add routing rules (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T05:41:43.499Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "c28b8f0e-b2ad-4c33-9441-a93b68c440f2",
"toolUseId": "toolu_013oTguWa66iMTSRDUFKxGFq",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D2 — Enable cross-project learnings search?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-XMrFHU on main, reviewing PLAN.md (Payment Processing Integration).\nELI10: gstack can search learnings from your other projects on this machine to find patterns that might apply here. This stays local; no data leaves your machine. It is recommended for solo developers. Skip if you work on multiple client codebases where cross-contamination would be a concern.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too broad and a client's project quirks could leak into another client's review; too narrow and you lose reusable pitfalls you already paid to learn.\nRecommendation: A because a single-machine solo setup gains reusable pitfalls with no privacy cost, and the setting is a two-way door you can flip later with gstack-config.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: reuse of past learnings versus strict per-project isolation.",
"header": "Learnings",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Enable cross-project (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Pitfalls and patterns you logged in other repos surface here, so the review gets sharper over time. ✅ Everything stays on this machine; nothing is uploaded anywhere. ❌ If you juggle multiple client codebases, one client's quirks can bleed into another's review."
},
{
"label": "B) Keep project-scoped only",
"description": "✅ Hard isolation between projects, safe for multi-client consulting setups. ✅ Still logs and searches learnings for this repo alone. ❌ Loses reusable insights you already earned elsewhere, so each project relearns the same pitfalls."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D2 — Enable cross-project learnings search?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-XMrFHU on main, reviewing PLAN.md (Payment Processing Integration).\nELI10: gstack can search learnings from your other projects on this machine to find patterns that might apply here. This stays local; no data leaves your machine. It is recommended for solo developers. Skip if you work on multiple client codebases where cross-contamination would be a concern.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too broad and a client's project quirks could leak into another client's review; too narrow and you lose reusable pitfalls you already paid to learn.\nRecommendation: A because a single-machine solo setup gains reusable pitfalls with no privacy cost, and the setting is a two-way door you can flip later with gstack-config.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: reuse of past learnings versus strict per-project isolation.": "A) Enable cross-project (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T05:42:01.568Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "c28b8f0e-b2ad-4c33-9441-a93b68c440f2",
"toolUseId": "toolu_012MEvW2WrMb8DqbdxTT9xbx",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D3 — Which implementation structure should the handler use?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-XMrFHU on main, reviewing PLAN.md (Stripe payment webhook handler).\nELI10: The plan wants a brand-new handler class that skips the existing WebhookDispatcher for 'clean namespace separation'. But the plan also promises the handler runs inside the existing guards and uses the existing feature flag and rollback. Those two promises are easiest to keep if the handler is registered through the dispatcher like the prior handler was. A third path moves the email into a background job, which is the industry default but changes the plan's stated 'both happen inline' contract.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A bypassing handler can silently drift out from under the dedup lock or the feature flag, so a bad deploy has no tested rollback and duplicates slip through. Going async changes the deletion-ordering guarantee the plan relies on.\nRecommendation: B because it makes 'runs inside unchanged guards' and 'uses the existing rollout path' true by construction and keeps one webhook routing path (DRY, explicit over clever).\nCompleteness: A=5/10, B=9/10, C=8/10\nNet: namespace purity (A) versus guard and rollback reuse by construction (B) versus resilience that rewrites a stated contract (C).",
"header": "Approach",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "B) Register via WebhookDispatcher (recommended)",
"description": "Completeness 9/10. human ~1 day / CC ~25 min. ✅ Existing feature flag, tested rollback, guard order and logging apply to the new class unchanged. ✅ The existing integration suite exercises the new code once the flag is on, instead of testing only the prior handler. ❌ Must conform to the dispatcher's handler interface; namespace separation comes from file layout, not a parallel entry point."
},
{
"label": "A) Standalone class, bypass dispatcher",
"description": "Completeness 5/10. human ~1 day / CC ~20 min. ✅ Smallest possible diff and exactly what the plan sketch says. ✅ Dispatcher module stays untouched, zero risk of regressing other event types. ❌ Second routing path; the flag/rollback and guard wiring must be re-proven for the bypass, and the existing suite never touches the new class."
},
{
"label": "C) Dispatcher + background email job",
"description": "Completeness 8/10. human ~2-3 days / CC ~45 min. ✅ Email latency leaves the Stripe 10-second window and the per-user lock. ✅ Email retries become independent of payment retries, matching the 'receive fast, process safe' convention. ❌ Changes the stated inline contract and the deletion-ordering guarantee; adds a queue failure surface. In HOLD SCOPE this is a behavior change, not a repair."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D3 — Which implementation structure should the handler use?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-XMrFHU on main, reviewing PLAN.md (Stripe payment webhook handler).\nELI10: The plan wants a brand-new handler class that skips the existing WebhookDispatcher for 'clean namespace separation'. But the plan also promises the handler runs inside the existing guards and uses the existing feature flag and rollback. Those two promises are easiest to keep if the handler is registered through the dispatcher like the prior handler was. A third path moves the email into a background job, which is the industry default but changes the plan's stated 'both happen inline' contract.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A bypassing handler can silently drift out from under the dedup lock or the feature flag, so a bad deploy has no tested rollback and duplicates slip through. Going async changes the deletion-ordering guarantee the plan relies on.\nRecommendation: B because it makes 'runs inside unchanged guards' and 'uses the existing rollout path' true by construction and keeps one webhook routing path (DRY, explicit over clever).\nCompleteness: A=5/10, B=9/10, C=8/10\nNet: namespace purity (A) versus guard and rollback reuse by construction (B) versus resilience that rewrites a stated contract (C).": "B) Register via WebhookDispatcher (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T05:44:45.846Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "c28b8f0e-b2ad-4c33-9441-a93b68c440f2",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01M7iPAc7vziAUL7HRXKV9o6",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D4 — What is the per-order fetch loop for, and how should the handler load orders?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-XMrFHU on main, reviewing PLAN.md (Stripe payment webhook handler).\nELI10: The plan says each webhook looks up the user and then 'fetches each order in a loop', but the described behavior only marks the user paid and sends one email. Nothing in the plan consumes the orders. If the email needs order details, the fetch belongs in one batched query. If nothing needs them, the loop is dead work running inside the per-user lock and inside Stripe's 10-second response window. The implementer will hit this ambiguity in hour 4 and guess; better to decide now.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A user with 200 orders turns one webhook into 201 queries under a lock, Stripe times out at 10s, retries, and the retries queue on the same lock. Dropping the fetch when the email needs it ships a receipt with no line items.\nRecommendation: A because it preserves the plan's stated behavior (orders are fetched) while removing the N+1, and it maps to the 'handle more edge cases, engineered enough' preference.\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=7/10, C=3/10\nNet: keep orders but load them once (A) versus remove an unexplained fetch (B) versus ship the loop as sketched (C).",
"header": "Orders loop",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Batch-load orders in one query (recommended)",
"description": "Completeness 9/10. human ~1h / CC ~5 min. ✅ One query with the user's ID (or an IN list) replaces N round trips; lock hold time and Stripe latency stay flat as order count grows. ✅ Whatever consumes the orders (email body, audit) still gets them; a test asserts query count is constant. ❌ Requires stating in the plan what the orders feed, so the batch shape is right."
},
{
"label": "B) Remove the orders fetch entirely",
"description": "Completeness 7/10. human ~30 min / CC ~3 min. ✅ Smallest handler: lookup, update, email, nothing else under the lock. ✅ Removes a whole failure surface and its tests. ❌ If the email or a downstream consumer actually needs order data, this silently ships an incomplete notification."
},
{
"label": "C) Keep the per-order loop as written",
"description": "Completeness 3/10. human 0 / CC 0. ✅ No change from the sketch, zero extra implementation thought. ✅ Works fine for users with a handful of orders. ❌ N+1 under a per-user lock inside a 10s webhook timeout; heavy users trigger timeout-retry storms that the dedup guard then serializes."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D4 — What is the per-order fetch loop for, and how should the handler load orders?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-XMrFHU on main, reviewing PLAN.md (Stripe payment webhook handler).\nELI10: The plan says each webhook looks up the user and then 'fetches each order in a loop', but the described behavior only marks the user paid and sends one email. Nothing in the plan consumes the orders. If the email needs order details, the fetch belongs in one batched query. If nothing needs them, the loop is dead work running inside the per-user lock and inside Stripe's 10-second response window. The implementer will hit this ambiguity in hour 4 and guess; better to decide now.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A user with 200 orders turns one webhook into 201 queries under a lock, Stripe times out at 10s, retries, and the retries queue on the same lock. Dropping the fetch when the email needs it ships a receipt with no line items.\nRecommendation: A because it preserves the plan's stated behavior (orders are fetched) while removing the N+1, and it maps to the 'handle more edge cases, engineered enough' preference.\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=7/10, C=3/10\nNet: keep orders but load them once (A) versus remove an unexplained fetch (B) versus ship the loop as sketched (C).": "A) Batch-load orders in one query (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T05:45:51.708Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "c28b8f0e-b2ad-4c33-9441-a93b68c440f2",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01KepjnLm3wYHtNTqMPzLjym",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D5 (Issue 1.1) — Should the inline email call get an explicit timeout budget inside the webhook?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-XMrFHU on main, reviewing PLAN.md (Stripe payment webhook handler), Section 1 Architecture.\nELI10: Stripe waits 10 seconds for your webhook to answer, then treats it as failed and retries. The plan sends the email inline while holding the per-user lock, with no cap on how long the mail provider may take. A slow mail provider makes every webhook time out at Stripe, the retries pile up behind the lock, and the 'failed webhook processing' alert fires for events that actually succeeded. A fixed per-call mail timeout keeps the handler under 10s and turns slowness into a named, traced exception.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Without a budget, a mail-provider slowdown becomes a webhook outage plus alert noise; with too aggressive a budget, healthy sends get cut off and retried.\nRecommendation: 1A because explicit over clever: name the failure (mail timeout), bound it, test it. It preserves the plan's inline contract and lets the existing 500-and-retry path do the rest.\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=6/10, C=2/10\nNet: bound the mail call and test the bound (A) versus rely on whatever default the mail client has (B) versus accept unbounded latency (C).",
"header": "Mail budget",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "1A) Explicit mail timeout, ~4s, tested (recommended)",
"description": "Completeness 9/10. human ~1h / CC ~5 min. ✅ Handler worst case stays under Stripe's 10s window; slowness surfaces as the mail client's named timeout exception, traced with event and user IDs. ✅ Test stubs a hanging mail client and asserts the timeout exception is raised inside the budget. ❌ A send that would have finished at 5s now fails and is retried by Stripe; the notification marker from Section 2 keeps that from duplicating."
},
{
"label": "1B) Rely on the shared mail client's default timeout",
"description": "Completeness 6/10. human 0 / CC 0. ✅ No handler-specific configuration to maintain. ✅ Works if the shared default already happens to be short. ❌ The plan does not state that default; if it is 30s or unset, the webhook silently exceeds Stripe's window and nobody notices until the retry storm."
},
{
"label": "1C) No timeout budget, accept the risk",
"description": "Completeness 2/10. human 0 / CC 0. ✅ Zero implementation work. ✅ Fine while the mail provider is fast. ❌ Mail-provider p99 becomes webhook p99 with no bound; a provider slowdown turns into Stripe retry storms serialized on the per-user lock and repeated false 'failed processing' alerts."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D5 (Issue 1.1) — Should the inline email call get an explicit timeout budget inside the webhook?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-XMrFHU on main, reviewing PLAN.md (Stripe payment webhook handler), Section 1 Architecture.\nELI10: Stripe waits 10 seconds for your webhook to answer, then treats it as failed and retries. The plan sends the email inline while holding the per-user lock, with no cap on how long the mail provider may take. A slow mail provider makes every webhook time out at Stripe, the retries pile up behind the lock, and the 'failed webhook processing' alert fires for events that actually succeeded. A fixed per-call mail timeout keeps the handler under 10s and turns slowness into a named, traced exception.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Without a budget, a mail-provider slowdown becomes a webhook outage plus alert noise; with too aggressive a budget, healthy sends get cut off and retried.\nRecommendation: 1A because explicit over clever: name the failure (mail timeout), bound it, test it. It preserves the plan's inline contract and lets the existing 500-and-retry path do the rest.\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=6/10, C=2/10\nNet: bound the mail call and test the bound (A) versus rely on whatever default the mail client has (B) versus accept unbounded latency (C).": "1A) Explicit mail timeout, ~4s, tested (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T05:47:17.691Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "c28b8f0e-b2ad-4c33-9441-a93b68c440f2",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01NRSM7BJG9DzYZrHSAA5uPB",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D6 (Issue 2.1) — How should the email leg behave when Stripe retries after the user update already committed?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-XMrFHU on main, reviewing PLAN.md (Stripe payment webhook handler), Section 2 Error map.\nELI10: The handler commits 'paid' to the database, then sends the email. If the email fails, the whole request returns 500 and Stripe retries the event for up to three days. The dedup guard only records 'done' when the handler finishes cleanly, so every retry reruns the email. A mail timeout where the provider actually delivered means the customer gets the email twice. A permanently bad address means three days of alerts for a payment that is already fine. Recording 'email sent' per Stripe event, under the same lock, lets retries skip the email once it has gone out.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Duplicate payment emails on every retry storm erode customer trust, and permanent mail rejections page on-call for three days about a committed payment.\nRecommendation: 2A because zero silent failures and every error has a name: the marker makes the email idempotent per event, keeps the inline contract, and keeps permanent rejections loud through the existing alert.\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=5/10, C=2/10\nNet: idempotent email via a per-event marker (A) versus rescue-and-log the email so the webhook succeeds (B) versus ship 'no error handling' as written (C).",
"header": "Email retry",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "2A) Per-event notification marker under the lock (recommended)",
"description": "Completeness 9/10. human ~3h / CC ~15 min. ✅ Rerun after a transient mail failure sends exactly once more then records completion; rerun after 'sent' sends zero emails; Stripe event ID doubles as the mail idempotency key where the provider supports it. ✅ Permanent rejections still propagate to the existing alert and runbook; the residual ambiguous-timeout case is logged with notification_retry=true. ❌ Adds one small table or column plus three tests."
},
{
"label": "2B) Rescue MailDeliveryError, log, return 200",
"description": "Completeness 5/10. human ~1h / CC ~5 min. ✅ Webhook succeeds once the payment commits; no Stripe retry storm from mail failures. ✅ Mail failure still visible on the shared mail dashboard and on-call alert. ❌ The email is never retried automatically; it relies on on-call running the manual notification retry procedure, and the plan's own contract says tracing must not rescue email errors."
},
{
"label": "2C) Keep 'no error handling on the email leg' as written",
"description": "Completeness 2/10. human 0 / CC 0. ✅ Zero implementation work; matches the sketch exactly. ✅ Transient mail failures do get retried by Stripe. ❌ Every retry re-sends the email; timeouts after delivery duplicate it; a bad address alerts for three days about a committed payment; the runbook's 'never replay the payment blindly' is violated by design."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D6 (Issue 2.1) — How should the email leg behave when Stripe retries after the user update already committed?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-XMrFHU on main, reviewing PLAN.md (Stripe payment webhook handler), Section 2 Error map.\nELI10: The handler commits 'paid' to the database, then sends the email. If the email fails, the whole request returns 500 and Stripe retries the event for up to three days. The dedup guard only records 'done' when the handler finishes cleanly, so every retry reruns the email. A mail timeout where the provider actually delivered means the customer gets the email twice. A permanently bad address means three days of alerts for a payment that is already fine. Recording 'email sent' per Stripe event, under the same lock, lets retries skip the email once it has gone out.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Duplicate payment emails on every retry storm erode customer trust, and permanent mail rejections page on-call for three days about a committed payment.\nRecommendation: 2A because zero silent failures and every error has a name: the marker makes the email idempotent per event, keeps the inline contract, and keeps permanent rejections loud through the existing alert.\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=5/10, C=2/10\nNet: idempotent email via a per-event marker (A) versus rescue-and-log the email so the webhook succeeds (B) versus ship 'no error handling' as written (C).": "2A) Per-event notification marker under the lock (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T05:48:13.537Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "c28b8f0e-b2ad-4c33-9441-a93b68c440f2",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01JLWZnbpnVmmtT58UjwbFQY",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D7 (Issue 3.1) — How should the handler build the user lookup query?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-XMrFHU on main, reviewing PLAN.md (Stripe payment webhook handler), Section 3 Security.\nELI10: The plan pastes the user ID string straight into SQL. The plan's own contracts say user IDs are opaque text that can contain punctuation and Unicode, and that a valid Stripe signature does not make the string safe for SQL. So a perfectly legitimate ID with an apostrophe breaks the query, the webhook returns 500 forever, and that customer is never marked paid. If users can influence their own ID, they can also make their own payment run arbitrary SQL under the app's database role. A bound parameter (the existing user finder) makes both problems disappear.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Silent non-payment for any user with an odd ID, plus a self-service SQL injection path that signature checks and ownership checks both wave through.\nRecommendation: 3A because security is not optional and the fix is smaller than the bug: reuse the existing finder with a bound parameter and prove it with an adversarial-ID test.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=1/10\nNet: parameterize and test (A) versus escape or whitelist the string (B) versus raw fragment as written (C).",
"header": "SQL lookup",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "3A) Existing finder, bound parameter, adversarial-ID tests (recommended)",
"description": "Completeness 10/10. human ~1h / CC ~5 min. ✅ Any opaque TEXT ID, including quotes, semicolons, Unicode and 512 chars, resolves correctly or hits the unknown-user path with no exception. ✅ Same treatment for the D4 orders batch query; a lint or review rule forbids string interpolation into SQL in this module. ❌ Requires the implementer to locate and reuse the existing lookup rather than writing a one-liner."
},
{
"label": "3B) Escape or format-validate the ID before interpolating",
"description": "Completeness 6/10. human ~2h / CC ~10 min. ✅ Keeps the raw-fragment structure the plan sketched. ✅ Blocks the most obvious injection strings. ❌ Contradicts the contract that every nonempty string is a valid ID (a whitelist rejects legitimate users); escaping is driver-specific and historically the source of bypasses."
},
{
"label": "3C) Keep the raw SQL fragment as written",
"description": "Completeness 1/10. human 0 / CC 0. ✅ No change from the sketch. ✅ Works for IDs that happen to be plain alphanumerics. ❌ Legitimate punctuated IDs break the query and are never marked paid; self-service SQL injection under the app's DB role; three days of 500 retries per affected event."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D7 (Issue 3.1) — How should the handler build the user lookup query?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-XMrFHU on main, reviewing PLAN.md (Stripe payment webhook handler), Section 3 Security.\nELI10: The plan pastes the user ID string straight into SQL. The plan's own contracts say user IDs are opaque text that can contain punctuation and Unicode, and that a valid Stripe signature does not make the string safe for SQL. So a perfectly legitimate ID with an apostrophe breaks the query, the webhook returns 500 forever, and that customer is never marked paid. If users can influence their own ID, they can also make their own payment run arbitrary SQL under the app's database role. A bound parameter (the existing user finder) makes both problems disappear.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Silent non-payment for any user with an odd ID, plus a self-service SQL injection path that signature checks and ownership checks both wave through.\nRecommendation: 3A because security is not optional and the fix is smaller than the bug: reuse the existing finder with a bound parameter and prove it with an adversarial-ID test.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=1/10\nNet: parameterize and test (A) versus escape or whitelist the string (B) versus raw fragment as written (C).": "3A) Existing finder, bound parameter, adversarial-ID tests (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T05:48:59.359Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "c28b8f0e-b2ad-4c33-9441-a93b68c440f2",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01XFSnvQXHHcLXz7eZngavzq",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D8 (Issue 6.1) — Should the PR include automated tests for the handler, and at what depth?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-XMrFHU on main, reviewing PLAN.md (Stripe payment webhook handler), Section 6 Tests.\nELI10: The plan ships a handler that changes who is marked as paid with no automated tests, relying on the existing integration suite and a manual staging replay. The existing suite was written for the prior handler and cannot check anything decided in this review: parameterized IDs, the mail timeout, the once-per-event email, the batched orders query. Every one of those decisions named a test as its proof. Without the tests, they are promises in a document, not behavior in the code.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A regression in payment marking or a duplicate-email bug reaches production and is caught by customers, not CI; the tested rollback flag limits blast radius but cannot detect the bug.\nRecommendation: 6A because well-tested code is non-negotiable and AI-assisted test writing compresses a day of human work into minutes. Boil the lake.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=1/10\nNet: full unit plus integration coverage of every decided invariant (A) versus unit tests only (B) versus none as written (C).",
"header": "Tests",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "6A) Full table: unit + integration + 2 ordering tests (recommended)",
"description": "Completeness 10/10. human ~1 day / CC ~20 min. ✅ Every D4-D7 invariant has an observable assertion: exact mail send counts across reruns, query count == 1, adversarial IDs resolve, MailTimeout under budget, completion marker only after clean return. ✅ Two controlled-pause tests prove Schedules 1 and 2 instead of asserting them. ❌ Ordering tests need explicit pause/release hooks in the handler or guard test seam."
},
{
"label": "6B) Unit tests only, skip integration and ordering",
"description": "Completeness 6/10. human ~3h / CC ~10 min. ✅ Covers lookup, update, orders count, timeout and the marker branch in isolation. ✅ Fast, no DB or lock fixtures. ❌ The two bugs most likely to ship (duplicate email on rerun, dispatcher flag routing) live at the integration boundary and stay untested."
},
{
"label": "6C) No automated tests, as written",
"description": "Completeness 1/10. human 0 / CC 0. ✅ No test code to write or maintain. ✅ Manual staging replay still exercises one happy path before broad enablement. ❌ Zero automated proof for a payment-mutating codepath; D5/D6/D7 become unverified claims; regressions surface via customers or on-call."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D8 (Issue 6.1) — Should the PR include automated tests for the handler, and at what depth?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-XMrFHU on main, reviewing PLAN.md (Stripe payment webhook handler), Section 6 Tests.\nELI10: The plan ships a handler that changes who is marked as paid with no automated tests, relying on the existing integration suite and a manual staging replay. The existing suite was written for the prior handler and cannot check anything decided in this review: parameterized IDs, the mail timeout, the once-per-event email, the batched orders query. Every one of those decisions named a test as its proof. Without the tests, they are promises in a document, not behavior in the code.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A regression in payment marking or a duplicate-email bug reaches production and is caught by customers, not CI; the tested rollback flag limits blast radius but cannot detect the bug.\nRecommendation: 6A because well-tested code is non-negotiable and AI-assisted test writing compresses a day of human work into minutes. Boil the lake.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=1/10\nNet: full unit plus integration coverage of every decided invariant (A) versus unit tests only (B) versus none as written (C).": "6A) Full table: unit + integration + 2 ordering tests (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T05:50:25.599Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "c28b8f0e-b2ad-4c33-9441-a93b68c440f2",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01JCY2zE5AcfrXDDX3dCk1ku",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D9 (Issue 9.1) — Should the manual staging replay checklist gain failure-path replays before broad enablement?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-XMrFHU on main, reviewing PLAN.md (Stripe payment webhook handler), Section 9 Deployment.\nELI10: The existing rollout checklist replays one successful payment in staging and checks the update, the email and the trace. That proves the happy path and nothing else. The failure modes this review fixed (odd user IDs breaking SQL, duplicate deliveries re-sending email, a failing mail provider) would pass that checklist untouched. Adding three short replays to the same checklist makes the manual gate check what the automated tests check, against real staging infrastructure.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A staging pass gives false confidence and the first punctuated user ID or mail-provider blip in production is the real test.\nRecommendation: 9A because deployments are not atomic and the checklist is already the documented gate; three extra replays cost minutes per release and catch the exact classes of bugs found here.\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=4/10\nNet: extend the existing gate with the failure paths (A) versus keep the happy-path-only replay (B).",
"header": "Staging gate",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "9A) Add three failure-path replays to the checklist (recommended)",
"description": "Completeness 9/10. human ~1h to write, ~15 min per release / CC ~5 min to write. ✅ Punctuated/Unicode ID replay proves the parameterized lookup against the real staging DB; double delivery proves exactly one email and a sent marker. ✅ Failing-sink replay proves 500, alert, no marker, then one email on redelivery, exercising the runbook path end to end. ❌ Adds ~15 minutes to every release's manual gate."
},
{
"label": "9B) Keep the happy-path replay only",
"description": "Completeness 4/10. human 0 / CC 0. ✅ No change to the documented, tested checklist. ✅ CI integration tests from D8 already cover the failure paths against test doubles. ❌ Staging never exercises the real DB driver, real mail provider, or real dedup guard on the failure paths; a mismatch between test doubles and staging goes unnoticed until production."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D9 (Issue 9.1) — Should the manual staging replay checklist gain failure-path replays before broad enablement?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-XMrFHU on main, reviewing PLAN.md (Stripe payment webhook handler), Section 9 Deployment.\nELI10: The existing rollout checklist replays one successful payment in staging and checks the update, the email and the trace. That proves the happy path and nothing else. The failure modes this review fixed (odd user IDs breaking SQL, duplicate deliveries re-sending email, a failing mail provider) would pass that checklist untouched. Adding three short replays to the same checklist makes the manual gate check what the automated tests check, against real staging infrastructure.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A staging pass gives false confidence and the first punctuated user ID or mail-provider blip in production is the real test.\nRecommendation: 9A because deployments are not atomic and the checklist is already the documented gate; three extra replays cost minutes per release and catch the exact classes of bugs found here.\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=4/10\nNet: extend the existing gate with the failure paths (A) versus keep the happy-path-only replay (B).": "9A) Add three failure-path replays to the checklist (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T05:51:33.727Z"
}
]
}
}
}
test/fixtures/ceo-annotation-header-at.json
Vendored
-252
View File
@@ -1,252 +0,0 @@
{
"calls": [
{
"sessionId": "beee9c81-5294-4ba4-811b-cf9e9774fba8",
"toolUseId": "toolu_017g4WN4YN1v3zkpytbwCPKP",
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules (so requests like 'review this diff' auto-route to the right skill). Add them to this project's CLAUDE.md? Note: we're in plan mode, so if you say yes the CLAUDE.md edit and commit happen after this review exits plan mode, not now.": "Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T19:28:48.743Z",
"questions": [
{
"header": "Routing",
"question": "gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules (so requests like 'review this diff' auto-route to the right skill). Add them to this project's CLAUDE.md? Note: we're in plan mode, so if you say yes the CLAUDE.md edit and commit happen after this review exits plan mode, not now.",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (recommended)",
"description": "Appends a '## Skill routing' section mapping request types to /office-hours, /plan-ceo-review, /plan-eng-review, /investigate, /qa, /review, /ship, etc., then commits it. Deferred until plan mode exits."
},
{
"label": "No thanks, I'll invoke skills manually",
"description": "Records routing_declined=true in gstack config. Re-enable later with gstack-config set routing_declined false. Asked once per project."
}
]
}
]
},
{
"sessionId": "beee9c81-5294-4ba4-811b-cf9e9774fba8",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01AHsbfwWEc3SHd2RdAKVZWM",
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 — Should the new handler go through the existing WebhookDispatcher or bypass it?\nProject/branch/task: main, Payment Processing Integration, HOLD SCOPE review.\nELI10: Today one dispatcher receives every verified Stripe event and hands it to the right handler, and the switch that picks 'old handler vs new handler' lives on that path. The sketch skips the dispatcher to get a 'clean namespace', but the namespace is already settled by the class name Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler. Skipping means a second entry road and moving the old/new switch to a new spot.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a rollback that used to be one flag flip now needs new wiring, and any dispatcher-level behavior is silently skipped for payments.\nRecommendation: A because it reuses the existing routing and flag point, keeping rollback one flip while still delivering the approved app-owned class.\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=6/10, C=5/10\nNet: same class either way; the question is whether payments get their own private road or ride the road that already has the rollback switch on it.": "A) Register new handler with WebhookDispatcher (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T19:29:46.529Z",
"questions": [
{
"header": "Approach",
"question": "D1 — Should the new handler go through the existing WebhookDispatcher or bypass it?\nProject/branch/task: main, Payment Processing Integration, HOLD SCOPE review.\nELI10: Today one dispatcher receives every verified Stripe event and hands it to the right handler, and the switch that picks 'old handler vs new handler' lives on that path. The sketch skips the dispatcher to get a 'clean namespace', but the namespace is already settled by the class name Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler. Skipping means a second entry road and moving the old/new switch to a new spot.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a rollback that used to be one flag flip now needs new wiring, and any dispatcher-level behavior is silently skipped for payments.\nRecommendation: A because it reuses the existing routing and flag point, keeping rollback one flip while still delivering the approved app-owned class.\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=6/10, C=5/10\nNet: same class either way; the question is whether payments get their own private road or ride the road that already has the rollback switch on it.",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Register new handler with WebhookDispatcher (recommended)",
"description": "✅ One dispatch path; the existing handler feature flag and tested rollback stay at their current switch point. ✅ Namespace separation delivered by the Webhooks:: class itself, matching the settled name. ❌ Implementer must learn and conform to the dispatcher's registration interface. Effort: human ~1 day / CC ~30 min. Completeness 9/10."
},
{
"label": "B) Standalone handler bypassing the dispatcher (as sketched)",
"description": "✅ No dependency on dispatcher internals; matches the plan text exactly. ✅ Handler can evolve independently of other event types. ❌ Second dispatch path to maintain and the old/new flag must be re-wired at a new switch point, weakening the tested rollback. Effort: human ~1.5 days / CC ~45 min. Completeness 6/10."
},
{
"label": "C) Inline orchestration into WebhookDispatcher, no new class",
"description": "✅ Smallest diff and fewest files touched. ✅ Zero new routing or flag wiring. ❌ Puts payment domain logic inside the dispatcher, harder to unit test, and abandons the already-approved handler class name. Effort: human ~half day / CC ~20 min. Completeness 5/10."
}
]
}
]
},
{
"sessionId": "beee9c81-5294-4ba4-811b-cf9e9774fba8",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01FjGJkfrazzzxnGuNTZSFqp",
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D2 — Finding 2 (Section 2, CRITICAL GAP): the inline email leg has no error handling, so a mail failure turns into a payment replay.\nProject/branch/task: main, Payment Processing Integration, HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: The shared mail client gives up after one second and throws MailTimeout (or a provider error) back to the handler. The sketch does not catch it, so the exception rolls up to the ingress wrapper, which answers HTTP 500 and Stripe re-sends the payment event for up to three days. The plan's own runbook says: never replay the payment to fix a notification, retry only the notification. The sketch does the opposite. Worse, if the email runs inside the DB transaction, the paid status rolls back too.\nStakes if we pick wrong: during a mail outage every payment webhook fails at Stripe, Stripe may flag or disable the endpoint, and users can sit on 'unpaid' for a charge Stripe already took.\nRecommendation: 2A because rescuing only the named mail exceptions after commit is the only option consistent with the retained runbook, the idempotency key, and the durable retry record that already exist.\nCompleteness: 2A=10/10, 2B=4/10, 2C=2/10\nNet: the mail client already records the failed attempt for the on-call retry; the handler just has to stop turning that into a payment retry.": "2A) Commit first, then send; rescue named mail errors only (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T19:30:44.341Z",
"questions": [
{
"header": "Email rescue",
"question": "D2 — Finding 2 (Section 2, CRITICAL GAP): the inline email leg has no error handling, so a mail failure turns into a payment replay.\nProject/branch/task: main, Payment Processing Integration, HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: The shared mail client gives up after one second and throws MailTimeout (or a provider error) back to the handler. The sketch does not catch it, so the exception rolls up to the ingress wrapper, which answers HTTP 500 and Stripe re-sends the payment event for up to three days. The plan's own runbook says: never replay the payment to fix a notification, retry only the notification. The sketch does the opposite. Worse, if the email runs inside the DB transaction, the paid status rolls back too.\nStakes if we pick wrong: during a mail outage every payment webhook fails at Stripe, Stripe may flag or disable the endpoint, and users can sit on 'unpaid' for a charge Stripe already took.\nRecommendation: 2A because rescuing only the named mail exceptions after commit is the only option consistent with the retained runbook, the idempotency key, and the durable retry record that already exist.\nCompleteness: 2A=10/10, 2B=4/10, 2C=2/10\nNet: the mail client already records the failed attempt for the on-call retry; the handler just has to stop turning that into a payment retry.",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "2A) Commit first, then send; rescue named mail errors only (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Order: user update commits, then load orders, then mail. Rescue exactly MailTimeout plus the mail client's named provider error classes around the send only (no rescue StandardError, DB errors still propagate to the 500 path). ✅ On rescue: structured warning with event ID, user ID, PaymentIntent ID, handler identity and exception class; existing failure counter increments via the client; handler returns success so ingress acks 200 and dedup marks complete; the client's durable retry record plus existing runbook deliver the receipt. ✅ Verified by unit tests: mail raises -> 200, one update, warning logged, no re-raise; DB raises -> propagates. ❌ Handler now owns a small rescue block that must list exception classes explicitly. Effort: human ~3h / CC ~15 min."
},
{
"label": "2B) Keep rethrow to ingress but move email after commit",
"description": "✅ Paid status can no longer roll back with the email. ✅ Smaller code change than 2A. ❌ Still returns 500 and replays the payment event on every mail failure, contradicting the runbook, and still risks Stripe flagging the endpoint during a mail outage. Effort: human ~1h / CC ~5 min. Completeness 4/10."
},
{
"label": "2C) Do nothing; keep the sketch as written",
"description": "✅ Zero handler code for error handling. ✅ Matches the plan text. ❌ Mail failure replays the payment and can roll back the paid update if the send is inside the transaction; violates the retained never-replay contract. Effort: none. Completeness 2/10."
}
]
}
]
},
{
"sessionId": "beee9c81-5294-4ba4-811b-cf9e9774fba8",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01SWowWpb59n1h8hpftu6ALj",
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D3 — Finding 3 (Section 3, CRITICAL GAP): request.params.userId is interpolated into a raw SQL fragment.\nProject/branch/task: main, Payment Processing Integration, HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: The user ID arrives as free text from Stripe metadata. The plan's own contracts say nothing upstream escapes it, user IDs are opaque text that may contain punctuation and Unicode, and a valid Stripe signature does not make the string safe for SQL. Pasting it into a SQL string is a textbook injection hole, and it is also a plain correctness bug: a legitimate ID containing an apostrophe throws a SQL syntax error, the ingress answers 500, Stripe retries for three days, and that user's payment is never marked paid.\nStakes if we pick wrong: threat likelihood Med (needs metadata write access or a crafted stored ID), impact High (payment database). The correctness failure is High likelihood for any punctuated ID.\nRecommendation: 3A because bound parameters remove both the injection vector and the syntax-error failure in one line, using the ORM/DB client that already exists.\nCompleteness: 3A=10/10, 3B=5/10, 3C=1/10\nNet: the ownership guard compares identity, it does not sanitize; the only place that can make the string safe is the query itself.": "3A) Bound-parameter lookup via existing finder, with tests (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T19:31:28.113Z",
"questions": [
{
"header": "SQL binding",
"question": "D3 — Finding 3 (Section 3, CRITICAL GAP): request.params.userId is interpolated into a raw SQL fragment.\nProject/branch/task: main, Payment Processing Integration, HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: The user ID arrives as free text from Stripe metadata. The plan's own contracts say nothing upstream escapes it, user IDs are opaque text that may contain punctuation and Unicode, and a valid Stripe signature does not make the string safe for SQL. Pasting it into a SQL string is a textbook injection hole, and it is also a plain correctness bug: a legitimate ID containing an apostrophe throws a SQL syntax error, the ingress answers 500, Stripe retries for three days, and that user's payment is never marked paid.\nStakes if we pick wrong: threat likelihood Med (needs metadata write access or a crafted stored ID), impact High (payment database). The correctness failure is High likelihood for any punctuated ID.\nRecommendation: 3A because bound parameters remove both the injection vector and the syntax-error failure in one line, using the ORM/DB client that already exists.\nCompleteness: 3A=10/10, 3B=5/10, 3C=1/10\nNet: the ownership guard compares identity, it does not sanitize; the only place that can make the string safe is the query itself.",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "3A) Bound-parameter lookup via existing finder, with tests (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Replace the raw fragment with the ORM finder or a bound parameter (`find_by(id:)` or `where(id: ?)`), no string interpolation anywhere in the handler. ✅ No format validation added (contract: every nonempty string is a valid ID), so Unicode and punctuation IDs still resolve. ✅ Tests: user ID containing quote, semicolon, and multibyte characters resolves the right user and no other; unknown ID hits the existing acknowledge path. ❌ None beyond rewriting one query. Effort: human ~1h / CC ~5 min."
},
{
"label": "3B) Keep raw SQL but escape the string with the DB adapter's quote",
"description": "✅ Minimal change to the sketched line. ✅ Closes the common injection payloads. ❌ Escaping is adapter-specific and easy to forget on the next edit; leaves raw SQL in a payment path and adds no test evidence. Effort: human ~30 min / CC ~3 min. Completeness 5/10."
},
{
"label": "3C) Do nothing; keep the raw fragment",
"description": "✅ Matches the sketch. ✅ Zero work. ❌ SQL injection into the payment database plus permanent payment failure for any punctuated user ID. Effort: none. Completeness 1/10."
}
]
}
]
},
{
"sessionId": "beee9c81-5294-4ba4-811b-cf9e9774fba8",
"toolUseId": "toolu_018TrHwj5rJ5bqSgGDXXMXMs",
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D4 — Finding 4 (Section 6, CRITICAL GAP): 'No tests planned; rely on the existing integration suite' cannot cover a new, flag-gated handler.\nProject/branch/task: main, Payment Processing Integration, HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: The new handler only runs when the feature flag points at it. The existing suite was written against the prior handler and does not flip that flag, so it exercises zero lines of the new class. The plan's own contracts say the staging replay is manual verification, not automated regression coverage. Today the only proof that a payment marks the user paid and sends exactly one receipt would be a human watching staging once.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a regression in the money path (wrong user updated, two receipts, a rescued error that swallows a DB failure) ships with nothing to catch it, and every later refactor of the handler is blind.\nRecommendation: 4A because well-tested code is non-negotiable in your stated preferences and the complete suite is roughly fifteen minutes of CC time.\nCompleteness: 4A=10/10, 4B=6/10, 4C=1/10\nNet: the assertions are already fixed by the retained contracts (one update, one receipt, exact rescue behavior); the only question is whether a machine checks them on every commit.": "4A) Full unit + ingress integration + concurrency tests (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T19:32:30.008Z",
"questions": [
{
"header": "Tests",
"question": "D4 — Finding 4 (Section 6, CRITICAL GAP): 'No tests planned; rely on the existing integration suite' cannot cover a new, flag-gated handler.\nProject/branch/task: main, Payment Processing Integration, HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: The new handler only runs when the feature flag points at it. The existing suite was written against the prior handler and does not flip that flag, so it exercises zero lines of the new class. The plan's own contracts say the staging replay is manual verification, not automated regression coverage. Today the only proof that a payment marks the user paid and sends exactly one receipt would be a human watching staging once.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a regression in the money path (wrong user updated, two receipts, a rescued error that swallows a DB failure) ships with nothing to catch it, and every later refactor of the handler is blind.\nRecommendation: 4A because well-tested code is non-negotiable in your stated preferences and the complete suite is roughly fifteen minutes of CC time.\nCompleteness: 4A=10/10, 4B=6/10, 4C=1/10\nNet: the assertions are already fixed by the retained contracts (one update, one receipt, exact rescue behavior); the only question is whether a machine checks them on every commit.",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "4A) Full unit + ingress integration + concurrency tests (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Unit specs for the handler: happy path (exactly one update with paid + PI, exactly one send keyed by PI); unknown user acks and no update/send; nil and empty email -> skipped_missing_address, no send; zero orders -> one receipt with empty summary; N orders -> summary and exactly one orders query; mail raises MailTimeout and provider error -> 200, one warning with 4 correlation fields, no re-raise; DB raises -> propagates, no completion. ✅ Ingress integration spec with a fixture payment_intent.succeeded under the new flag, asserting trace carries handler identity. ✅ Concurrency spec: two deliveries of the same event with controlled pause at the send -> handler invoked once. ❌ Adds fixtures and a fake mail client to the test tree. Effort: human ~1 day / CC ~15 min."
},
{
"label": "4B) Unit tests for the handler only",
"description": "✅ Covers the handler's own branches including the rescue and bound-param lookup. ✅ Faster to write than 4A. ❌ Does not prove the dispatcher registration, flag selection, or lock interaction through the real ingress path; helper coverage alone does not prove the caller. Effort: human ~half day / CC ~8 min. Completeness 6/10."
},
{
"label": "4C) Keep 'none planned'; rely on manual staging replay",
"description": "✅ Zero test code. ✅ Matches the sketch. ❌ The existing suite never executes the new handler; every regression in the payment path is caught by humans or customers. Effort: none. Completeness 1/10."
}
]
}
]
},
{
"sessionId": "beee9c81-5294-4ba4-811b-cf9e9774fba8",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01A5A8kqFCcf4vVU4CoRHXrL",
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D5 — Finding 5 (Section 7): the receipt summary fetches each order in a loop (N+1), inside a 2-second DB deadline.\nProject/branch/task: main, Payment Processing Integration, HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: After the user lookup, the sketch loops over the user's orders and runs one query per order. A customer with 300 orders means 300 round trips before the receipt can be built. The retained contracts cap DB plus ingress work at two seconds; blow that and the ingress answers 500, Stripe retries, and the same 300 queries run again on every retry. That customer's payment can stay unpaid until someone notices.\nStakes if we pick wrong: your best customers (most orders) are exactly the ones whose payments time out, and each retry adds load to the database during a payment burst.\nRecommendation: 5A because one batched query is the standard fix, the summary semantics do not change, and the query-count assertion is already in the D4 test list.\nCompleteness: 5A=10/10, 5B=6/10, 5C=2/10\nNet: same receipt, same orders; one query instead of N, with a test that keeps it that way.": "5A) Single batched orders query with preload and a query-count test (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T19:33:15.820Z",
"questions": [
{
"header": "N+1 orders",
"question": "D5 — Finding 5 (Section 7): the receipt summary fetches each order in a loop (N+1), inside a 2-second DB deadline.\nProject/branch/task: main, Payment Processing Integration, HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: After the user lookup, the sketch loops over the user's orders and runs one query per order. A customer with 300 orders means 300 round trips before the receipt can be built. The retained contracts cap DB plus ingress work at two seconds; blow that and the ingress answers 500, Stripe retries, and the same 300 queries run again on every retry. That customer's payment can stay unpaid until someone notices.\nStakes if we pick wrong: your best customers (most orders) are exactly the ones whose payments time out, and each retry adds load to the database during a payment burst.\nRecommendation: 5A because one batched query is the standard fix, the summary semantics do not change, and the query-count assertion is already in the D4 test list.\nCompleteness: 5A=10/10, 5B=6/10, 5C=2/10\nNet: same receipt, same orders; one query instead of N, with a test that keeps it that way.",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "5A) Single batched orders query with preload and a query-count test (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Load the user's orders in one query (`where(user_id:)` plus `includes` for any association the summary renders), matching the prior handler's order selection exactly. ✅ Confirm an index exists on orders.user_id (and any summary join key) during implementation; add one if missing via a backward-compatible migration. ✅ Test asserts exactly one orders query regardless of N, and a 300-order fixture completes well inside the 2s deadline. ❌ None beyond replacing the loop. Effort: human ~2h / CC ~10 min."
},
{
"label": "5B) Keep the loop but cap it at a fixed number of orders",
"description": "✅ Bounds worst-case latency. ✅ Small code change. ❌ Changes the receipt contents for high-order customers, which violates 'product semantics retained', and still runs up to the cap in round trips. Effort: human ~1h / CC ~5 min. Completeness 6/10."
},
{
"label": "5C) Keep the loop as sketched",
"description": "✅ Zero work. ✅ Matches the sketch. ❌ Payments for high-order customers time out and replay indefinitely; DB load scales with retries. Effort: none. Completeness 2/10."
}
]
}
]
},
{
"sessionId": "beee9c81-5294-4ba4-811b-cf9e9774fba8",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Hep6rNFTpaAQRvMGnHshH7",
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D6 — Finding 6 (Section 10): the plan has no in-code request-flow diagram for the handler, so the next engineer reconstructs the ordering rules from tests.\nProject/branch/task: main, Payment Processing Integration, HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: This handler has non-obvious rules that are easy to break by accident: the update must commit before the send, only mail errors are rescued, DB errors must keep propagating, and the whole thing runs under a lock the handler does not own. None of that is visible from reading the method bodies. Your engineering preferences call for an ASCII diagram in code comments for controllers and services with request flow like this.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a future edit moves the send inside the transaction or widens the rescue, and nothing but a failing test explains why that was wrong.\nRecommendation: 6A because a ten-line diagram at the top of the class is the cheapest form of documentation that survives refactors when it is kept next to the code.\nCompleteness: 6A=10/10, 6B=3/10\nNet: same code either way; the question is whether the ordering and rescue rules are written where the next reader will see them.": "6A) Add a request-flow ASCII diagram in the handler class comment (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T19:34:03.647Z",
"questions": [
{
"header": "Code diagram",
"question": "D6 — Finding 6 (Section 10): the plan has no in-code request-flow diagram for the handler, so the next engineer reconstructs the ordering rules from tests.\nProject/branch/task: main, Payment Processing Integration, HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: This handler has non-obvious rules that are easy to break by accident: the update must commit before the send, only mail errors are rescued, DB errors must keep propagating, and the whole thing runs under a lock the handler does not own. None of that is visible from reading the method bodies. Your engineering preferences call for an ASCII diagram in code comments for controllers and services with request flow like this.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a future edit moves the send inside the transaction or widens the rescue, and nothing but a failing test explains why that was wrong.\nRecommendation: 6A because a ten-line diagram at the top of the class is the cheapest form of documentation that survives refactors when it is kept next to the code.\nCompleteness: 6A=10/10, 6B=3/10\nNet: same code either way; the question is whether the ordering and rescue rules are written where the next reader will see them.",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "6A) Add a request-flow ASCII diagram in the handler class comment (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Class-level comment shows: guards upstream, lock scope, lookup -> update (commit) -> orders -> policy -> send, which exceptions propagate vs are rescued, and where the completion marker is written. ✅ Diagram maintenance is named as part of any future change to the handler (stale diagrams are worse than none). ❌ One more artifact to keep current. Effort: human ~20 min / CC ~2 min."
},
{
"label": "6B) Skip the diagram; rely on tests and this plan file",
"description": "✅ No comment to maintain. ✅ Zero implementation time. ❌ The plan file is not in the repo, and tests explain what, not why; ordering and rescue rules stay implicit. Effort: none. Completeness 3/10."
}
]
}
]
},
{
"sessionId": "beee9c81-5294-4ba4-811b-cf9e9774fba8",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01UttHC8MV9EqFmmdc7ca9aU",
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D7 — TODO candidate: remove the prior library-adapter handler and its flag branch after the new handler bakes.\nProject/branch/task: main, Payment Processing Integration, HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: The approved motivation is to move orchestration out of the prior handler, not to keep two. The flag overlap is needed for rollback, but once the new handler has run cleanly in production for a bake period, the old handler is dead code that still compiles, still has tests, and still confuses the next reader. Nothing in the plan says when or how it goes away.\nStakes if we pick wrong: the codebase carries two payment handlers indefinitely, and a future bug fix lands in the wrong one.\nRecommendation: 7A because writing the removal down with a concrete trigger is the only way it happens; this is an evidenced gap in the accepted scope (a move that never finishes is a copy), not an expansion.\nWhat: delete the prior handler, its adapter glue, and the flag branch; make the new handler the only registration. Why: finish the move. Pros: one payment path, less code. Cons: loses instant rollback, so only after bake. Context: flag lives at the dispatcher (D1); handler identity in traces shows which one ran. Effort: S human -> S CC. Priority: P2. Depends on: new handler at 100% for the agreed bake period with zero handler-attributed incidents.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: rollback insurance is worth keeping for weeks, not forever.": "7A) Add to TODOS.md (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T19:34:39.384Z",
"questions": [
{
"header": "TODO",
"question": "D7 — TODO candidate: remove the prior library-adapter handler and its flag branch after the new handler bakes.\nProject/branch/task: main, Payment Processing Integration, HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: The approved motivation is to move orchestration out of the prior handler, not to keep two. The flag overlap is needed for rollback, but once the new handler has run cleanly in production for a bake period, the old handler is dead code that still compiles, still has tests, and still confuses the next reader. Nothing in the plan says when or how it goes away.\nStakes if we pick wrong: the codebase carries two payment handlers indefinitely, and a future bug fix lands in the wrong one.\nRecommendation: 7A because writing the removal down with a concrete trigger is the only way it happens; this is an evidenced gap in the accepted scope (a move that never finishes is a copy), not an expansion.\nWhat: delete the prior handler, its adapter glue, and the flag branch; make the new handler the only registration. Why: finish the move. Pros: one payment path, less code. Cons: loses instant rollback, so only after bake. Context: flag lives at the dispatcher (D1); handler identity in traces shows which one ran. Effort: S human -> S CC. Priority: P2. Depends on: new handler at 100% for the agreed bake period with zero handler-attributed incidents.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: rollback insurance is worth keeping for weeks, not forever.",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "7A) Add to TODOS.md (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Removal is written down with its trigger (bake period at 100% with zero handler-attributed incidents) and its dependency on D1's flag location. ✅ Keeps rollback available for the whole bake. ❌ One more item to track; TODOS.md does not yet exist in this repo and would be created outside plan mode. Effort: S human / S CC."
},
{
"label": "7B) Skip; leave the prior handler in place indefinitely",
"description": "✅ Permanent rollback path. ✅ No follow-up work. ❌ Two payment handlers forever; the approved move never completes. Effort: none."
},
{
"label": "7C) Build it now: delete the prior handler in this change",
"description": "✅ One handler, cleanest tree, smallest long-term surface. ✅ No follow-up item. ❌ Removes the tested rollback path the plan explicitly relies on before the new handler has run in production. Effort: S human / S CC."
}
]
}
]
}
]
}
test/fixtures/ceo-approach-aa-call.json
Vendored
-32
View File
@@ -1,32 +0,0 @@
{
"sessionId": "af3b23a9-c818-4db4-b7b4-9e98805b80f2",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01CVh4uqCijv6okqG7eSBw4t",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 \u2014 Which implementation approach should this plan use? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-approach-d1>\n\nELI10: The plan describes two tests but leaves key observable outcomes vague \u2014 \"correct receipt\" and \"fails clean\" don't specify what exactly the test asserts. The three approaches below differ in how much the plan pins down those assertions before anyone writes code.\n\nStakes if we pick wrong: A flabby assertion (e.g. receipt is not nil rather than receipt.charge_id == stripe_charge_id) can let real bugs pass. An over-specified plan can constrain the implementer unnecessarily.\n\nRecommendation: B because pinning the assertion semantics at plan time costs ~5 minutes of thinking but prevents a category of test that passes trivially while missing actual correctness.\n\nCompleteness: A=7/10, B=9/10, C=8/10\n\nPros / cons:",
"header": "Approach",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) As planned \u2014 two tests, assertions impl-defined",
"description": "Write the two tests exactly as described. Implementer decides what 'correct receipt' means and what 'fails clean' means. Effort: human ~1h / CC ~5min."
},
{
"label": "B) Two tests + explicit assertion spec (Recommended)",
"description": "Same two tests, but add a brief spec to the plan: which receipt fields to assert, and whether the 502 path raises an exception vs returns an error. Effort: human ~1.5h / CC ~5min."
},
{
"label": "C) Expanded coverage",
"description": "Two specified tests PLUS add the 402/429 paths to the processPayment() unit suite (not just the adapter suite). Effort: human ~2h / CC ~8min."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 \u2014 Which implementation approach should this plan use? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-approach-d1>\n\nELI10: The plan describes two tests but leaves key observable outcomes vague \u2014 \"correct receipt\" and \"fails clean\" don't specify what exactly the test asserts. The three approaches below differ in how much the plan pins down those assertions before anyone writes code.\n\nStakes if we pick wrong: A flabby assertion (e.g. receipt is not nil rather than receipt.charge_id == stripe_charge_id) can let real bugs pass. An over-specified plan can constrain the implementer unnecessarily.\n\nRecommendation: B because pinning the assertion semantics at plan time costs ~5 minutes of thinking but prevents a category of test that passes trivially while missing actual correctness.\n\nCompleteness: A=7/10, B=9/10, C=8/10\n\nPros / cons:": "A) As planned \u2014 two tests, assertions impl-defined"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T12:55:52.231Z"
}
test/fixtures/ceo-approach-q-call.json
Vendored
-32
View File
@@ -1,32 +0,0 @@
{
"sessionId": "ff398bfc-d56d-4244-87b4-f77d45bda139",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01SZEBqEx2x5dEeYCYk2Wz9Z",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 \u2014 Which implementation approach should this plan use?\n\nProject/branch: Payment Processing Integration on main branch.\nELI10: The plan describes adding a Stripe webhook handler, but it has three serious problems baked in: it injects user IDs directly into raw SQL (classic SQL injection vulnerability), it calls the notification email inline with zero error handling (an email failure will cause Stripe to retry the payment event and potentially double-notify), and it has no tests. We have three paths: patch just the SQL hole, fix all three P1 issues together, or fix everything plus build a production-grade test suite and async email system. Which level of correctness do we target?\nStakes if we pick wrong: Approach A ships with broken email error handling \u2014 a transient SMTP failure causes Stripe to retry the payment event, potentially confusing the dedup guard. Approach C introduces an async job queue that may not be available yet, delaying the feature.\nRecommendation: B because it fixes all three P1 issues (SQL injection, email error handling, test coverage) without introducing new infrastructure dependencies.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\n<gstack-qid:plan-ceo-approach>",
"header": "Approach",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Minimal Patch \u2014 fix SQL injection only",
"description": "Parameterize the user ID query. Ship everything else (no email error handling, no tests, N+1 query, bypasses WebhookDispatcher) as-is. Human: ~1h / CC: ~5min. Risk: Med."
},
{
"label": "B) Secure Baseline \u2014 fix all P1 issues (Recommended)",
"description": "Parameterized query + email error handling + integrate with WebhookDispatcher + fix N+1 + happy-path integration tests. Human: ~1 day / CC: ~30min. Risk: Low."
},
{
"label": "C) Full Production Grade \u2014 B plus async email + full test suite",
"description": "Everything in B, plus async email queue (Stripe retry-safe), full unit/integration test suite, metrics and alerting. Human: ~2-3 days / CC: ~1h. Risk: Low but introduces async job queue dependency."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 \u2014 Which implementation approach should this plan use?\n\nProject/branch: Payment Processing Integration on main branch.\nELI10: The plan describes adding a Stripe webhook handler, but it has three serious problems baked in: it injects user IDs directly into raw SQL (classic SQL injection vulnerability), it calls the notification email inline with zero error handling (an email failure will cause Stripe to retry the payment event and potentially double-notify), and it has no tests. We have three paths: patch just the SQL hole, fix all three P1 issues together, or fix everything plus build a production-grade test suite and async email system. Which level of correctness do we target?\nStakes if we pick wrong: Approach A ships with broken email error handling \u2014 a transient SMTP failure causes Stripe to retry the payment event, potentially confusing the dedup guard. Approach C introduces an async job queue that may not be available yet, delaying the feature.\nRecommendation: B because it fixes all three P1 issues (SQL injection, email error handling, test coverage) without introducing new infrastructure dependencies.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\n<gstack-qid:plan-ceo-approach>": "A) Minimal Patch \u2014 fix SQL injection only"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T03:30:06.979Z"
}
test/fixtures/ceo-approach-q-paired-call.json
Vendored
-32
View File
@@ -1,32 +0,0 @@
{
"sessionId": "81402884-47d1-4487-b313-43154021bd52",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01RgdrdtYEuN2DGi3372EaTU",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D3 \u2014 Which implementation approach for the processPayment() tests?\nProject: Payment Processing \u2014 Test Coverage (main)\nELI10: The plan calls for 2 unit tests. The question is how precise those tests should be. A loose test says \u201cassert a receipt came back\u201d; a tight test says \u201cassert receipt.amount == 50, receipt.charge_id == mock_id, and Stripe was called exactly once.\u201d Tight tests catch more regressions but take slightly more time to write.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Loose assertions let partial regressions ship undetected \u2014 the payment goes through but the receipt is wrong. Missing call-count assertions mean the retry path could silently stop retrying and the test would still pass.\nRecommendation: B because the mock call history and virtual sleeper already exist to assert exact behavior \u2014 not using them wastes the infrastructure and leaves the retry proof hollow.\nCompleteness: A=5/10, B=7/10, C=9/10\n<gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-impl-approach>",
"header": "Approach",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Minimal as Described",
"description": "Add exactly 2 tests per the plan: happy path + 502. Basic assertions only (\u201ccorrect receipt generated\u201d, \u201cfails clean\u201d). Smallest diff. Effort: human ~1 hr / CC ~5 min. Completeness: 5/10."
},
{
"label": "B) 2 Tests + Explicit Assertions (Recommended)",
"description": "Same 2 tests but with concrete assertions: receipt field values, Stripe call count = 2, virtual sleeper backoff invocation recorded. Proves retry mechanism actually fired. Effort: human ~1.5 hr / CC ~8 min. Completeness: 7/10."
},
{
"label": "C) Coverage Sweep",
"description": "2 primary tests + nil/empty input cases + explicit out-of-scope comment while already in the file. Closes more gaps in one PR. Effort: human ~3 hr / CC ~15 min. Completeness: 9/10."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D3 \u2014 Which implementation approach for the processPayment() tests?\nProject: Payment Processing \u2014 Test Coverage (main)\nELI10: The plan calls for 2 unit tests. The question is how precise those tests should be. A loose test says \u201cassert a receipt came back\u201d; a tight test says \u201cassert receipt.amount == 50, receipt.charge_id == mock_id, and Stripe was called exactly once.\u201d Tight tests catch more regressions but take slightly more time to write.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Loose assertions let partial regressions ship undetected \u2014 the payment goes through but the receipt is wrong. Missing call-count assertions mean the retry path could silently stop retrying and the test would still pass.\nRecommendation: B because the mock call history and virtual sleeper already exist to assert exact behavior \u2014 not using them wastes the infrastructure and leaves the retry proof hollow.\nCompleteness: A=5/10, B=7/10, C=9/10\n<gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-impl-approach>": "A) Minimal as Described"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T03:31:46.283Z"
}
test/fixtures/ceo-approach-r-call.json
Vendored
-29
View File
@@ -1,29 +0,0 @@
{
"sessionId": "2aa1d111-e41c-4305-b511-560f75c591f6",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01HBKnGS2bULyawnQhA8RZY4",
"questions": [
{
"question": "Which implementation approach should this plan follow? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-approach>",
"header": "Approach",
"options": [
{
"label": "Minimal — 2 tests as written",
"description": "Exactly 2 tests matching the spec: happy path + 502. Assertions are left as the plan describes them ('assert correct receipt is generated', 'assert retry-with-backoff fires once, then fails clean'). Fast, small diff. Completeness: 7/10 — tests exist but assertion specifics are left to the implementer.",
"preview": "test 'happy path: successful Stripe charge' do\n receipt = process_payment(factory.valid_card)\n assert receipt.generated? # vague\nend\n\ntest '502 error: retry once, then fail' do\n result = process_payment(factory.bad_card)\n assert result.failed? # vague\nend"
},
{
"label": "Assertions-complete — 2 tests with explicit assertions (recommended)",
"description": "Same 2 tests, but the plan specifies: (1) which receipt fields to assert for the happy path, (2) the exact failure type for the 502 path, (3) Stripe call count == 2, and (4) backoff was recorded. Same file count, ~20 extra lines of assertion clarity. Completeness: 9/10 — tests are complete enough to catch real regressions.",
"preview": "test 'happy path: successful Stripe charge' do\n receipt = process_payment(factory.valid_card)\n assert_equal stripe_mock.charge_id, receipt.stripe_charge_id\n assert_equal 100_00, receipt.amount_cents\n assert_equal 'paid', receipt.status\nend\n\ntest '502 error: retry once, then fail' do\n assert_raises(PaymentError) { process_payment(factory.bad_card) }\n assert_equal 2, stripe_mock.call_count # original + 1 retry\n assert virtual_sleeper.backoff_recorded?\nend"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"Which implementation approach should this plan follow? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-approach>": "Minimal — 2 tests as written"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T04:42:01.283Z"
}
test/fixtures/ceo-approach-r-distinct-call.json
Vendored
-32
View File
@@ -1,32 +0,0 @@
{
"sessionId": "6416932f-4f06-403d-ba98-00668d5e1fe3",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01JAFX6db7H44tLpFeRjLakm",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 \u2014 Which implementation approach should this plan use? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-approach-selection>\n\nELI10: The plan introduces a new Stripe webhook handler that reads a user ID from Stripe event metadata into a raw SQL query \u2014 and the plan itself explicitly says this is unsafe SQL. There are also no tests, and email errors propagate silently after the payment is committed. We have three paths: ship it as-is (fast, insecure), fix just the SQL (quick win), or fix all three known issues (secure, tested, reliable).\n\nStakes if we pick wrong: Approach A ships a handler with a named SQL injection vulnerability the plan's own text acknowledges. Approach B leaves a reliability gap where email errors cause misleading HTTP 500s after committed payments.\n\nRecommendation: C because the SQL injection is P0, the email fix is one rescue clause, and the test suite is ~20 min with CC \u2014 deferring all three accepts known risk for no real benefit.\n\nCompleteness: A=3/10, B=6/10, C=9/10\n\nPros/cons:\nA) As-specified \u2014 raw SQL, no tests, no email rescue\n \u2705 Smallest possible diff; matches the plan document exactly as written\n \u274c Ships a SQL injection the plan itself calls out as unsafe; no test coverage means no regression baseline\n\nB) Minimal safe \u2014 parameterize the SQL query only\n \u2705 Eliminates the P0 SQL injection with minimal code change; everything else stays the same\n \u274c Email exceptions still propagate after DB commits (misleading HTTP 500, no auto-retry for the notification); still no tests\n\nC) Full fix \u2014 parameterized queries + email rescue + unit tests (recommended)\n \u2705 Eliminates SQL injection; email failures no longer misrepresent committed payments; tests create a regression baseline for future changes\n \u274c More code to write; requires existing test harness to support the new handler class\n\nNet: trading ~15 extra CC minutes for a handler that doesn't ship with a named security vulnerability and has a test baseline.",
"header": "Approach",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) As-specified (raw SQL)",
"description": "Implement exactly as written \u2014 raw SQL fragment, no email rescue, no tests. Fast but ships the acknowledged SQL injection."
},
{
"label": "B) Minimal safe (parameterize only)",
"description": "Fix the SQL injection with parameterized queries; keep email inline with no rescue and no tests."
},
{
"label": "C) Full fix \u2014 all three gaps (Recommended)",
"description": "Parameterized queries + rescue email exceptions + unit tests for the critical paths."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 \u2014 Which implementation approach should this plan use? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-approach-selection>\n\nELI10: The plan introduces a new Stripe webhook handler that reads a user ID from Stripe event metadata into a raw SQL query \u2014 and the plan itself explicitly says this is unsafe SQL. There are also no tests, and email errors propagate silently after the payment is committed. We have three paths: ship it as-is (fast, insecure), fix just the SQL (quick win), or fix all three known issues (secure, tested, reliable).\n\nStakes if we pick wrong: Approach A ships a handler with a named SQL injection vulnerability the plan's own text acknowledges. Approach B leaves a reliability gap where email errors cause misleading HTTP 500s after committed payments.\n\nRecommendation: C because the SQL injection is P0, the email fix is one rescue clause, and the test suite is ~20 min with CC \u2014 deferring all three accepts known risk for no real benefit.\n\nCompleteness: A=3/10, B=6/10, C=9/10\n\nPros/cons:\nA) As-specified \u2014 raw SQL, no tests, no email rescue\n \u2705 Smallest possible diff; matches the plan document exactly as written\n \u274c Ships a SQL injection the plan itself calls out as unsafe; no test coverage means no regression baseline\n\nB) Minimal safe \u2014 parameterize the SQL query only\n \u2705 Eliminates the P0 SQL injection with minimal code change; everything else stays the same\n \u274c Email exceptions still propagate after DB commits (misleading HTTP 500, no auto-retry for the notification); still no tests\n\nC) Full fix \u2014 parameterized queries + email rescue + unit tests (recommended)\n \u2705 Eliminates SQL injection; email failures no longer misrepresent committed payments; tests create a regression baseline for future changes\n \u274c More code to write; requires existing test harness to support the new handler class\n\nNet: trading ~15 extra CC minutes for a handler that doesn't ship with a named security vulnerability and has a test baseline.": "A) As-specified (raw SQL)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T04:43:57.146Z"
}
test/fixtures/ceo-approach-y-call.json
Vendored
-32
View File
@@ -1,32 +0,0 @@
{
"sessionId": "31619954-929e-453b-9d90-2d371360986c",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01R6C4fAiB68hAsTa95kcQWm",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 \u2014 Which implementation approach for the payment webhook handler? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-approach>",
"header": "Approach",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Minimal Viable",
"description": "Fix the SQL injection (parameterized query for userId lookup) and add a rescue/catch block around the email call. Smallest diff, fastest to ship. Completeness: 6/10 \u2014 happy path only, no tests, N+1 query and WebhookDispatcher bypass remain as known debt.\n\n\u2705 Surgical change \u2014 easy to review, easy to revert if the feature flag needs to roll back\n\u2705 Fixes the one non-negotiable blocker: SQL injection. Email errors can no longer cascade to HTTP 500 and trigger Stripe retries\n\u274c Zero automated tests on a payment flow \u2014 regressions will surface in production, not CI\n\u274c N+1 order-fetch loop stays; WebhookDispatcher bypass stays as architectural debt"
},
{
"label": "B) Proper Integration",
"description": "Everything in A, plus: register the handler through the existing WebhookDispatcher module instead of bypassing it. Completeness: 7/10 \u2014 happy path + architectural correctness, still no test coverage.\n\n\u2705 Eliminates the architectural fragmentation \u2014 future Stripe event types plug into the dispatcher naturally\n\u2705 SQL injection fixed, email bounded \u2014 all of A's must-fixes, plus namespace consistency\n\u274c Still no automated tests for the payment flow; CI cannot catch regressions on this path\n\u274c Requires reading WebhookDispatcher internals before implementing \u2014 slightly wider blast radius"
},
{
"label": "C) Production-Grade (recommended)",
"description": "Everything in B, plus: unit + integration tests for the handler, fix the N+1 order-fetch with a bulk query, move the notification email to async delivery (queue or background job). Completeness: 10/10.\n\n\u2705 Zero silent failures \u2014 every path is tested, observable, and bounded. Payment flows have zero defect tolerance\n\u2705 The extra scope over A is ~25 min of CC time. With AI coding, \"do it right\" costs nearly the same as \"do it quick\"\n\u274c Async email delivery requires confirming whether a queue or background-job infrastructure already exists\n\u274c Largest diff of the three \u2014 more review surface, though each piece is individually straightforward"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 \u2014 Which implementation approach for the payment webhook handler? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-approach>": "A) Minimal Viable"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T11:06:00.096Z"
}
test/fixtures/ceo-approach-y-screen.txt
Vendored
-39
View File
@@ -1,39 +0,0 @@
10 **Files touched recently:** PLAN.md, CLAUDE.md only.
… +89 lines (ctrl+o to expand)
● Now I'll present the first decision — approach selection (Step 0C-bis). I've completed internal analysis of 0A, 0B,
and 0C. The plan has a textbook SQL injection on the critical payment path.
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Planning:
/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-38V9gy/tmp/gstack-hermetic-2351339-GfM888/with-skills/.claude/plans/magical-dazzling-waterfall.md
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
☐ Approach
│ D1 — Which implementation approach for the payment webhook handler? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-approach>
❯ 1. A) Minimal Viable
Fix the SQL injection (parameterized query for userId lookup) and add a rescue/catch block around the email call.
Smallest diff, fastest to ship. Completeness: 6/10 — happy path only, no tests, N+1 query and WebhookDispatcher
bypass remain as known debt.��✅ Surgical change — easy to review, easy to revert if the feature flag needs to roll
back�✅ Fixes the one non-negotiable blocker: SQL injection. Email errors can no longer cascade to HTTP 500 and
trigger Stripe retries�❌ Zero automated tests on a payment flow — regressions will surface in production, not
CI�❌ N+1 order-fetch loop stays; WebhookDispatcher bypass stays as architectural debt
2. B) Proper Integration
Everything in A, plus: register the handler through the existing WebhookDispatcher module instead of bypassing it.
Completeness: 7/10 — happy path + architectural correctness, still no test coverage.��✅ Eliminates the
architectural fragmentation — future Stripe event types plug into the dispatcher naturally�✅ SQL injection fixed,
email bounded — all of A's must-fixes, plus namespace consistency�❌ Still no automated tests for the payment flow;
CI cannot catch regressions on this path�❌ Requires reading WebhookDispatcher internals before implementing —
slightly wider blast radius
3. C) Production-Grade (recommended)
Everything in B, plus: unit + integration tests for the handler, fix the N+1 order-fetch with a bulk query, move
the notification email to async delivery (queue or background job). Completeness: 10/10.��✅ Zero silent failures —
every path is tested, observable, and bounded. Payment flows have zero defect tolerance�✅ The extra scope over A
is ~25 min of CC time. With AI coding, "do it right" costs nearly the same as "do it quick"�❌ Async email delivery
requires confirming whether a queue or background-job infrastructure already exists�❌ Largest diff of the three —
more review surface, though each piece is individually straightforward
4. Type something.
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
5. Chat about this
Enter to select · ↑/↓ to navigate · Esc to cancel
test/fixtures/ceo-assertion-header-am-calls.json
Vendored
-229
View File
@@ -1,229 +0,0 @@
{
"sourceObservationSha256": "7ba544360db58b1613bf1dbefab2dd7242c71a9a3341c5e66d833d8f5481dd50",
"calls": [
{
"signature": "abb7e247-ba90-4ae1-8aec-fa748bf6b188:toolu_015Coa5yd2dGrFN8EB2kG1jE",
"promptSnippet": "Routing D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md? Project/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-EFiY6H on main, CEO review of PLAN.md. ELI10: gstack works better when the project CLAUDE.md tells the agent which slash skill t",
"options": [
{
"index": 1,
"label": "Add routing rules (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "No thanks, manual"
},
{
"index": 1,
"label": "Enable cross-project (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "Project-scoped only"
}
],
"observedAtMs": 208726,
"preReview": true,
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "abb7e247-ba90-4ae1-8aec-fa748bf6b188",
"toolUseId": "toolu_015Coa5yd2dGrFN8EB2kG1jE",
"questions": [
{
"header": "Routing",
"question": "D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-EFiY6H on main, CEO review of PLAN.md.\nELI10: gstack works better when the project CLAUDE.md tells the agent which slash skill to run for which kind of request. This is a one-time setup prompt. Note: plan mode is active, so the CLAUDE.md edit and commit cannot happen in this session; choosing A records the intent as a follow-up.\nStakes if we pick wrong: mild. Without routing, skills must be invoked by name; with it, a stale rule could mis-route once.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules make later reviews one command instead of a lookup.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nA) Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (recommended)\n ✅ Future requests like \"review this diff\" route to /review without the user remembering names\n ✅ Standard gstack setup; identical across projects so nothing bespoke to maintain\n ❌ Cannot be written or committed while plan mode is active; lands as a deferred task\nB) No thanks, I'll invoke skills manually\n ✅ Zero edits to a fixture repo that may be discarded after this review\n ✅ Config flag stops this prompt from appearing again for this project\n ❌ Every skill has to be typed by exact name from here on\nNet: convenience later versus zero churn in a throwaway fixture.",
"options": [
{
"label": "Add routing rules (recommended)",
"description": "Record as deferred: append the standard routing section to CLAUDE.md and commit once plan mode ends."
},
{
"label": "No thanks, manual",
"description": "Set routing_declined=true so this prompt does not recur for this project."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
},
{
"header": "Learnings",
"question": "D2 — Let gstack search learnings from your other projects on this machine?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-EFiY6H on main, CEO review of PLAN.md.\nELI10: gstack saves small lessons per project. Cross-project mode also searches lessons saved under other repos on this machine. Everything stays local. Good for solo developers; skip if you work across client codebases where mixing context is a concern.\nStakes if we pick wrong: low. A wrong choice can be flipped any time with gstack-config.\nRecommendation: A because a solo machine benefits from every past lesson and nothing leaves the disk.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nA) Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)\n ✅ Patterns learned in one repo surface when the same pitfall appears elsewhere\n ✅ Data never leaves the machine; it is a local file search only\n ❌ Unrelated projects' lessons can add noise to the learnings list\nB) Keep learnings project-scoped only\n ✅ Strict isolation between client or team codebases on the same machine\n ✅ Learnings list stays short and specific to this repo\n ❌ Lessons already learned elsewhere have to be rediscovered here\nNet: broader recall versus strict per-project isolation.",
"options": [
{
"label": "Enable cross-project (recommended)",
"description": "Run gstack-config set cross_project_learnings true, then re-run the learnings search."
},
{
"label": "Project-scoped only",
"description": "Run gstack-config set cross_project_learnings false."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-EFiY6H on main, CEO review of PLAN.md.\nELI10: gstack works better when the project CLAUDE.md tells the agent which slash skill to run for which kind of request. This is a one-time setup prompt. Note: plan mode is active, so the CLAUDE.md edit and commit cannot happen in this session; choosing A records the intent as a follow-up.\nStakes if we pick wrong: mild. Without routing, skills must be invoked by name; with it, a stale rule could mis-route once.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules make later reviews one command instead of a lookup.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nA) Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (recommended)\n ✅ Future requests like \"review this diff\" route to /review without the user remembering names\n ✅ Standard gstack setup; identical across projects so nothing bespoke to maintain\n ❌ Cannot be written or committed while plan mode is active; lands as a deferred task\nB) No thanks, I'll invoke skills manually\n ✅ Zero edits to a fixture repo that may be discarded after this review\n ✅ Config flag stops this prompt from appearing again for this project\n ❌ Every skill has to be typed by exact name from here on\nNet: convenience later versus zero churn in a throwaway fixture.": "Add routing rules (recommended)",
"D2 — Let gstack search learnings from your other projects on this machine?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-EFiY6H on main, CEO review of PLAN.md.\nELI10: gstack saves small lessons per project. Cross-project mode also searches lessons saved under other repos on this machine. Everything stays local. Good for solo developers; skip if you work across client codebases where mixing context is a concern.\nStakes if we pick wrong: low. A wrong choice can be flipped any time with gstack-config.\nRecommendation: A because a solo machine benefits from every past lesson and nothing leaves the disk.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nA) Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)\n ✅ Patterns learned in one repo surface when the same pitfall appears elsewhere\n ✅ Data never leaves the machine; it is a local file search only\n ❌ Unrelated projects' lessons can add noise to the learnings list\nB) Keep learnings project-scoped only\n ✅ Strict isolation between client or team codebases on the same machine\n ✅ Learnings list stays short and specific to this repo\n ❌ Lessons already learned elsewhere have to be rediscovered here\nNet: broader recall versus strict per-project isolation.": "Enable cross-project (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T09:29:47.677Z"
}
},
{
"signature": "abb7e247-ba90-4ae1-8aec-fa748bf6b188:toolu_019aJqs1TV4J7TomcV5Yfprt",
"promptSnippet": "Approach D3 — Which implementation structure for the two processPayment tests? Project/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-EFiY6H on main, CEO review of PLAN.md (HOLD SCOPE). ELI10: All three shapes can carry the same assertions; the question is",
"options": [
{
"index": 1,
"label": "A: Two inline tests (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "B: Inline + factory helpers"
},
{
"index": 3,
"label": "C: Table-driven"
}
],
"observedAtMs": 252932,
"preReview": true,
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "abb7e247-ba90-4ae1-8aec-fa748bf6b188",
"toolUseId": "toolu_019aJqs1TV4J7TomcV5Yfprt",
"questions": [
{
"header": "Approach",
"question": "D3 — Which implementation structure for the two processPayment tests?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-EFiY6H on main, CEO review of PLAN.md (HOLD SCOPE).\nELI10: All three shapes can carry the same assertions; the question is how the two tests are organized. Inline tests are the smallest change. A factory helper or a table adds shared machinery that pays off only when more scenarios arrive. What the assertions actually check is decided separately in the test review.\nStakes if we pick wrong: too little structure means a little duplication later; too much means shared test infra changes for two call sites and harder-to-read failures.\nRecommendation: A because the right-sized diff for two tests is two tests; the existing factory already exposes everything the assertions need.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=10/10, C=9/10\nA) Two inline tests in the existing suite (recommended) (human: ~1h / CC: ~5min)\n ✅ Smallest diff; each test reads arrange, act, assert top to bottom with no indirection\n ✅ Uses the factory, mock call history and virtual sleeper exactly as they exist today\n ❌ Receipt literal and attempt-count literals sit in the test body; a third scenario would repeat the shape\nB) Inline tests plus shared factory helpers (human: ~3h / CC: ~15min)\n ✅ Future retry tests reuse an expectAttempts(n, backoff[]) style check instead of re-deriving it\n ✅ Keeps count and backoff assertions in one place so they cannot drift between suites\n ❌ Modifies shared test infrastructure for two call sites; premature abstraction under HOLD SCOPE\nC) Table-driven describe.each (human: ~3h / CC: ~15min)\n ✅ Adding a scenario becomes one row with responses, expected outcome, attempts and backoff\n ✅ Forces every scenario to state attempts and backoff, so a row cannot skip them\n ❌ Two rows do not justify a table; a failing row reports an index, not the intent of the test\nNet: minimal and readable now versus machinery for scenarios that are not in scope.",
"options": [
{
"label": "A: Two inline tests (recommended)",
"description": "Two it blocks in the existing suite using the current factory, mock and sleeper. Completeness 10/10."
},
{
"label": "B: Inline + factory helpers",
"description": "Same tests plus shared arrange/expect helpers added to the payment test factory. Completeness 10/10."
},
{
"label": "C: Table-driven",
"description": "One describe.each over scenario rows. Completeness 9/10."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D3 — Which implementation structure for the two processPayment tests?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-EFiY6H on main, CEO review of PLAN.md (HOLD SCOPE).\nELI10: All three shapes can carry the same assertions; the question is how the two tests are organized. Inline tests are the smallest change. A factory helper or a table adds shared machinery that pays off only when more scenarios arrive. What the assertions actually check is decided separately in the test review.\nStakes if we pick wrong: too little structure means a little duplication later; too much means shared test infra changes for two call sites and harder-to-read failures.\nRecommendation: A because the right-sized diff for two tests is two tests; the existing factory already exposes everything the assertions need.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=10/10, C=9/10\nA) Two inline tests in the existing suite (recommended) (human: ~1h / CC: ~5min)\n ✅ Smallest diff; each test reads arrange, act, assert top to bottom with no indirection\n ✅ Uses the factory, mock call history and virtual sleeper exactly as they exist today\n ❌ Receipt literal and attempt-count literals sit in the test body; a third scenario would repeat the shape\nB) Inline tests plus shared factory helpers (human: ~3h / CC: ~15min)\n ✅ Future retry tests reuse an expectAttempts(n, backoff[]) style check instead of re-deriving it\n ✅ Keeps count and backoff assertions in one place so they cannot drift between suites\n ❌ Modifies shared test infrastructure for two call sites; premature abstraction under HOLD SCOPE\nC) Table-driven describe.each (human: ~3h / CC: ~15min)\n ✅ Adding a scenario becomes one row with responses, expected outcome, attempts and backoff\n ✅ Forces every scenario to state attempts and backoff, so a row cannot skip them\n ❌ Two rows do not justify a table; a failing row reports an index, not the intent of the test\nNet: minimal and readable now versus machinery for scenarios that are not in scope.": "A: Two inline tests (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T09:30:32.382Z"
}
},
{
"signature": "abb7e247-ba90-4ae1-8aec-fa748bf6b188:toolu_01PyvaDPZuvXX5vW38NtXsAk",
"promptSnippet": "Test 1 assert D4 (Issue 1) — Successful-charge test asserts only that the receipt is truthy. Pin the stated receipt contract instead? Project/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-EFiY6H on main, CEO review of PLAN.md (HOLD SCOPE). ELI10: PLAN.md ",
"options": [
{
"index": 1,
"label": "1A: Deep-equal exact receipt (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "1B: chargeId only"
},
{
"index": 3,
"label": "1C: Keep truthy"
}
],
"observedAtMs": 300691,
"preReview": true,
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "abb7e247-ba90-4ae1-8aec-fa748bf6b188",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01PyvaDPZuvXX5vW38NtXsAk",
"questions": [
{
"header": "Test 1 assert",
"question": "D4 (Issue 1) — Successful-charge test asserts only that the receipt is truthy. Pin the stated receipt contract instead?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-EFiY6H on main, CEO review of PLAN.md (HOLD SCOPE).\nELI10: PLAN.md lines 18-21 say a 1000-cent USD charge with Stripe id ch_paid must return exactly { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }. PLAN.md line 32 then plans to assert only that the receipt is truthy. Any non-null object passes that check: wrong chargeId, amount in dollars instead of cents, currency lowercased, an extra field. The test would go green while the contract it claims to cover is broken.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a receipt regression (wrong amount shown to the customer, wrong charge id in support tooling) ships with a passing test that says the path is covered.\nRecommendation: 1A because a test that cannot fail when the contract breaks is not coverage; well-tested code is non-negotiable and the exact values are already written in the plan.\nCompleteness: 1A=10/10, 1B=7/10, 1C=1/10\n1A) Deep-equal the receipt to the exact stated literal (recommended) (human: ~10min / CC: ~1min)\n ✅ Rejects a wrong chargeId, wrong amountCents, wrong currency, missing or extra field in one assertion\n ✅ Failure output names the differing field, so a regression is diagnosed from the test report alone\n ❌ Adding a new receipt field later is a deliberate one-line test update, not a silent pass\n1B) Assert chargeId only, keep the rest truthy (human: ~10min / CC: ~1min)\n ✅ Catches the most visible failure, a receipt whose charge id does not match Stripe\n ✅ Tolerates receipt shape changes without touching the test\n ❌ amountCents and currency, both stated in the contract, remain unverified and can drift silently\n1C) Keep the plan as written: receipt is truthy (human: 0 / CC: 0)\n ✅ No change to the plan text\n ✅ Cannot flake on any field value\n ❌ Passes for any object at all; the contract in PLAN.md lines 18-21 is not tested\nNet: an assertion that names the three fields versus a green check that proves only non-null.",
"options": [
{
"label": "1A: Deep-equal exact receipt (recommended)",
"description": "expect(receipt).toEqual({ chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }). Completeness 10/10."
},
{
"label": "1B: chargeId only",
"description": "Assert receipt.chargeId === \"ch_paid\"; leave amountCents and currency unchecked. Completeness 7/10."
},
{
"label": "1C: Keep truthy",
"description": "Leave PLAN.md line 32 as written. Completeness 1/10."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D4 (Issue 1) — Successful-charge test asserts only that the receipt is truthy. Pin the stated receipt contract instead?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-EFiY6H on main, CEO review of PLAN.md (HOLD SCOPE).\nELI10: PLAN.md lines 18-21 say a 1000-cent USD charge with Stripe id ch_paid must return exactly { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }. PLAN.md line 32 then plans to assert only that the receipt is truthy. Any non-null object passes that check: wrong chargeId, amount in dollars instead of cents, currency lowercased, an extra field. The test would go green while the contract it claims to cover is broken.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a receipt regression (wrong amount shown to the customer, wrong charge id in support tooling) ships with a passing test that says the path is covered.\nRecommendation: 1A because a test that cannot fail when the contract breaks is not coverage; well-tested code is non-negotiable and the exact values are already written in the plan.\nCompleteness: 1A=10/10, 1B=7/10, 1C=1/10\n1A) Deep-equal the receipt to the exact stated literal (recommended) (human: ~10min / CC: ~1min)\n ✅ Rejects a wrong chargeId, wrong amountCents, wrong currency, missing or extra field in one assertion\n ✅ Failure output names the differing field, so a regression is diagnosed from the test report alone\n ❌ Adding a new receipt field later is a deliberate one-line test update, not a silent pass\n1B) Assert chargeId only, keep the rest truthy (human: ~10min / CC: ~1min)\n ✅ Catches the most visible failure, a receipt whose charge id does not match Stripe\n ✅ Tolerates receipt shape changes without touching the test\n ❌ amountCents and currency, both stated in the contract, remain unverified and can drift silently\n1C) Keep the plan as written: receipt is truthy (human: 0 / CC: 0)\n ✅ No change to the plan text\n ✅ Cannot flake on any field value\n ❌ Passes for any object at all; the contract in PLAN.md lines 18-21 is not tested\nNet: an assertion that names the three fields versus a green check that proves only non-null.": "1A: Deep-equal exact receipt (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T09:31:20.141Z"
}
},
{
"signature": "abb7e247-ba90-4ae1-8aec-fa748bf6b188:toolu_019MYTyEPevTbfnd4mrzqtZe",
"promptSnippet": "Test 2 assert D5 (Issue 2) — Repeated-502 test asserts only the PaymentUnavailable rejection. Also pin the retry contract: exactly two attempts and one 100 ms backoff? Project/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-EFiY6H on main, CEO review of PLA",
"options": [
{
"index": 1,
"label": "2A: Rejection + 2 attempts + [100] backoff (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "2B: Rejection + 2 attempts"
},
{
"index": 3,
"label": "2C: Keep rejection only"
}
],
"observedAtMs": 324830,
"preReview": true,
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "abb7e247-ba90-4ae1-8aec-fa748bf6b188",
"toolUseId": "toolu_019MYTyEPevTbfnd4mrzqtZe",
"questions": [
{
"header": "Test 2 assert",
"question": "D5 (Issue 2) — Repeated-502 test asserts only the PaymentUnavailable rejection. Also pin the retry contract: exactly two attempts and one 100 ms backoff?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-EFiY6H on main, CEO review of PLAN.md (HOLD SCOPE).\nELI10: PLAN.md lines 22-23 say that with max_retries=1, repeated 502s produce exactly two charge attempts separated by one recorded 100 ms backoff, then PaymentUnavailable. PLAN.md lines 33-36 plan to assert only the rejection and explicitly skip the mock call history and sleeper record. That test passes if the code gives up after one attempt, retries five times, or retries with no backoff at all. The factory already exposes the call history and the virtual sleeper record, so the check costs two lines.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a retry regression (no retry, or a hot loop hammering Stripe with no backoff) ships with a passing test; customers see spurious failures or Stripe rate-limits the account.\nRecommendation: 2A because the retry count and backoff are the contract; the rejection alone proves nothing about them. Exact counts, never lower bounds.\nCompleteness: 2A=10/10, 2B=6/10, 2C=2/10\n2A) Assert rejection class, exactly 2 attempts, sleeper record exactly [100] (recommended) (human: ~15min / CC: ~2min)\n ✅ Rejects zero retries, extra retries, missing backoff and wrong backoff duration in one test\n ✅ Uses the mock call history and virtual sleeper the factory already exposes; no new infrastructure\n ❌ Changing the backoff constant or max_retries later requires updating the literal in this test\n2B) Assert rejection class and exactly 2 attempts, skip the sleeper record (human: ~12min / CC: ~2min)\n ✅ Catches no-retry and over-retry regressions, the two most likely failures\n ✅ One fewer literal to maintain if backoff timing changes\n ❌ A retry with zero backoff, the hot-loop case, passes; the stated 100 ms contract is untested\n2C) Keep the plan as written: rejection only (human: 0 / CC: 0)\n ✅ No change to the plan text\n ✅ Immune to any retry or timing detail\n ❌ Passes with 1, 2 or 20 attempts and no backoff; the contract in PLAN.md lines 22-23 is not tested\nNet: two extra assertions that make the retry contract falsifiable versus a rejection check that proves only the error class.",
"options": [
{
"label": "2A: Rejection + 2 attempts + [100] backoff (recommended)",
"description": "await expect(p).rejects.toBeInstanceOf(PaymentUnavailable); expect(stripe.calls).toHaveLength(2); expect(sleeper.record).toEqual([100]). Completeness 10/10."
},
{
"label": "2B: Rejection + 2 attempts",
"description": "Assert class and exact attempt count; leave the sleeper record unchecked. Completeness 6/10."
},
{
"label": "2C: Keep rejection only",
"description": "Leave PLAN.md lines 33-36 as written. Completeness 2/10."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D5 (Issue 2) — Repeated-502 test asserts only the PaymentUnavailable rejection. Also pin the retry contract: exactly two attempts and one 100 ms backoff?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-EFiY6H on main, CEO review of PLAN.md (HOLD SCOPE).\nELI10: PLAN.md lines 22-23 say that with max_retries=1, repeated 502s produce exactly two charge attempts separated by one recorded 100 ms backoff, then PaymentUnavailable. PLAN.md lines 33-36 plan to assert only the rejection and explicitly skip the mock call history and sleeper record. That test passes if the code gives up after one attempt, retries five times, or retries with no backoff at all. The factory already exposes the call history and the virtual sleeper record, so the check costs two lines.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a retry regression (no retry, or a hot loop hammering Stripe with no backoff) ships with a passing test; customers see spurious failures or Stripe rate-limits the account.\nRecommendation: 2A because the retry count and backoff are the contract; the rejection alone proves nothing about them. Exact counts, never lower bounds.\nCompleteness: 2A=10/10, 2B=6/10, 2C=2/10\n2A) Assert rejection class, exactly 2 attempts, sleeper record exactly [100] (recommended) (human: ~15min / CC: ~2min)\n ✅ Rejects zero retries, extra retries, missing backoff and wrong backoff duration in one test\n ✅ Uses the mock call history and virtual sleeper the factory already exposes; no new infrastructure\n ❌ Changing the backoff constant or max_retries later requires updating the literal in this test\n2B) Assert rejection class and exactly 2 attempts, skip the sleeper record (human: ~12min / CC: ~2min)\n ✅ Catches no-retry and over-retry regressions, the two most likely failures\n ✅ One fewer literal to maintain if backoff timing changes\n ❌ A retry with zero backoff, the hot-loop case, passes; the stated 100 ms contract is untested\n2C) Keep the plan as written: rejection only (human: 0 / CC: 0)\n ✅ No change to the plan text\n ✅ Immune to any retry or timing detail\n ❌ Passes with 1, 2 or 20 attempts and no backoff; the contract in PLAN.md lines 22-23 is not tested\nNet: two extra assertions that make the retry contract falsifiable versus a rejection check that proves only the error class.": "2A: Rejection + 2 attempts + [100] backoff (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T09:31:44.278Z"
}
}
]
}
test/fixtures/ceo-baseline-alternatives-90f.json
Vendored
-295
View File
@@ -1,295 +0,0 @@
{
"source": "90f099817ac7e56cddafbd6fdac4c12dfd70f4a4",
"cliVersion": "2.1.251",
"cases": [
{
"name": "five-baseline",
"source": "90f099817ac7e56cddafbd6fdac4c12dfd70f4a4",
"originalError": "Error: Unsupported current CEO decision; cannot exclude it from the 4–7 count: d9385c5f-da81-49d1-a475-a1ea1a87254b:toolu_01LGiCdruLLziwpCaS9h11ES",
"call": {
"sessionId": "d9385c5f-da81-49d1-a475-a1ea1a87254b",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01LGiCdruLLziwpCaS9h11ES",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D3 — Bind `userId` as a query parameter, or keep the raw SQL fragment?\nProject/branch/task: Payment Processing Integration plan on `main`, HOLD SCOPE review, ledger row D3.\nELI10: The user ID arrives from Stripe's event metadata. The signature proves Stripe sent it; it does not prove the string is harmless. Anyone who can set PaymentIntent metadata on your Stripe account (a merchant tool, a leaked API key) can put `'; DROP TABLE users; --` in it, and the plan's own contracts say IDs may contain any punctuation and nothing sanitizes them. Pasting that string into SQL text is classic SQL injection; handing it to the database as a bound parameter makes it inert.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Data exfiltration or destruction through a validly signed webhook, with no alert distinguishing it from a normal payment.\nRecommendation: A because binding costs one line and removes the whole vulnerability class; the plan's own contracts section already states a valid signature does not make the string safe for SQL.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=2/10\nNet: a one-line binding versus an injection hole reachable by anyone with metadata access.",
"header": "SQL lookup",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Bound parameter / finder (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Quotes, semicolons, Unicode in `metadata.user_id` become plain data, never SQL\n✅ Uses the shared DB client the way it is designed; no format validation added, opaque TEXT contract intact\n❌ Requires one deliberate line instead of string interpolation"
},
{
"label": "Keep raw SQL fragment",
"description": "✅ Matches the plan text as written; nothing to change\n✅ Marginally shorter code\n❌ SQL injection through any validly signed event whose metadata an attacker controls"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D3 — Bind `userId` as a query parameter, or keep the raw SQL fragment?\nProject/branch/task: Payment Processing Integration plan on `main`, HOLD SCOPE review, ledger row D3.\nELI10: The user ID arrives from Stripe's event metadata. The signature proves Stripe sent it; it does not prove the string is harmless. Anyone who can set PaymentIntent metadata on your Stripe account (a merchant tool, a leaked API key) can put `'; DROP TABLE users; --` in it, and the plan's own contracts say IDs may contain any punctuation and nothing sanitizes them. Pasting that string into SQL text is classic SQL injection; handing it to the database as a bound parameter makes it inert.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Data exfiltration or destruction through a validly signed webhook, with no alert distinguishing it from a normal payment.\nRecommendation: A because binding costs one line and removes the whole vulnerability class; the plan's own contracts section already states a valid signature does not make the string safe for SQL.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=2/10\nNet: a one-line binding versus an injection hole reachable by anyone with metadata access.": "Bound parameter / finder (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T16:00:48.951Z"
},
"savedPlan": "# Plan: Payment Processing Integration — CEO Review (HOLD SCOPE)\nReviewed by /plan-ceo-review on 2026-09-15. Branch: main. Mode: HOLD SCOPE (explicit user choice).\nSource plan: PLAN.md (commit 22cc010). Review only; no code changes.\n## Decision ledger\n\n| ID and owner | Contract and evidence | Current | Proposed | Status | Exact approval and scope |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| D3 (user) | Lookup query. PLAN.md Database access: `request.params.userId` \"directly into a raw SQL fragment\"; Contracts: adapter forwards nonempty string unchanged, no cast/escape, IDs are opaque TEXT incl. punctuation | prior handler's lookup (method unknown; mark unknown) | see options below | unresolved | — |\n\n### D3 — Lookup query (pending)\n\nCommitment grid:\n\n```\nCommitment | Source/approval or pending | Current | A: bound parameter | B: raw fragment\nIDs are opaque TEXT, any nonempty string | approved (contracts) | yes | yes | yes\nNo format validation added | approved (contracts) | yes | yes | yes\nuserId interpolated into SQL text | pending (D3) | unknown | no | yes\n```\n\n- **A) Bound parameter / finder** — `WHERE id = $1` with the string bound, or the\n existing model finder. Effort S, risk low. Pros: any punctuation/Unicode/quote in a\n signed-but-attacker-controlled `metadata.user_id` is inert; matches how the shared\n DB client is meant to be used. Cons: none beyond one line of care.\n- **B) Raw SQL fragment** (plan as written) — string interpolation. Effort S, risk\n high. Pros: none over A. Cons: a merchant-side actor who can set PaymentIntent\n metadata (or a stolen dashboard/API key) gets SQL injection through a validly signed\n event; the ownership guard compares identity, it does not sanitize; the contracts\n section itself says \"a valid signature does not make it safe for SQL.\"\n- No third viable option: escaping by hand is strictly worse than binding.\n",
"provenance": {
"originalReportSha256": "a09da73054aaccf86d2df113578c76e990609c7483b005408dd5e8205d832853",
"requiredExcerptSha256": "e30fc2c26e544d03b40bd7991a3170372d884d511230ede318e10530be2b1303",
"requestAt": "2026-09-15T16:00:47.200Z",
"successfulPriorMutations": [
{
"name": "Write",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01ExqMmTfCqudZ1WeWmLvuKJ",
"requestedAt": "2026-09-15T16:00:08.956Z",
"acknowledgedAt": "2026-09-15T16:00:09.906Z"
},
{
"name": "Edit",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01QttmFedjvjxKdVNgETC31N",
"requestedAt": "2026-09-15T16:00:32.607Z",
"acknowledgedAt": "2026-09-15T16:00:33.460Z"
}
],
"extraction": "Original source paragraph, original owned ledger row, complete original decision section; other sections omitted without rewriting."
}
},
{
"name": "paired-baseline",
"source": "90f099817ac7e56cddafbd6fdac4c12dfd70f4a4",
"originalError": "Error: Unsupported current CEO decision; cannot exclude it from the 4–7 count: 70635ea5-c9a1-4bfa-b32a-1ab8aa4ea0c0:toolu_01RPnSBqL1fLqyMhv5URGTsv",
"call": {
"sessionId": "70635ea5-c9a1-4bfa-b32a-1ab8aa4ea0c0",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01RPnSBqL1fLqyMhv5URGTsv",
"questions": [
{
"header": "D1 Test 1",
"question": "D1 — How deep should the successful-charge test assert?\nProject/branch/task: main, HOLD SCOPE review of the processPayment test-coverage plan (ledger row D1).\nELI10: The plan says the receipt must be exactly { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }, but the planned test only checks that *something* came back. A receipt of {} or one with the wrong amount would still pass. The factory already exposes the Stripe call history and the sleeper record, so stronger assertions cost lines, not infrastructure.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a regression that drops currency or mis-copies the amount ships with a green suite, and the customer sees a wrong receipt.\nRecommendation: C because the plan's own stated goal is coverage of this contract, and C is three assertions using hooks the plan already names (human: ~10 min / CC: ~1 min).\nCompleteness: A=3/10, B=7/10, C=10/10\nNet: trading two extra assertion lines against a test that can actually fail when the receipt contract breaks.",
"options": [
{
"label": "C) Full: receipt + call + no backoff (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Deep-equal the receipt AND assert exactly one Stripe charge call with amount 1000 / USD AND an empty sleeper record. Covers the whole happy-path contract.\n❌ Three assertions instead of one; pins a 'no backoff on success' fact the plan implies but does not spell out."
},
{
"label": "B) Deep-equal receipt only",
"description": "✅ One assertion covers all three receipt fields; a dropped or mis-copied field fails the test.\n❌ Says nothing about what was sent to Stripe or whether a backoff fired on the happy path."
},
{
"label": "A) Keep as planned: truthy only",
"description": "✅ Matches PLAN.md verbatim; smallest possible diff.\n❌ Passes when the receipt is {} or carries the wrong amount; does not cover the contract the plan claims to cover."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 — How deep should the successful-charge test assert?\nProject/branch/task: main, HOLD SCOPE review of the processPayment test-coverage plan (ledger row D1).\nELI10: The plan says the receipt must be exactly { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }, but the planned test only checks that *something* came back. A receipt of {} or one with the wrong amount would still pass. The factory already exposes the Stripe call history and the sleeper record, so stronger assertions cost lines, not infrastructure.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a regression that drops currency or mis-copies the amount ships with a green suite, and the customer sees a wrong receipt.\nRecommendation: C because the plan's own stated goal is coverage of this contract, and C is three assertions using hooks the plan already names (human: ~10 min / CC: ~1 min).\nCompleteness: A=3/10, B=7/10, C=10/10\nNet: trading two extra assertion lines against a test that can actually fail when the receipt contract breaks.": "C) Full: receipt + call + no backoff (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T16:01:27.394Z"
},
"savedPlan": "# Plan: Payment Processing — Test Coverage (working plan, under /plan-ceo-review, HOLD SCOPE)\nSource: PLAN.md @ 434ca72 on `main`. Base branch: `main` (git-native fallback; no `origin` URL).\nReview mode: HOLD SCOPE (explicit user instruction). Scope: two new unit tests in the existing processPayment suite. No production code changes.\n## Decision ledger\n\n| ID and owner | Contract and evidence | Current | Proposed | Status | Exact approval and scope |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| D1 (user) — Test 1 assertion depth | Receipt = { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" } (PLAN.md \"Existing behavior retained\"). Factory exposes Stripe mock call history and sleeper record (plan-stated). | Assert only receipt is truthy (\"complete planned assertion\"). | A) truthy only. B) deep-equal receipt. C) deep-equal receipt + exactly one Stripe charge call with amount 1000 / USD + empty sleeper record. | unresolved | — |\n\n### D1 comparison\n| Commitment | Source / status | Current | A | B | C |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| Test lives in existing processPayment suite, uses factory | PLAN.md, fixed | yes | yes | yes | yes |\n| Mock returns id ch_paid; call with 1000 / USD | PLAN.md, fixed | yes | yes | yes | yes |\n| Receipt truthy | PLAN.md | yes | yes | implied | implied |\n| Receipt deep-equals { chargeId, amountCents, currency } | pending | no | no | yes | yes |\n| Exactly one Stripe charge call, with amount 1000 and currency USD | pending | no | no | no | yes |\n| Sleeper record empty (no backoff on success) | pending | no | no | no | yes |\n\n- A) As planned — effort S, risk low. Pros: matches PLAN.md verbatim; smallest diff. Cons: passes if the receipt is `{}` or has amountCents 100000; does not cover the contract the plan says it covers. Completeness 3/10.\n- B) Deep-equal receipt — effort S, risk low. Pros: one assertion covers all three fields in the stated contract; a dropped or mis-copied field fails. Cons: says nothing about what was sent to Stripe or whether a backoff fired. Completeness 7/10.\n- C) Deep-equal + outbound call + no backoff — effort S (3 assertions), risk low. Pros: covers the receipt contract and pins the happy path to exactly one charge with the requested amount/currency and zero recorded sleeps; uses only factory hooks the plan already names. Cons: three lines instead of one; asserts a \"no backoff on success\" fact the plan implies but does not spell out. Completeness 10/10.\n",
"provenance": {
"originalReportSha256": "8c7df213f2043d5e2e4f6a3c60e5605bb0c283a0a0d4d5193466c3054d3e1239",
"requiredExcerptSha256": "b6e251d9091abfe79c95498f7bb8439ab75f8c7fd5be506669dc4db9120d84f8",
"requestAt": "2026-09-15T16:01:26.177Z",
"successfulPriorMutations": [
{
"name": "Write",
"toolUseId": "toolu_015CQo69r92n5P9pkaFiRu24",
"requestedAt": "2026-09-15T16:01:07.639Z",
"acknowledgedAt": "2026-09-15T16:01:09.907Z"
}
],
"extraction": "Original source paragraph, original owned ledger row, complete original decision section; other sections omitted without rewriting."
}
},
{
"name": "five-retry-incomplete",
"source": "90f099817ac7e56cddafbd6fdac4c12dfd70f4a4",
"originalError": "Unsupported current CEO decision; cannot exclude it from the 4–7 count: e0ce0ace-371b-4d72-8c03-5f65569d112f:toolu_01AK4Ko2EqUrSXZAW6Lf49VM",
"call": {
"sessionId": "e0ce0ace-371b-4d72-8c03-5f65569d112f",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01AK4Ko2EqUrSXZAW6Lf49VM",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D2 — How should the new lookup put request.params.userId into the query?\nProject/branch/task: main — Payment Processing Integration, HOLD SCOPE review, ledger row D2.\nELI10: The user ID arrives from Stripe metadata as any text at all, including quotes, semicolons and Unicode, and nothing upstream cleans it (PLAN.md:21-26). The plan pastes that text straight into a SQL string. A real user whose ID contains an apostrophe breaks the query every time, so their payment is never marked paid and Stripe keeps retrying for three days. If anyone can influence a stored user ID, the same paste becomes SQL injection with a valid Stripe signature on it.\nStakes if we pick wrong: stuck payments for legitimate IDs plus an injection surface on the payments path; both retryable forever, neither self-healing.\nRecommendation: A because a bound parameter keeps the \"every nonempty string is a valid identifier\" invariant by construction and has no charset edge cases.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=2/10\nPros / cons:\nA) Bound parameter or existing ORM finder (recommended)\n ✅ Injection impossible by construction; no charset or escape-mode edge cases to audit\n ✅ Same semantics as the existing lookup the plan says it retains (PLAN.md:24-26)\n ❌ Rewrites the Database access section; one regression test with quote/backslash/Unicode IDs comes with it\nB) Keep raw fragment, escape with the driver quote helper\n ✅ Smallest change to the plan text as written\n ✅ Blocks the obvious quote-break for common IDs\n ❌ Correctness depends on helper matching server charset and escape mode; hand-built SQL still needs re-audit on every edit\nC) Raw fragment as written\n ✅ Zero change to the plan\n ✅ Nothing else to say for it\n ❌ Breaks the stated invariant for IDs with quotes; 500 → 72h retry loop; injection surface on the payments path\nNet: one bind parameter versus owning an escape-correctness argument on the money path.",
"header": "D2 lookup SQL",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Bound parameter (recommended)",
"description": "Parameterized query or the existing ORM finder. Regression test for quote/backslash/Unicode IDs ships with it."
},
{
"label": "B) Escape helper",
"description": "Keep raw fragment, quote via DB driver helper. Charset/escape-mode dependent."
},
{
"label": "C) Raw fragment",
"description": "Plan as written. Fails the opaque-TEXT invariant; injection surface."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D2 — How should the new lookup put request.params.userId into the query?\nProject/branch/task: main — Payment Processing Integration, HOLD SCOPE review, ledger row D2.\nELI10: The user ID arrives from Stripe metadata as any text at all, including quotes, semicolons and Unicode, and nothing upstream cleans it (PLAN.md:21-26). The plan pastes that text straight into a SQL string. A real user whose ID contains an apostrophe breaks the query every time, so their payment is never marked paid and Stripe keeps retrying for three days. If anyone can influence a stored user ID, the same paste becomes SQL injection with a valid Stripe signature on it.\nStakes if we pick wrong: stuck payments for legitimate IDs plus an injection surface on the payments path; both retryable forever, neither self-healing.\nRecommendation: A because a bound parameter keeps the \"every nonempty string is a valid identifier\" invariant by construction and has no charset edge cases.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=2/10\nPros / cons:\nA) Bound parameter or existing ORM finder (recommended)\n ✅ Injection impossible by construction; no charset or escape-mode edge cases to audit\n ✅ Same semantics as the existing lookup the plan says it retains (PLAN.md:24-26)\n ❌ Rewrites the Database access section; one regression test with quote/backslash/Unicode IDs comes with it\nB) Keep raw fragment, escape with the driver quote helper\n ✅ Smallest change to the plan text as written\n ✅ Blocks the obvious quote-break for common IDs\n ❌ Correctness depends on helper matching server charset and escape mode; hand-built SQL still needs re-audit on every edit\nC) Raw fragment as written\n ✅ Zero change to the plan\n ✅ Nothing else to say for it\n ❌ Breaks the stated invariant for IDs with quotes; 500 → 72h retry loop; injection surface on the payments path\nNet: one bind parameter versus owning an escape-correctness argument on the money path.": "A) Bound parameter (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T16:05:50.738Z"
},
"savedPlan": "# Plan: Payment Processing Integration — CEO Review (HOLD SCOPE)\nWorking plan for `/plan-ceo-review`. Source plan: `PLAN.md` on `main`.\nMode: HOLD SCOPE (explicit user choice). Review only; no code changes.\n## Decision ledger\n\n| ID and owner | Contract and evidence | Current | Proposed | Status | Exact approval and scope |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| D2 (user) — lookup query construction | PLAN.md:16-26, 110-112; IDs opaque TEXT, unsanitized | Existing lookup (no cast/format restriction) | Raw SQL fragment from `request.params.userId` | unresolved | — |\n\n### D2 — lookup query construction: options (pending)\n\nFacts (PLAN.md:16-31): `request.params.userId` is an external string\nforwarded unchanged; IDs are opaque TEXT with punctuation and Unicode; the\nownership guard is an identity comparison, not SQL validation. Interpolating\nthat string into a raw SQL fragment has two failure paths:\n\n1. **Correctness.** A legitimate ID containing `'`, `\\`, `;` or a\n multi-byte sequence breaks the fragment → DB exception → HTTP 500 →\n Stripe retries for 72h with the same string → same failure. That user's\n payment is never marked paid and the ingress alert fires every retry.\n2. **Security.** Any path that lets an external party influence a stored\n user-ID binding (signup-derived IDs, imports, support tooling) turns the\n fragment into SQL injection with a valid Stripe signature attached.\n\n| Commitment | Source/approval or pending | Current | A: Bind parameter | B: Escape/quote helper | C: Raw fragment (plan) |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| No cast / no format restriction | settled, PLAN.md:24-26 | yes | yes | yes | yes |\n| Every nonempty string is a valid identifier | settled, PLAN.md:25-26 | yes | yes | mostly (charset-dependent) | no |\n| Unknown user → 200, log, stop | settled, PLAN.md:43-44 | yes | yes | yes | yes |\n| Regression test: ID with quote/backslash/Unicode resolves the user | pending (D4 decides base suite; this test belongs to D2's fix) | none | yes | yes | n/a |\n\n- **A) Bind parameter** (`WHERE id = ?` / named bind, or the ORM finder the\n existing lookup already uses). Effort S (human ~1 hr / CC ~2 min). Risk\n low. Pros: no charset edge cases; identical semantics to the existing\n lookup; injection impossible by construction. Cons: none material.\n- **B) Escape via the DB driver's quote helper, keep the raw fragment.**\n Effort S. Risk medium. Pros: minimal edit to plan text. Cons: correctness\n depends on the helper matching server charset/`NO_BACKSLASH_ESCAPES`\n settings; still a hand-built fragment reviewers must re-audit.\n- **C) Raw fragment as written.** Effort S. Risk high. Fails invariant\n PLAN.md:25-26 for IDs containing quote characters; injection surface.\n\nRecommendation: A. Verification coverage: A gets a regression test with\nIDs containing `'`, `\\`, `;`, and a multi-byte string (kept with the fix\nper HOLD SCOPE); B needs the same plus charset-mode tests; C has none.\n\nLimits recorded: mail deadline 1s; DB+ingress 2s; webhook 10s; 1 new class;\nplanned file changes estimated 2-4 (handler, routing/flag wiring, lookup;\nplus tests if D4 approves). Estimates, no code to count.\n",
"provenance": {
"originalReportSha256": "96928e90ba245dc213318eee54ac5b36c7e4b0283e12e66720fc9d4745a7caf0",
"requiredExcerptSha256": "dfbfaa5fd72e181061a4a4ae690b0d2b9c3001a86025d9974149bb187d3dda3f",
"successfulPriorMutations": [
{
"toolUseId": "toolu_01UBr2CyTeZ7YWTTvxjQ9tFo",
"name": "Write",
"requestedAt": "2026-09-15T16:04:19.895Z",
"acknowledgedAt": "2026-09-15T16:04:21.967Z"
},
{
"toolUseId": "toolu_011MirWpdMG6NW8T3abvgSop",
"name": "Edit",
"requestedAt": "2026-09-15T16:04:39.658Z",
"acknowledgedAt": "2026-09-15T16:04:41.542Z"
},
{
"toolUseId": "toolu_01VHQVCbNkynm74bitX2rzD9",
"name": "Edit",
"requestedAt": "2026-09-15T16:05:11.527Z",
"acknowledgedAt": "2026-09-15T16:05:11.631Z"
},
{
"toolUseId": "toolu_013Xi3tWb3tf7WxtSRJ1qFmk",
"name": "Edit",
"requestedAt": "2026-09-15T16:05:30.373Z",
"acknowledgedAt": "2026-09-15T16:05:31.214Z"
}
],
"lastPublicCapture": "2026-09-15T16:05:32.972Z",
"finalSnapshotAt": "2026-09-15T16:05:55.257Z",
"limitation": "The complete acknowledged comparison was captured before this D2 call appeared. Native request and ACK are from the final durable observation. The public journal was cleaned before the final one-shot; later report writes cannot be ruled out from these retained events alone. No paid outcome is reclassified."
}
},
{
"name": "five-77-literal-current-proposal",
"source": "77fd0890ddfeaf2bdd6d78183a2d989d9a4e8d4c",
"originalError": "Error: Unsupported current CEO decision; cannot exclude it from the 4–7 count: e8ee44d3-cf25-4738-9faa-0a4717966328:toolu_01UjbSAKubReu8kqNohbM4Cj",
"call": {
"sessionId": "e8ee44d3-cf25-4738-9faa-0a4717966328",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01UjbSAKubReu8kqNohbM4Cj",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D4 (row D-TESTS) — What automated tests ship with the new handler?\nProject/branch/task: main, Payment Processing Integration plan, HOLD SCOPE review.\nELI10: The plan ships a brand-new payment handler with zero automated tests and leans on a manual staging replay that the plan itself says is not regression coverage. Each decision we just made (dispatcher routing, parameterized lookup, commit-then-send with named rescues) is a promise; without a test, the next refactor can quietly break any of them and nobody finds out until a customer pays and nothing happens.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a payment path with no automated proof; regressions discovered by customers or on-call instead of CI.\nRecommendation: A because ~10 focused tests cost minutes with CC and turn every decision above into something CI enforces.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=1/10, C=6/10\nNet: the cost of tests here is trivially small next to the cost of a silent payment regression.",
"header": "D4 Tests",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Handler unit tests + routing test + one replay fixture (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Covers happy path, unknown user, missing address skip, mail raise, DB raise, id edge cases, zero/N orders\n✅ Every D1-D3 decision gets a test that fails if someone undoes it; next handler copies a tested template\n❌ About ten test cases to write and keep green\nEffort: M (human ~1 day / CC ~20 min)"
},
{
"label": "B) None planned (plan as written)",
"description": "✅ Zero test-writing time before the staging replay\n✅ Manual checklist still verifies the happy path once before broad rollout\n❌ No automated proof for SQL safety, email failure handling or ordering; the plan already admits the checklist is not regression coverage\nEffort: none"
},
{
"label": "C) One integration replay test only",
"description": "✅ Cheap end-to-end proof that the wiring and happy path work\n✅ Reuses the recorded event fixture the staging checklist already needs\n❌ Every failure path (mail raise, DB raise, unknown user, injection-shaped id) stays untested\nEffort: S (human ~2 hr / CC ~5 min)"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D4 (row D-TESTS) — What automated tests ship with the new handler?\nProject/branch/task: main, Payment Processing Integration plan, HOLD SCOPE review.\nELI10: The plan ships a brand-new payment handler with zero automated tests and leans on a manual staging replay that the plan itself says is not regression coverage. Each decision we just made (dispatcher routing, parameterized lookup, commit-then-send with named rescues) is a promise; without a test, the next refactor can quietly break any of them and nobody finds out until a customer pays and nothing happens.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a payment path with no automated proof; regressions discovered by customers or on-call instead of CI.\nRecommendation: A because ~10 focused tests cost minutes with CC and turn every decision above into something CI enforces.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=1/10, C=6/10\nNet: the cost of tests here is trivially small next to the cost of a silent payment regression.": "A) Handler unit tests + routing test + one replay fixture (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T17:18:18.959Z"
},
"seed": "## Tests\nNone planned. We'll rely on the existing integration suite catching regressions.",
"savedPlan": "# CEO Review Working Plan: Payment Processing Integration\n\nGenerated by /plan-ceo-review on 2026-09-15\nBranch: main | Mode: HOLD SCOPE (user-selected) | Base branch: main | Platform: unknown (no remote)\nPlan under review: PLAN.md (repo root)\n\n\n| ID and owner | Contract and evidence | Current | Proposed | Status | Exact approval and scope |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| D-TESTS (user) | PLAN.md L76-80: staging replay checklist is \"manual deployment verification, not automated handler regression coverage\". Engineering prefs: well-tested is non-negotiable. | Existing integration suite (coverage of this handler unknown). | \"None planned.\" | unresolved | pending |\n\n### D-TESTS: automated coverage for the new handler\n\nThe plan itself says the staging replay checklist is \"not automated handler regression coverage\" (L79-80) and then plans no tests. \"The existing integration suite\" cannot cover a class that does not exist yet unless it already drives the ingress end-to-end with the feature flag on, which the plan does not claim. The D1-D3 answers each named tests that prove them; those tests belong to this row.\n\n| Option | Summary | Effort | Risk | Pros | Cons | Reuse / verification |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| A. Handler unit tests + routing test + one replay fixture | Unit tests on `Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler` for: happy path; unknown/deleted user (200, no update, no send); nil/empty email (skip record, counter, no send); mail raises `MailTimeout` and provider error (update committed, 200, structured error logged); DB raises (500, no send attempted); quote/`--`/Unicode user ids treated as literal ids; zero orders (one receipt, empty summary); N orders (one query, one receipt). One dispatcher routing test (event type -> handler). One integration test replaying a recorded `payment_intent.succeeded` fixture through the ingress with the feature flag on. | M (human ~1 day / CC ~20 min) | low | Every D1-D3 decision has a test that fails if someone undoes it; the next handler copies a tested template; the staging checklist becomes confirmation, not discovery. | ~10 test cases to write and keep green. | Reuses existing test harness and mail/DB client fakes if present; verification is the suite itself. |\n| B. None planned (plan as written) | Rely on the integration suite + manual staging replay. | none | high | Zero test-writing time. | SQL, email and ordering behavior unprotected; the plan's own text says the checklist is not regression coverage; a payment path ships with no automated proof. | None. |\n| C. One integration replay test only | Single end-to-end test: recorded event through ingress, flag on, assert user row + one send. | S (human ~2 hr / CC ~5 min) | medium | Cheap; proves the happy path wiring. | Misses every failure path (mail raise, DB raise, unknown user, injection-shaped id); a green happy path hides a broken error map. | Reuses harness; verifies happy path only. |\n\nCommitment grid:\n\n```text\nCommitment | Source/approval or pending | Current | A | B | C\nManual staging replay checklist | approved (PLAN L76-78) | yes | yes | yes | yes\nAutomated happy-path coverage | pending | none | yes | no | yes\nAutomated failure-path coverage (mail, DB, | pending | none | yes | no | no\n unknown user, skip-address, id edge cases) | | | | |\nRouting test (dispatcher -> handler, per D1) | pending | none | yes | no | no\n```\n\nRecommendation: A. Completeness: A=10/10, B=1/10, C=6/10.\n",
"provenance": {
"originalReportSha256": "2255af9096e9460243639cae322e4723bddba1865577106fecf5bf14b13e190f",
"requiredExcerptSha256": "b8acec467704812b2314c6a7a78b027dc77050890c69acf2abf3d9e33f1fbb08",
"sourceExcerptSha256": "16260b0adea29b71014bdfee9544afc63a82f4ecff8edb171c50a932961e1f31",
"completeActualSeedSha256": "a4793293acc53cffeba6acb2ec6ac8148e82746db2a7e3eb8d6e6c75a1681ea7",
"actualBuilderSha256": "a3de97b14e141dce64140f5ed3f2700062ce8d4dcf68da40921d2bc09a4396b7",
"requestAt": "2026-09-15T17:18:17.278Z",
"successfulPriorMutations": [
{
"name": "Edit",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01336GyeGSWguZsZsccdp5FQ",
"requestedAt": "2026-09-15T17:18:01.228Z",
"acknowledgedAt": "2026-09-15T17:18:01.440Z"
}
],
"capturedBeforeAnswer": "2026-09-15T17:18:01.527Z",
"extraction": "Exact original source paragraph, source metadata, owned ledger row and complete option comparison; unrelated report sections omitted without rewriting.",
"limitation": "The original attempt failed at this acknowledged call. This is its exact pre-answer snapshot, not a completed final review or passing paid outcome."
}
},
{
"name": "five-77-retry-effort-risk-tuple",
"source": "77fd0890ddfeaf2bdd6d78183a2d989d9a4e8d4c",
"originalError": "Error: Unsupported current CEO decision; cannot exclude it from the 4–7 count: 8a8790dc-0c42-4eb9-90bc-925593624e41:toolu_01BrtpqYTGWJNoDNKxAArayt",
"call": {
"sessionId": "8a8790dc-0c42-4eb9-90bc-925593624e41",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01BrtpqYTGWJNoDNKxAArayt",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D4 (ledger R2) — How should the handler build the user lookup query from `request.params.userId`?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count on main; CEO review of the Stripe payment handler plan, HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: The plan pastes the user ID string straight into SQL text. Your own contract says IDs are opaque text that can contain quotes, semicolons and Unicode, and that nothing upstream sanitizes them. Pasting means a user whose ID has a quote in it breaks the query, gets a 500, and Stripe retries their payment for days without ever marking it paid. Passing the ID as a bound parameter makes the database treat it as a value, never as SQL, whichever shape you pick.\nStakes if we pick wrong: legit punctuation IDs never get payment_status=paid via webhook, and if ID minting is ever user-influenced this is SQL injection through a validly signed request. Keeping the raw fragment is not offered; it contradicts PLAN.md lines 21-26.\nRecommendation: A because it removes SQL text from the handler entirely, so nobody can regress it into interpolation later.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=9/10\nNet: no SQL text in the handler vs keeping raw SQL shape with binds; both are safe today, only A stays safe by construction.",
"header": "SQL lookup",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) ORM finder, bound param (recommended)",
"description": "✅ `find_by(id: user_id)`-style call; driver binds the value, TEXT equality, no cast, Unicode preserved. ✅ Zero SQL text in the handler, so a future edit cannot reintroduce interpolation. ❌ If the lookup ever needs an unusual join, you revisit this. (human: ~30 min / CC: ~1 min)"
},
{
"label": "B) Raw SQL with bind params",
"description": "✅ Keeps the raw-SQL shape via `sanitize_sql_array` / `$1` binds; equally safe today. ✅ Room for a custom projection if the lookup needs one. ❌ SQL text stays in the handler; a later edit can slide back to interpolation and needs the same regression test."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D4 (ledger R2) — How should the handler build the user lookup query from `request.params.userId`?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count on main; CEO review of the Stripe payment handler plan, HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: The plan pastes the user ID string straight into SQL text. Your own contract says IDs are opaque text that can contain quotes, semicolons and Unicode, and that nothing upstream sanitizes them. Pasting means a user whose ID has a quote in it breaks the query, gets a 500, and Stripe retries their payment for days without ever marking it paid. Passing the ID as a bound parameter makes the database treat it as a value, never as SQL, whichever shape you pick.\nStakes if we pick wrong: legit punctuation IDs never get payment_status=paid via webhook, and if ID minting is ever user-influenced this is SQL injection through a validly signed request. Keeping the raw fragment is not offered; it contradicts PLAN.md lines 21-26.\nRecommendation: A because it removes SQL text from the handler entirely, so nobody can regress it into interpolation later.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=9/10\nNet: no SQL text in the handler vs keeping raw SQL shape with binds; both are safe today, only A stays safe by construction.": "A) ORM finder, bound param (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T17:25:00.107Z"
},
"seed": "## Database access\nThe new endpoint reads `request.params.userId` directly into a raw SQL\nfragment for the lookup query.",
"savedPlan": "# Plan: Payment Processing Integration (CEO review, HOLD SCOPE)\n\nReviewed plan: `PLAN.md` on `main` (base branch: `main`, git-native fallback; no remote).\nReview: `/plan-ceo-review`, mode HOLD SCOPE (user-selected). Session `639480-1789492725-cdecb9e8`.\nDate: 2026-09-15.\n\n\n| ID and owner | Contract and evidence | Current | Proposed | Status | Exact approval and scope |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| R2 (user): user lookup query construction | PLAN.md:16-26, 110-112: `userId` is an unchanged external string, opaque TEXT incl. punctuation/Unicode, no SQL-format validation; \"a valid signature does not make it safe for SQL.\" | Plan text: `request.params.userId` read directly into a raw SQL fragment. | Pending: bind parameter via ORM finder vs raw SQL with bind params. Keeping the raw fragment violates the plan's own stated contract. | unresolved | pending |\n\n#### R2 comparison: user lookup query construction\n\n| Commitment | Source/approval or pending | Current | A) ORM finder with bound param | B) Raw SQL with bind params |\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n| `userId` reaches the query as data, never as SQL syntax | settled invariant (PLAN.md:21-26) | violated by plan text | yes (driver binds) | yes (driver binds) |\n| Opaque TEXT incl. punctuation/Unicode, no format cast | settled (PLAN.md:24-26) | preserved | preserved (equality on TEXT column) | preserved |\n| Unknown user -> existing lookup-result guard (200, log, stop) | settled (PLAN.md:43-44) | preserved | `nil` result feeds the guard unchanged | `nil`/empty result feeds the guard unchanged |\n| Lookup returns the fields the update and receipt need (id, email, payment_status) | settled by contract | same | same | same |\n| DB exception -> 500 -> Stripe retry | settled (PLAN.md:70-73) | same | same | same |\n\n- **A) ORM finder with a bound parameter**, e.g. `User.find_by(id: user_id)`\n (S effort, low risk). Reuse: full (rung 2, the ORM is the standard\n library here). Verification: one test that a `userId` containing quotes,\n semicolons and Unicode is looked up literally and either found or\n routed to the unknown-user guard. Pros: no SQL text in the handler at all;\n impossible to regress into interpolation; the equality on a TEXT column\n needs no cast. Cons: none material.\n- **B) Raw SQL with bind parameters** (`sanitize_sql_array` / `exec_params`\n `$1`) (S effort, low risk). Pros: keeps the \"raw SQL\" shape the plan\n author may have wanted for an unusual query. Cons: SQL text lives in the\n handler; a later edit can reintroduce interpolation; needs the same test as A.\n\nKeeping the raw fragment is not offered as an option: it contradicts the\nplan's own retained contract (PLAN.md:21-23). Two live consequences: (1) a\nlegitimate opaque ID containing a quote, semicolon or backslash (PLAN.md:24-26\nsays these are valid) breaks the query, raises, returns 500, and Stripe\nretries that user's payment until it gives up, so that user never gets\n`payment_status=paid` via webhook; (2) if user-ID minting is ever\nuser-influenced, this is SQL injection through a signed request. The\nownership guard (PLAN.md:27-31) narrows (2) to IDs that match a stored\nbinding; it does not fix (1) and the plan says not to lean on it for SQL safety.\n\nRecommendation for the question: A. Completeness: A=10/10, B=9/10.\n",
"provenance": {
"originalReportSha256": "62ea39b20464946e981306d7c34986cc100c1cf1e0b724d070308873e87357ee",
"requiredExcerptSha256": "bbb07536f19f0ce6eb11004960d95f2f16c9ffaf84bfe93400ea9fee8507f5cd",
"sourceExcerptSha256": "e81f1656cf9e28384c474958721c0ddc130ded3cf2c415a38419567287107368",
"completeActualSeedSha256": "f497b47a50dbc5f0cf03f0dbc7b2804e392d51f4324144ed625944fb6aa27287",
"actualBuilderSha256": "a3de97b14e141dce64140f5ed3f2700062ce8d4dcf68da40921d2bc09a4396b7",
"requestAt": "2026-09-15T17:24:58.592Z",
"successfulPriorMutations": [
{
"name": "Edit",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01RVBt2XVEDdyZKTuroi1jYR",
"requestedAt": "2026-09-15T17:24:42.468Z",
"acknowledgedAt": "2026-09-15T17:24:44.582Z"
}
],
"capturedBeforeAnswer": "2026-09-15T17:24:45.496Z",
"extraction": "Exact source paragraph, source metadata, owned R2 ledger row and full R2 comparison; unrelated report sections omitted without rewriting.",
"limitation": "The original configured retry failed at this acknowledged call. Free replay is diagnostic only; it cannot grant paid outcome credit."
}
}
]
}
test/fixtures/ceo-completion-handoff-calls.json
Vendored
-248
View File
@@ -1,248 +0,0 @@
{
"note": "Native F captures: exact question text, option labels and selected answers. The original complete observations remain in the run artifacts; descriptions are omitted from this focused classification replay. No expected counts are sent to a model.",
"cases": [
{
"name": "five-first",
"sourceCapture": "plan-ceo-review-1788889172889-nqtlLV",
"sessionId": "6783d375-4023-4b03-bad1-09af36a4fd1d",
"originalReviewCount": 8,
"expectedReviewCount": 7,
"calls": [
{
"toolUseId": "toolu_01NYTQ5FdABFQaRLZma3K2bo",
"header": "Arch: dispatcher",
"question": "D3 — Section 1 (Architecture): The plan bypasses the existing `WebhookDispatcher` module with no documented rationale beyond 'namespace separation.' This creates a parallel dispatch path that will diverge. What should the plan say about this?",
"options": [
"A) Document the bypass inline (recommended)",
"B) Integrate with WebhookDispatcher instead",
"C) Accept the bypass as-is — no change needed"
],
"answer": "A) Document the bypass inline (recommended)"
},
{
"toolUseId": "toolu_01QX3MEMGL6J7ZPnAW4BVjZR",
"header": "Email error gap",
"question": "D4 — Section 2 (Error/Rescue): The email notification fires inline with no error handling. If email fails AFTER the DB update commits but BEFORE the dedup guard records completion, Stripe will retry the event. The user record gets updated twice — and still gets no email. How should the plan address this?",
"options": [
"A) Add a try/catch around the email leg (recommended)",
"B) Move email to a background job",
"C) Defer to TODOS.md — accept the risk for now"
],
"answer": "A) Add a try/catch around the email leg (recommended)"
},
{
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Uf7CHkz7dkZmgb5bTrfKjq",
"header": "SQL injection",
"question": "D5 — Section 3 (Security) CRITICAL: The plan reads `request.params.userId` directly into a raw SQL fragment. This is a textbook SQL injection vulnerability. An attacker who can send a crafted webhook (or exploit a signature verification bypass) can exfiltrate or corrupt the entire database. This MUST be fixed before implementation. How?",
"options": [
"A) Parameterized query — fix the plan (recommended)",
"B) Input validation before the query",
"C) Note it as a known issue"
],
"answer": "A) Parameterized query — fix the plan (recommended)"
},
{
"toolUseId": "toolu_01M76BDWgwpJrMZs1Mmh8J5S",
"header": "Tests",
"question": "D6 — Section 6 (Tests): The plan says 'None planned — we'll rely on the existing integration suite.' This is payment code. The existing suite has no tests for the new handler codepaths. What's the testing strategy?",
"options": [
"A) Write focused tests for the critical path (recommended)",
"B) Accept the gap — rely on existing suite"
],
"answer": "A) Write focused tests for the critical path (recommended)"
},
{
"toolUseId": "toolu_019VwdQqcAMv5a4ygmSUFaZ6",
"header": "N+1 queries",
"question": "D7 — Section 7 (Performance): Each webhook lookup fetches orders in a loop (N+1 pattern): 1 query for user + 1 query per order. A user with 100 orders = 101 queries per webhook event. Fix now or defer?",
"options": [
"A) Fix now with a batch query (recommended)",
"B) Defer to TODOS.md"
],
"answer": "A) Fix now with a batch query (recommended)"
},
{
"toolUseId": "toolu_01GpxKeqJsEc9sbC5hBafqSZ",
"header": "TODO: dispatcher",
"question": "TODOS.md — Item 1: Evaluate WebhookDispatcher integration. The plan documents why it’s bypassed but doesn’t rule out integration long-term. If the dispatcher grows new capabilities (rate limiting, circuit breaking, structured logging) the new handler will miss them. Add a future evaluation TODO?",
"options": [
"A) Add to TODOS.md (recommended)",
"B) Skip — not valuable enough"
],
"answer": "A) Add to TODOS.md (recommended)"
},
{
"toolUseId": "toolu_01L5Q5bnnpCnWa6xHuPWgqCC",
"header": "TODO: async email",
"question": "TODOS.md — Item 2: Move email notification to a background job. The try/catch added in D4 prevents Stripe retry cascades, but email still runs synchronously in the webhook response window. If email becomes slow (slow SMTP, large templates), webhook response times suffer. Add an async email TODO?",
"options": [
"A) Add to TODOS.md (recommended)",
"B) Skip — try/catch is sufficient for now"
],
"answer": "A) Add to TODOS.md (recommended)"
},
{
"toolUseId": "toolu_017nwDZhLb3oLysqRxToEUbZ",
"header": "Next review",
"question": "CEO Review complete. This plan had a critical SQL injection, email error gap, no tests, and N+1 queries — all now resolved through plan decisions. Eng Review is the required gate before ship. Run /plan-eng-review next?",
"options": [
"Run /plan-eng-review next (recommended)",
"Skip — I'll handle reviews manually"
],
"answer": "Run /plan-eng-review next (recommended)"
}
]
},
{
"name": "paired-first",
"sourceCapture": "plan-ceo-review-1788889172906-tPJLg7",
"sessionId": "60f4731c-327e-4712-981b-c96b0d3cf5eb",
"originalReviewCount": 5,
"expectedReviewCount": 4,
"calls": [
{
"toolUseId": "toolu_012YREPoKQhMKnnDb73VnJME",
"header": "Receipt assert",
"question": "D6 — Happy-path assertion: what should the test verify about the receipt? The plan says 'assert correct receipt is generated' but doesn't define which fields constitute correctness. A weak assertion (receipt.present?) passes even when amount, customer, or charge ID regress. Stakes: a buggy receipt ships undetected if the assertion is too broad. Recommendation: A — specific fields, because you get regression coverage for free with the same test. Completeness: A=9/10, B=4/10, C=7/10. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-happy-path-assertion>",
"options": [
"A) Assert specific receipt fields (Recommended)",
"B) Accept ‘assert correct receipt’ as-is",
"C) Add a note to the plan defining ‘correct’"
],
"answer": "A) Assert specific receipt fields (Recommended)"
},
{
"toolUseId": "toolu_0198Z1gZC8gkx6ezv73qyXYX",
"header": "Fail contract",
"question": "D7 — 502 error path: what does the test assert when retries are exhausted? The plan says 'fails clean' but doesn’t define the failure contract. Stakes: a test asserting `raises_exception?` passes even if the wrong exception type is raised (e.g., a generic RuntimeError instead of a PaymentError) — the test’s diagnostic value collapses. Recommendation: A — assert a named exception, because it documents processPayment()’s contract explicitly. Completeness: A=9/10, B=6/10, C=5/10. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-502-failure-contract>",
"options": [
"A) Assert a specific named exception class (Recommended)",
"B) Assert raises + message contains a keyword",
"C) Accept ‘fails clean’ as-is"
],
"answer": "A) Assert a specific named exception class (Recommended)"
},
{
"toolUseId": "toolu_01UArfrjX2d9JwzV3J9Bnpbs",
"header": "Call count",
"question": "D8 — Should the 502 test explicitly assert that Stripe was called exactly twice? The plan says 'retry-with-backoff fires once' (2 total calls). Without a call-count assertion, the test passes even if the retry loop fires 0 times (e.g., someone accidentally sets max_retries=0 in the factory) or 10 times — silently wrong retry behavior. Recommendation: A — assert call_count == 2, because that’s the observable proof that retry-with-backoff fired once. Completeness: A=9/10, B=6/10. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-call-count-assert>",
"options": [
"A) Assert mock.call_count == 2 (Recommended)",
"B) Assert only the failure outcome, not call count"
],
"answer": "A) Assert mock.call_count == 2 (Recommended)"
},
{
"toolUseId": "toolu_01T6gSvFAp4qDwojZHKfU22b",
"header": "TODO?",
"question": "D9 — TODO: Add processPayment() unit tests for 402 and 429 paths? The Stripe adapter suite already covers 402 card declines and 429 rate limits at integration level, but processPayment() has no unit tests for these paths specifically. A future regression in how processPayment() handles these codes (e.g., it stops delegating correctly) would be caught only by the slower integration suite. Effort: S (human ~30min / CC ~5min). Priority: P3. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-todo-402-429>",
"options": [
"A) Add to TODOS.md",
"B) Skip — integration coverage is sufficient",
"C) Build it now in this PR"
],
"answer": "A) Add to TODOS.md"
},
{
"toolUseId": "toolu_012xtd9WoAtgtz8VrBNxSNM2",
"header": "Next step",
"question": "D10 — What’s next? The CEO review is CLEARED. The Eng Review (/plan-eng-review) has not run and is the required gate before shipping. It covers architecture depth, test pyramid validation, and performance checks that the CEO review doesn’t duplicate. Note: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score. Recommendation: A — run eng review next, it’s the required gate. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-next-steps>",
"options": [
"Run /plan-eng-review next (Recommended)",
"Skip — I’ll handle reviews manually"
],
"answer": "Run /plan-eng-review next (Recommended)"
}
]
},
{
"name": "five-retry",
"sourceCapture": "plan-ceo-review-1788889864558-kUTrrg",
"sessionId": "7fb8e00c-6b83-4510-b4b1-34d169fa3bd5",
"originalReviewCount": 8,
"expectedReviewCount": 8,
"calls": [
{
"toolUseId": "toolu_011aNGxuX6kHRKCC2dRpGKpy",
"header": "Architecture",
"question": "D4 — Section 1 Architecture: WebhookDispatcher bypass needs rationale in the plan",
"options": [
"A) Add rationale to plan — document why bypass is intentional (recommended)",
"B) Leave it as-is — namespace separation is sufficient rationale"
],
"answer": "A) Add rationale to plan — document why bypass is intentional (recommended)"
},
{
"toolUseId": "toolu_012qW99DV551qYXiZu7VKxLk",
"header": "Error handling",
"question": "D5 — Section 2 Errors: Email leg has no rescue handlers and timing ambiguity with dedup",
"options": [
"A) Fix inline: wrap email in try/catch, log, enqueue retry (recommended)",
"B) Accept email failure as silent — catch, log, swallow"
],
"answer": "A) Fix inline: wrap email in try/catch, log, enqueue retry (recommended)"
},
{
"toolUseId": "toolu_01NnQUTDuwXSyqCYhLHj4yad",
"header": "SQL injection",
"question": "D6 — Section 3 Security: SQL injection is P0 — how should the fix be specified in the plan?",
"options": [
"A) Parameterized queries + type validation — specify both in the plan (recommended)",
"B) Parameterized queries only — bind parameter is sufficient"
],
"answer": "A) Parameterized queries + type validation — specify both in the plan (recommended)"
},
{
"toolUseId": "toolu_011kzne3D3vqdCWYHU3kFZjS",
"header": "Data edge case",
"question": "D7 — Section 4 Data Flow: Missing userId in payload is unspecified",
"options": [
"A) Add explicit guard: validate userId presence before lookup (recommended)",
"B) Rely on existing lookup guard behavior"
],
"answer": "A) Add explicit guard: validate userId presence before lookup (recommended)"
},
{
"toolUseId": "toolu_014DJHCbwaSPycewGhb4ayyM",
"header": "Test coverage",
"question": "D8 — Section 6 Tests: Zero test coverage for a new payment flow",
"options": [
"A) Add 5 focused tests to the plan (recommended)",
"B) Add happy-path integration test only"
],
"answer": "A) Add 5 focused tests to the plan (recommended)"
},
{
"toolUseId": "toolu_013JiZ2mFSKLa2e2Nrn5FDdv",
"header": "Performance",
"question": "D9 — Section 7 Performance: N+1 query + unbounded order load",
"options": [
"A) Eager load orders + add a LIMIT (recommended)",
"B) Eager load orders only — no LIMIT"
],
"answer": "A) Eager load orders + add a LIMIT (recommended)"
},
{
"toolUseId": "toolu_016EJRhhj8e4vYaRzd2nYpP2",
"header": "Observability",
"question": "D10 — Section 8 Observability: New handler needs structured logging to be debuggable",
"options": [
"A) Add 3 structured log lines to the handler spec (recommended)",
"B) Rely on ingress wrapper logging"
],
"answer": "A) Add 3 structured log lines to the handler spec (recommended)"
},
{
"toolUseId": "toolu_01AaNKrDMAyzcfvqnLBc2aBV",
"header": "Deployment",
"question": "D11 — Section 9 Deployment: Post-deploy verification checklist is missing from the plan",
"options": [
"A) Add verification checklist to the plan (recommended)",
"B) Skip — existing rollback path is sufficient"
],
"answer": "A) Add verification checklist to the plan (recommended)"
}
]
}
]
}
test/fixtures/ceo-completion-handoff-j-calls.json
Vendored
-66
View File
@@ -1,66 +0,0 @@
{
"cases": [
{
"name": "plan-ceo-review-1788903658730-n3l9gY",
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "d4161b76-f48e-4394-9657-e0e70ef4ce19",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01PCc7hwaVZdhJmZcXNWj6mt",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D10 \u2014 Next steps: The CEO Review is complete. Eng Review is the required shipping gate. This plan now has 5 significant changes (SQL injection fix, IDOR fix, ownership validation, batch query, security tests) \u2014 all of which the eng review will need to verify for implementation correctness. Run /plan-eng-review next? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-next-steps>\n\nELI10: The CEO review checks whether the plan is strategically sound and safe. The eng review checks whether the plan is architecturally correct and implementable. Since this CEO review added significant new requirements (especially security fixes), the eng review will check that those new requirements are specified clearly enough for an engineer to implement correctly.\n\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.",
"header": "Next review",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Run /plan-eng-review next (Recommended)",
"description": "The required shipping gate. The eng review will verify the security specifications (parameterized query, ownership validation) are specified precisely enough to implement correctly, and check for any architectural gaps the CEO review missed."
},
{
"label": "B) Skip \u2014 handle reviews manually",
"description": "Proceed without a structured eng review. Acceptable if the team has a separate code review process or the implementation team is already familiar with the security requirements."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D10 \u2014 Next steps: The CEO Review is complete. Eng Review is the required shipping gate. This plan now has 5 significant changes (SQL injection fix, IDOR fix, ownership validation, batch query, security tests) \u2014 all of which the eng review will need to verify for implementation correctness. Run /plan-eng-review next? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-next-steps>\n\nELI10: The CEO review checks whether the plan is strategically sound and safe. The eng review checks whether the plan is architecturally correct and implementable. Since this CEO review added significant new requirements (especially security fixes), the eng review will check that those new requirements are specified clearly enough for an engineer to implement correctly.\n\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.": "A) Run /plan-eng-review next (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-08T21:51:58.748Z"
}
},
{
"name": "plan-ceo-review-1788903658733-5uB041",
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "321868b3-77b8-40bd-95e4-a3c9a0c41c0f",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01UeFGERPKpG3SbMnkFXxwMP",
"questions": [
{
"question": "Next step: run /plan-eng-review to clear the required shipping gate?\n\nCEO Review is CLEAN. Eng Review is the required gate before shipping \u2014 it covers architecture, code quality, and test completeness. For a test-coverage PR with one accepted finding (6.1), the eng review will be short.\nRecommendation: A \u2014 eng review is the required gate; run it now while context is fresh.",
"header": "Next review",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Run /plan-eng-review now (Recommended)",
"description": "Required shipping gate. Will validate architecture and tests, including Finding 6.1 resolution."
},
{
"label": "Skip \u2014 I'll handle reviews manually",
"description": "CEO review is complete. You'll run eng review separately before shipping."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"Next step: run /plan-eng-review to clear the required shipping gate?\n\nCEO Review is CLEAN. Eng Review is the required gate before shipping \u2014 it covers architecture, code quality, and test completeness. For a test-coverage PR with one accepted finding (6.1), the eng review will be short.\nRecommendation: A \u2014 eng review is the required gate; run it now while context is fresh.": "Run /plan-eng-review now (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-08T21:52:10.800Z"
}
}
]
}
test/fixtures/ceo-completion-handoff-k-calls.json
Vendored
-422
View File
@@ -1,422 +0,0 @@
{
"provenance": "Native source-K diagnostic calls; historical outcomes are unchanged by replay.",
"cases": [
{
"name": "plan-ceo-review-1788905904650-1fnva5",
"calls": [
{
"sessionId": "4cd0a135-d63c-488a-ae90-e0f2f4128675",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01K5chLBCqTL9PaEi8H3AZhK",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 \u2014 Which implementation approach for the payment webhook handler? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-approach>",
"header": "Approach",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "B: Correct implementation (Recommended)",
"description": "Parameterized queries (fixes SQL injection), try/catch on email with structured logging, batch order fetch (kills N+1), full unit + integration tests. Effort: human ~4\u20136h / CC ~20min. Completeness: 9/10.",
"preview": "// Approach B shape\nconst user = await db.query(\n 'SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = $1',\n [userId] // parameterized \u2014 injection impossible\n);\nconst orders = await db.query(\n 'SELECT * FROM orders WHERE user_id = $1',\n [userId] // single batch, not N+1 loop\n);\nawait db.updateUser(userId, { status: 'paid' });\ntry {\n await email.send(user.email, 'Payment confirmed');\n} catch (err) {\n logger.error({ err, userId, eventId }, 'email send failed');\n // webhook still returns 200; email failure is logged, not fatal\n}"
},
{
"label": "A: Minimal patch",
"description": "Fix only the SQL injection (parameterized query) and add a try/catch on email. Keep N+1 loop and add 2 smoke tests. Faster but leaves performance debt. Effort: human ~2h / CC ~10min. Completeness: 6/10.",
"preview": "// Approach A shape \u2014 fix injection, add catch, skip N+1\nconst user = await db.query(\n 'SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = $1',\n [userId] // parameterized\n);\nfor (const orderId of orderIds) {\n const order = await db.query( // N+1 still here\n 'SELECT * FROM orders WHERE id = $1', [orderId]\n );\n}\ntry {\n await email.send(user.email, 'Payment confirmed');\n} catch (err) {\n logger.warn('email failed'); // logged but thin\n}"
},
{
"label": "C: WebhookDispatcher integration",
"description": "Route through the existing WebhookDispatcher module instead of bypassing it. Includes all of B's security and test fixes. Keeps one webhook-handling surface. Effort: human ~1d / CC ~30min. Completeness: 10/10.",
"preview": "// Approach C shape \u2014 extend existing dispatcher\n// In WebhookDispatcher:\nregister('payment_intent.succeeded', StripePaymentHandler);\n\n// StripePaymentHandler reuses dispatcher's\n// routing, logging, and error contract \u2014\n// plus all Approach B fixes."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 \u2014 Which implementation approach for the payment webhook handler? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-approach>": "B: Correct implementation (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-08T22:26:07.550Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "4cd0a135-d63c-488a-ae90-e0f2f4128675",
"toolUseId": "toolu_017YoVavTgiZtN5Lb1LLJuMY",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D2 \u2014 Which review mode for this payment webhook plan? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-mode>",
"header": "Review mode",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "HOLD SCOPE (Recommended)",
"description": "The plan has 2 critical gaps (SQL injection, email failures). Hold scope exactly as stated; make it bulletproof. No expansions surfaced. Best for a plan with known critical defects to fix first.",
"preview": "HOLD SCOPE:\n- Fix SQL injection (parameterized query)\n- Fix email error handling (try/catch + logging)\n- Fix N+1 (batch query)\n- Add full test suite\n- Document WebhookDispatcher bypass rationale\nNo scope additions."
},
{
"label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION",
"description": "Hold the current scope as baseline, but also surface expansion opportunities (async email via job queue, WebhookDispatcher integration, payment audit log) as individual cherry-picks. Effort adds ~30\u201360min CC per cherry-pick.",
"preview": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION:\n- All HOLD SCOPE fixes (required)\n- OPTIONAL cherry-picks:\n \u2022 Async email via job queue (resilient)\n \u2022 WebhookDispatcher integration (clean arch)\n \u2022 Payment audit log (compliance)\n \u2022 Payment success metric/dashboard (observability)"
},
{
"label": "SCOPE REDUCTION",
"description": "Strip to the absolute minimum: just the user record update on payment success, no email, no order fetch. Defer everything else. Useful if timeline is critical and email can ship later.",
"preview": "SCOPE REDUCTION:\n- User record update only on payment success\n- No email (deferred to follow-up PR)\n- No order fetch loop (deferred)\n- Parameterized query (still required)\n- Minimal smoke test"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D2 \u2014 Which review mode for this payment webhook plan? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-mode>": "HOLD SCOPE (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-08T22:26:23.611Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "4cd0a135-d63c-488a-ae90-e0f2f4128675",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01LPiLGS6RKcERL9KmQ6dXpH",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D3 \u2014 SQL injection in user lookup: the plan uses request.params.userId directly in a raw SQL fragment. The plan itself notes this string is not sanitized. How should the plan be fixed? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-sql-injection>",
"header": "SQL injection",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "3A: Parameterized query (Recommended)",
"description": "Replace the raw SQL fragment with a parameterized query binding userId to a $1 placeholder. Eliminates SQL injection entirely. The plan's 'existing contracts retained' section already acknowledges the string is unsafe for SQL \u2014 the fix is a one-liner. Verify: unit test with userId = '1 OR 1=1' asserts the handler rejects/escapes it, not executes it. Completeness: 10/10.",
"preview": "// BEFORE (SQL injection):\ndb.query(`SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = ${userId}`);\n\n// AFTER (parameterized \u2014 injection impossible):\ndb.query('SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = $1', [userId]);\n\n// Test:\ntest('rejects injected userId', async () => {\n const result = await handler({ userId: '1 OR 1=1' });\n expect(result.status).not.toBe(200); // or assert no SQL exec\n});"
},
{
"label": "3B: Input validation before SQL",
"description": "Validate userId is a positive integer before the DB call; reject the webhook with HTTP 400 if invalid. Adds defense-in-depth but is not sufficient alone (validation can be bypassed; parameterized queries cannot). Use alongside 3A, not instead of it. Completeness: 7/10 if standalone.",
"preview": "// Input validation (good, but not a substitute for parameterized queries)\nconst numericId = parseInt(userId, 10);\nif (isNaN(numericId) || numericId <= 0) {\n logger.warn({ userId }, 'invalid userId in webhook');\n return { status: 400 };\n}\n// Then STILL use parameterized query below"
},
{
"label": "3C: Do nothing \u2014 accept the risk",
"description": "Leave the raw SQL as-is. The Stripe signature verification reduces (but does not eliminate) the attack surface. Not recommended: any actor who can craft a Stripe payment intent with a malicious metadata.user_id can trigger this, including test-mode API keys or compromised merchant accounts. Completeness: 3/10."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D3 \u2014 SQL injection in user lookup: the plan uses request.params.userId directly in a raw SQL fragment. The plan itself notes this string is not sanitized. How should the plan be fixed? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-sql-injection>": "3A: Parameterized query (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-08T22:26:41.687Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "4cd0a135-d63c-488a-ae90-e0f2f4128675",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01VaDTCokqQ8ioX2rGHPGqwm",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D4 \u2014 The plan has zero tests for a payment-critical handler. How should this be addressed? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-tests>",
"header": "Tests",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "4A: Full test suite (Recommended)",
"description": "Add unit tests for the handler (happy path, missing user, injected userId, email failure) AND one integration test that replays a real Stripe payload through the full stack and asserts user record updated + email logged. With CC this takes ~15 minutes to implement. This is the test you'd need to ship at 2am on a Friday. Completeness: 10/10.",
"preview": "// Unit: happy path\ntest('updates user record on payment success', ...);\n// Unit: SQL injection guard\ntest('rejects injected userId', ...);\n// Unit: missing user\ntest('returns 200 and logs when user not found', ...);\n// Unit: email failure is non-fatal\ntest('returns 200 even when email send throws', ...);\n// Integration: full Stripe payload replay\ntest('processes payment_intent.succeeded end-to-end', ...);"
},
{
"label": "4B: Smoke tests only",
"description": "Add 2 smoke tests: one happy-path integration test, one for the SQL injection guard. Skips edge cases (email failure, missing user, N+1 regression). Faster but leaves gaps. Completeness: 6/10."
},
{
"label": "4C: Defer to existing integration suite",
"description": "Keep the plan as-is: rely on the existing integration suite to catch regressions. The plan states this explicitly. Risk: the existing suite likely doesn\u2019t know about this new handler\u2019s specific failure modes (SQL injection, email failure cascade, N+1). Not recommended. Completeness: 3/10."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D4 \u2014 The plan has zero tests for a payment-critical handler. How should this be addressed? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-tests>": "4A: Full test suite (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-08T22:26:55.745Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "4cd0a135-d63c-488a-ae90-e0f2f4128675",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01APtZYudKo1F7n3o9cvZxxx",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D5 \u2014 Email send fires inline with no error handling. A provider timeout holds the transaction lock and returns 500 to Stripe (triggering retries). How should this be fixed? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-email-error>",
"header": "Email errors",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "5A: Try/catch with structured logging (Recommended)",
"description": "Wrap the email call in try/catch. On failure: log structured error (userId, eventId, error class), and return 200 \u2014 the payment succeeded; the email is non-fatal. Add an explicit timeout to the email call (e.g., 5s) so provider slowness doesn\u2019t hold the transaction lock. Verify: unit test asserts handler returns 200 when email throws. Completeness: 9/10.",
"preview": "try {\n await email.sendWithTimeout(\n user.email,\n 'Payment confirmed',\n { timeoutMs: 5000 } // explicit timeout\n );\n} catch (err) {\n logger.error(\n { err, userId, eventId, errorClass: err.constructor.name },\n 'notification email failed \u2014 payment succeeded'\n );\n // return 200 below; payment is confirmed, email is non-fatal\n}"
},
{
"label": "5B: Async email via job queue",
"description": "Enqueue an email job instead of sending inline. The webhook returns 200 immediately after the DB update; email delivery is decoupled and retried independently. Fully resilient but adds a job queue dependency (may already exist). Completeness: 10/10, but larger scope change."
},
{
"label": "5C: Leave inline, no error handling",
"description": "Keep email send inline with no catch. Accept that email provider failures will cause 500s and Stripe retries. The dedup guard should prevent duplicate DB updates on retry (if transaction scope is correct). Not recommended: silent email failures are never acceptable in a payment flow. Completeness: 3/10."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D5 \u2014 Email send fires inline with no error handling. A provider timeout holds the transaction lock and returns 500 to Stripe (triggering retries). How should this be fixed? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-email-error>": "5A: Try/catch with structured logging (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-08T22:27:09.805Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "4cd0a135-d63c-488a-ae90-e0f2f4128675",
"toolUseId": "toolu_012zc42MrWewJHLB6yMzzbcx",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D6 \u2014 The plan fetches orders in a per-order loop (N+1 queries). Under concurrent webhook volume this exhausts DB connections. How should this be fixed? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-n1-query>",
"header": "N+1 queries",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "6A: Single batch query (Recommended)",
"description": "Replace the per-order loop with one parameterized batch query: SELECT * FROM orders WHERE user_id = $1. Reduces O(N) queries to O(1). Verify: confirm an index exists on orders.user_id; if not, add one in the same migration. Assert in tests that only 3 DB queries fire per webhook (lookup, batch orders, update). Completeness: 10/10.",
"preview": "// BEFORE (N+1):\nfor (const orderId of orderIds) {\n const order = await db.query(\n 'SELECT * FROM orders WHERE id = $1', [orderId]\n );\n}\n\n// AFTER (1 batch query):\nconst orders = await db.query(\n 'SELECT * FROM orders WHERE user_id = $1',\n [userId] // parameterized\n);\n// + confirm index: CREATE INDEX IF NOT EXISTS\n// idx_orders_user_id ON orders(user_id);"
},
{
"label": "6B: Keep the loop, add a DB index",
"description": "Keep the per-order fetch loop but ensure an index exists on orders.user_id. Reduces full-table scans but doesn\u2019t eliminate the N+1 round-trips. Still O(N) queries. Completeness: 6/10."
},
{
"label": "6C: Accept as-is, defer optimization",
"description": "Leave the N+1 loop and note it as a known performance issue for later. Acceptable only if order counts per user are guaranteed to be very low (e.g., \u22645) AND webhook volume is low. The plan gives no such guarantee. Completeness: 3/10."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D6 \u2014 The plan fetches orders in a per-order loop (N+1 queries). Under concurrent webhook volume this exhausts DB connections. How should this be fixed? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-n1-query>": "6A: Single batch query (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-08T22:27:21.854Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "4cd0a135-d63c-488a-ae90-e0f2f4128675",
"toolUseId": "toolu_015BU81bzFBuuDhD1uQu3pN2",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D7 \u2014 CEO review complete. Eng review is the required shipping gate \u2014 what next? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-next-step>",
"header": "Next step",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Run /plan-eng-review (Recommended)",
"description": "This CEO review found 2 critical gaps (SQL injection, N+1) that directly affect architecture, security, and performance. Eng review goes deeper on implementation correctness, test coverage, and DB safety. Required gate before shipping.",
"preview": "Findings from this CEO review that eng review will verify:\n- T1: Parameterized query (SQL injection fix)\n- T2: Full test suite (5 cases)\n- T3: Email try/catch with timeout\n- T4: Batch orders query + index\n- T5: WebhookDispatcher doc/resolve\n\nEng review gates: architecture, security,\ntests, performance, observability."
},
{
"label": "Implement now, eng review later",
"description": "Proceed to implementation with the 5 approved tasks (T1-T5). Run /plan-eng-review before the PR is merged. Acceptable if implementation is expected to be fast with CC.",
"preview": "Implement in order:\n1. T1: Parameterized query (blocks everything)\n2. T3: Email try/catch\n3. T4: Batch orders query + index\n4. T2: Full test suite\n5. T5: WebhookDispatcher doc\nThen run /plan-eng-review on the diff."
},
{
"label": "Skip \u2014 handle manually",
"description": "No further automated reviews. The 5 tasks are documented; the team will implement and review manually."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D7 \u2014 CEO review complete. Eng review is the required shipping gate \u2014 what next? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-next-step>": "Run /plan-eng-review (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-08T22:30:12.250Z"
}
],
"expectedSetupCount": 2,
"expectedReviewCount": 4,
"reportAtMs": 1788906562505.1587,
"planReadyRequests": [
{
"sessionId": "4cd0a135-d63c-488a-ae90-e0f2f4128675",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01S23dJSitXZPX79TyzcZCBV",
"timestamp": "2026-09-08T22:30:26.736Z",
"failed": false
}
]
},
{
"name": "plan-ceo-review-1788905904654-k2LGUy",
"calls": [
{
"sessionId": "eb433057-4f1e-447c-8393-6484749cc3d1",
"toolUseId": "toolu_014ZdrCijtgGzSGYMbZaFRCo",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 \u2014 Which implementation approach for processPayment() test coverage?\n\nELI10: The plan specifies exactly 2 unit tests: happy path (Stripe succeeds \u2192 receipt generated) and 502-exhaustion (Stripe 502 \u2192 retry once \u2192 clean failure). A third natural scenario exists \u2014 retry-then-success (Stripe 502 \u2192 retry \u2192 Stripe succeeds \u2192 correct receipt) \u2014 which the adapter suite already models but processPayment() has no unit test for. The question is how much test coverage to write while you're in the code.\n\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too narrow leaves the retry-then-success orchestration untested, risking silent regressions on the recovery path. Too wide duplicates adapter-suite coverage without adding new signal.\n\nRecommendation: B because it closes the one genuinely missing orchestration scenario for ~10 extra lines, without duplicating adapter-boundary tests.\n\nCompleteness: A=7/10, B=9/10, C=10/10 (C has diminishing returns due to 402/429 adapter overlap)\n\n<gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-approach>",
"header": "Approach",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "B) Standard \u2014 3 tests (Recommended)",
"description": "Add the 2 specified tests plus a third: retry-then-success (502 \u2192 retry \u2192 charge succeeds \u2192 correct receipt). Uses the same infrastructure the adapter suite already uses for this scenario. Effort: human ~40 min / CC ~3 min. Completeness: 9/10."
},
{
"label": "A) Minimal \u2014 exactly 2 tests as specified",
"description": "Happy path + 502-exhaustion only. Smallest possible diff, zero scope creep, uses existing factory/sleeper. The retry-then-success path remains untested at processPayment() level. Effort: human ~30 min / CC ~2 min. Completeness: 7/10."
},
{
"label": "C) Full \u2014 5 tests (all Stripe outcomes)",
"description": "Happy path, 502-exhaust, retry-then-success, 402 decline, 429 rate-limit \u2014 all tested at the processPayment() level. Maximum confidence; eliminates all coverage questions permanently. Risk: 402/429 may duplicate adapter-suite tests without new signal. Effort: human ~75 min / CC ~5 min. Completeness: 10/10."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 \u2014 Which implementation approach for processPayment() test coverage?\n\nELI10: The plan specifies exactly 2 unit tests: happy path (Stripe succeeds \u2192 receipt generated) and 502-exhaustion (Stripe 502 \u2192 retry once \u2192 clean failure). A third natural scenario exists \u2014 retry-then-success (Stripe 502 \u2192 retry \u2192 Stripe succeeds \u2192 correct receipt) \u2014 which the adapter suite already models but processPayment() has no unit test for. The question is how much test coverage to write while you're in the code.\n\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too narrow leaves the retry-then-success orchestration untested, risking silent regressions on the recovery path. Too wide duplicates adapter-suite coverage without adding new signal.\n\nRecommendation: B because it closes the one genuinely missing orchestration scenario for ~10 extra lines, without duplicating adapter-boundary tests.\n\nCompleteness: A=7/10, B=9/10, C=10/10 (C has diminishing returns due to 402/429 adapter overlap)\n\n<gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-approach>": "B) Standard \u2014 3 tests (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-08T22:22:14.665Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "eb433057-4f1e-447c-8393-6484749cc3d1",
"toolUseId": "toolu_0178W4ZyWc5QA9ioQqRfiAcN",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D2 \u2014 Which review mode for this test coverage plan?\n\nELI10: Approach B is locked in (3 tests: happy path, 502-exhaust, retry-then-success). The review mode decides HOW rigorously I examine that scope. HOLD SCOPE means I focus entirely on making those 3 tests bulletproof \u2014 catching every ambiguity about what to assert, how to name tests, what 'fails clean' means, edge cases in the retry path. SELECTIVE EXPANSION means I do that rigorous review AND surface cherry-pick opportunities like additional structural improvements or assertion depth upgrades.\n\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too expansive turns a simple 3-test addition into a bigger refactor. Too narrow misses critical specification gaps (what exactly should be asserted in each test).\n\nRecommendation: HOLD SCOPE because the plan is already well-scoped at 3 tests; the highest value is making those tests precise \u2014 specifying exact assertions, defining 'fails clean', confirming backoff is asserted and not just recorded.\n\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\n\n<gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-mode>",
"header": "Review Mode",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "HOLD SCOPE (Recommended)",
"description": "Take the 3-test scope as final. Review with maximum rigor: catch every assertion gap, specify what 'fails clean' means, validate the backoff assertion, define the receipt fields under test. Make each test bulletproof before implementation starts."
},
{
"label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION",
"description": "Hold the 3-test baseline AND surface cherry-pick opportunities: e.g., test naming conventions, shared setup helpers, assertion libraries, or a 4th edge case. Each expansion is individually opt-in. More expansive but still user-controlled."
},
{
"label": "SCOPE REDUCTION",
"description": "Pull back to the original 2 tests (drop retry-then-success). Strictest possible minimum. Only if you feel approach B overshot."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D2 \u2014 Which review mode for this test coverage plan?\n\nELI10: Approach B is locked in (3 tests: happy path, 502-exhaust, retry-then-success). The review mode decides HOW rigorously I examine that scope. HOLD SCOPE means I focus entirely on making those 3 tests bulletproof \u2014 catching every ambiguity about what to assert, how to name tests, what 'fails clean' means, edge cases in the retry path. SELECTIVE EXPANSION means I do that rigorous review AND surface cherry-pick opportunities like additional structural improvements or assertion depth upgrades.\n\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too expansive turns a simple 3-test addition into a bigger refactor. Too narrow misses critical specification gaps (what exactly should be asserted in each test).\n\nRecommendation: HOLD SCOPE because the plan is already well-scoped at 3 tests; the highest value is making those tests precise \u2014 specifying exact assertions, defining 'fails clean', confirming backoff is asserted and not just recorded.\n\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\n\n<gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-mode>": "HOLD SCOPE (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-08T22:22:44.754Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "eb433057-4f1e-447c-8393-6484749cc3d1",
"toolUseId": "toolu_018Whc7SViMfHtat7rdpPLFu",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D3 \u2014 Section 2: Should the plan specify the error contract for \"fails clean\"?\n\nELI10: The 502-exhaustion test needs to assert something specific when processPayment() gives up after one retry. The plan says it should \"fail clean\" but doesn't say what that means in code: does processPayment() raise a named exception (e.g. PaymentGatewayError), return nil, or return an error result object? Without this, the implementer might write an assertion that passes trivially \u2014 for instance, asserting that the return value is nil when the function actually raises, meaning the rescue path is never exercised.\n\nStakes if we pick wrong: An underspecified assertion could let a broken retry path pass the test silently.\n\nRecommendation: A \u2014 add a one-line note to the plan naming the error contract (\"processPayment() raises X\" or \"returns nil\"), so the test asserts the right thing. This is one sentence of spec, not implementation work.\n\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\n\n<gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-fails-clean>",
"header": "Error contract",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Add spec: name the error contract (Recommended)",
"description": "Add a brief note to the plan specifying what processPayment() does on retry exhaustion (raises SpecificError / returns nil / returns error object). Implementer then asserts the correct thing. One sentence."
},
{
"label": "B) Leave as-is: implementer reads the source",
"description": "The production code already has a defined behavior. The implementer will look at processPayment() and write the correct assertion without the plan needing to spell it out."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D3 \u2014 Section 2: Should the plan specify the error contract for \"fails clean\"?\n\nELI10: The 502-exhaustion test needs to assert something specific when processPayment() gives up after one retry. The plan says it should \"fail clean\" but doesn't say what that means in code: does processPayment() raise a named exception (e.g. PaymentGatewayError), return nil, or return an error result object? Without this, the implementer might write an assertion that passes trivially \u2014 for instance, asserting that the return value is nil when the function actually raises, meaning the rescue path is never exercised.\n\nStakes if we pick wrong: An underspecified assertion could let a broken retry path pass the test silently.\n\nRecommendation: A \u2014 add a one-line note to the plan naming the error contract (\"processPayment() raises X\" or \"returns nil\"), so the test asserts the right thing. This is one sentence of spec, not implementation work.\n\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\n\n<gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-fails-clean>": "A) Add spec: name the error contract (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-08T22:25:13.296Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "eb433057-4f1e-447c-8393-6484749cc3d1",
"toolUseId": "toolu_017ijdwbrLBaXiy7rsoKC3vm",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D4 \u2014 Section 6: Should the plan explicitly require asserting Stripe call count for retry tests?\n\nELI10: The 502-exhaustion test and the retry-then-success test both involve a retry. The plan says the test should \"assert retry-with-backoff fires once\" \u2014 but without explicitly asserting the Stripe call count (expect 2 calls via mock call history), a broken implementation that skips the retry entirely would still pass if it produces the right final outcome. The factory already exposes the mock call history, so this assertion costs one line per test.\n\nStakes if we pick wrong: Skip it \u2014 a future refactor that accidentally removes the retry logic could pass both tests if it happens to produce the same final failure/receipt. Add it \u2014 the tests are more brittle (they now break if retry count changes) but correctly verify the retry behavior.\n\nRecommendation: A \u2014 the plan explicitly states \"retry-with-backoff fires once,\" which implies the retry count IS the behavior under test. Asserting it makes that intent machine-verifiable. One line per test, already free via factory.\n\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\n\n<gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-retry-count>",
"header": "Retry assertion",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Add to plan: assert Stripe call count in both retry tests (Recommended)",
"description": "The 502-exhaustion and retry-then-success tests should each assert the exact Stripe call count (2) via the mock call history. One line per test. Verifies the retry actually executed, not just the final outcome."
},
{
"label": "B) Leave as-is: assert outcome only",
"description": "Tests assert the final state (failure/receipt) only. Retry behavior is tested at the adapter suite level. Simpler tests, but a retry regression could pass silently."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D4 \u2014 Section 6: Should the plan explicitly require asserting Stripe call count for retry tests?\n\nELI10: The 502-exhaustion test and the retry-then-success test both involve a retry. The plan says the test should \"assert retry-with-backoff fires once\" \u2014 but without explicitly asserting the Stripe call count (expect 2 calls via mock call history), a broken implementation that skips the retry entirely would still pass if it produces the right final outcome. The factory already exposes the mock call history, so this assertion costs one line per test.\n\nStakes if we pick wrong: Skip it \u2014 a future refactor that accidentally removes the retry logic could pass both tests if it happens to produce the same final failure/receipt. Add it \u2014 the tests are more brittle (they now break if retry count changes) but correctly verify the retry behavior.\n\nRecommendation: A \u2014 the plan explicitly states \"retry-with-backoff fires once,\" which implies the retry count IS the behavior under test. Asserting it makes that intent machine-verifiable. One line per test, already free via factory.\n\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\n\n<gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-retry-count>": "A) Add to plan: assert Stripe call count in both retry tests (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-08T22:25:55.466Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "eb433057-4f1e-447c-8393-6484749cc3d1",
"toolUseId": "toolu_015gSYhTd9gkZe3N4gSMFAmx",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D5 \u2014 Next step: which review runs after this CEO review?\n\nELI10: The CEO review is done and the plan is cleared. The required shipping gate is an Eng Review (/plan-eng-review), which checks architecture, test structure, and deployment safety at a deeper technical level. No eng review has been run yet for this plan. No UI scope was detected, so a design review is not applicable.\n\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\n\n<gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-next-step>",
"header": "Next review",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Run /plan-eng-review next (Recommended)",
"description": "Required shipping gate. Covers architecture, test coverage gaps, performance, and deployment safety at a technical depth beyond this CEO review. Not run yet."
},
{
"label": "Skip \u2014 I'll handle reviews manually",
"description": "Proceed without running /plan-eng-review now. Note: eng review is required before shipping; it can be run separately at any time."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D5 \u2014 Next step: which review runs after this CEO review?\n\nELI10: The CEO review is done and the plan is cleared. The required shipping gate is an Eng Review (/plan-eng-review), which checks architecture, test structure, and deployment safety at a deeper technical level. No eng review has been run yet for this plan. No UI scope was detected, so a design review is not applicable.\n\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\n\n<gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-next-step>": "Run /plan-eng-review next (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-08T22:30:38.373Z"
}
],
"expectedSetupCount": 2,
"expectedReviewCount": 2,
"reportAtMs": 1788906596661.16,
"planReadyRequests": [
{
"sessionId": "eb433057-4f1e-447c-8393-6484749cc3d1",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01RKhgxR5f4pxachRK972M3t",
"timestamp": "2026-09-08T22:30:44.782Z",
"failed": false
}
]
}
]
}
test/fixtures/ceo-completion-handoff-l-calls.json
Vendored
-268
View File
@@ -1,268 +0,0 @@
{
"calls": [
{
"sessionId": "4a0c76b6-b15b-4fed-8890-95a6524340ad",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Rngqu9T2bMM8kDHtYedQv6",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D0 \u2014 Add gstack skill routing rules to CLAUDE.md? gstack-plan-count-7Lu8Et / main branch. ELI10: gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md tells Claude Code which skill to invoke for common tasks (strategy \u2192 /plan-ceo-review, bugs \u2192 /investigate, etc.). Without routing rules, you have to type the skill name every time. With them, Claude Code routes automatically when the situation fits. Stakes if we pick wrong: minor \u2014 routing rules are a few lines and easy to remove. Recommendation: A because the project already uses gstack skills and routing pays off immediately. Note: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score. Pros / cons: A) Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (Recommended): \u2705 Claude Code auto-invokes the right skill based on what you're doing \u2014 no manual /skill typing needed \u2705 Skills like /ship and /autoplan benefit from downstream routing when chained \u274c Adds ~20 lines to CLAUDE.md (trivially reversible). B) Skip \u2014 invoke skills manually: \u2705 Zero change to CLAUDE.md \u2014 one less thing to manage \u2705 Full control over which skill runs and when \u274c You type /skill-name every invocation \u2014 adds friction over time. Net: routing rules are low-cost, high-frequency savings; the only real question is whether you want Claude Code opinionated about which skill fits which task. <gstack-qid:routing-injection>",
"header": "Routing",
"options": [
{
"label": "Add routing rules (Recommended)",
"description": "Append gstack skill routing rules to CLAUDE.md after plan mode exits."
},
{
"label": "Skip \u2014 manual invocation",
"description": "Leave CLAUDE.md as-is; invoke skills manually each time."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D0 \u2014 Add gstack skill routing rules to CLAUDE.md? gstack-plan-count-7Lu8Et / main branch. ELI10: gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md tells Claude Code which skill to invoke for common tasks (strategy \u2192 /plan-ceo-review, bugs \u2192 /investigate, etc.). Without routing rules, you have to type the skill name every time. With them, Claude Code routes automatically when the situation fits. Stakes if we pick wrong: minor \u2014 routing rules are a few lines and easy to remove. Recommendation: A because the project already uses gstack skills and routing pays off immediately. Note: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score. Pros / cons: A) Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (Recommended): \u2705 Claude Code auto-invokes the right skill based on what you're doing \u2014 no manual /skill typing needed \u2705 Skills like /ship and /autoplan benefit from downstream routing when chained \u274c Adds ~20 lines to CLAUDE.md (trivially reversible). B) Skip \u2014 invoke skills manually: \u2705 Zero change to CLAUDE.md \u2014 one less thing to manage \u2705 Full control over which skill runs and when \u274c You type /skill-name every invocation \u2014 adds friction over time. Net: routing rules are low-cost, high-frequency savings; the only real question is whether you want Claude Code opinionated about which skill fits which task. <gstack-qid:routing-injection>": "Add routing rules (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-08T23:13:20.625Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "4a0c76b6-b15b-4fed-8890-95a6524340ad",
"toolUseId": "toolu_0187NsqRf5aiDuzovFDePsuV",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 \u2014 No design doc found \u2014 run /office-hours first? Branch: main. ELI10: No design doc from /office-hours was found for this branch. /office-hours produces a structured problem statement, premise challenge, and explored alternatives before a review. For a test coverage plan like this one, the plan is already concrete and self-contained, so the value is lower than for a greenfield feature. Stakes if we pick wrong: skipping office-hours means reviewing a plan without a structured problem statement \u2014 acceptable when the plan is already well-scoped. Recommendation: B because the plan is specific, bounded (two unit tests), and the existing infrastructure is well-described \u2014 no ambiguity that /office-hours would resolve. Note: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score. A) Run /office-hours now: \u2705 Produces a structured problem statement and alternatives \u2705 Sharpens the CEO review input \u274c Adds ~10 minutes before the review begins \u274c Low marginal value for a test coverage plan with clear scope. B) Skip \u2014 proceed with standard review (Recommended): \u2705 Plan is already concrete and well-scoped \u2014 no ambiguity /office-hours would resolve \u2705 Gets to the review immediately \u274c No structured alternatives comparison. Net: /office-hours earns its 10 minutes on greenfield features; a bounded test coverage plan doesn't need it. <gstack-qid:prerequisite-office-hours>",
"header": "Pre-review",
"options": [
{
"label": "Run /office-hours first",
"description": "Run /office-hours to produce a design doc, then resume the CEO review."
},
{
"label": "Skip \u2014 standard review (Recommended)",
"description": "Proceed directly with the plan review \u2014 the plan is already well-scoped."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 \u2014 No design doc found \u2014 run /office-hours first? Branch: main. ELI10: No design doc from /office-hours was found for this branch. /office-hours produces a structured problem statement, premise challenge, and explored alternatives before a review. For a test coverage plan like this one, the plan is already concrete and self-contained, so the value is lower than for a greenfield feature. Stakes if we pick wrong: skipping office-hours means reviewing a plan without a structured problem statement \u2014 acceptable when the plan is already well-scoped. Recommendation: B because the plan is specific, bounded (two unit tests), and the existing infrastructure is well-described \u2014 no ambiguity that /office-hours would resolve. Note: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score. A) Run /office-hours now: \u2705 Produces a structured problem statement and alternatives \u2705 Sharpens the CEO review input \u274c Adds ~10 minutes before the review begins \u274c Low marginal value for a test coverage plan with clear scope. B) Skip \u2014 proceed with standard review (Recommended): \u2705 Plan is already concrete and well-scoped \u2014 no ambiguity /office-hours would resolve \u2705 Gets to the review immediately \u274c No structured alternatives comparison. Net: /office-hours earns its 10 minutes on greenfield features; a bounded test coverage plan doesn't need it. <gstack-qid:prerequisite-office-hours>": "Skip \u2014 standard review (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-08T23:13:34.673Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "4a0c76b6-b15b-4fed-8890-95a6524340ad",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01VD3wVb94b1s2KRKqBdBdh8",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D2 \u2014 Which implementation approach for the two new tests? Branch: main. ELI10: The plan specifies two tests. The question is how much precision to bake into the plan's assertion spec. Approach A locks down exactly the plan's stated scope. Approach B enriches that scope with concrete assertion contracts \u2014 what 'correct receipt' means field by field and what 'fails clean' means as an exception type. Approach B costs maybe 5 minutes extra with CC and prevents tests that pass against wrong behavior. Stakes if we pick wrong: A) a test that asserts 'receipt != nil' passes even if fields are wrong. B) slightly more spec to write, but pins the behavioral contract tightly. Recommendation: B because payment tests that don't assert the right fields are false confidence \u2014 an empty receipt still 'generates a receipt.' Completeness: A=7/10, B=10/10. A) Minimal viable \u2014 two tests as written (Completeness 7/10): \u2705 Implements exactly what the plan says, no scope creep \u2705 Leverages existing factory/mock/sleeper as-is \u274c 'Correct receipt' and 'fails clean' are underspecified \u2014 tests could pass against wrong behavior. B) Full behavioral contract \u2014 two tests + explicit assertion specs (Completeness 10/10, Recommended): \u2705 Pins specific receipt fields (charge ID, amount, currency, timestamp) in the happy path \u2705 Pins exception type + mock call count + backoff delay assertions in the 502 path \u2705 Tests reject wrong behavior, not just non-nil results \u274c ~20-30 extra lines of spec in the plan (human: 0 extra / CC: ~2 min). Net: the difference between a test that proves correctness and a test that proves execution.",
"header": "Approach",
"options": [
{
"label": "Approach A \u2014 minimal viable",
"description": "Two tests exactly as the plan specifies, using existing factory/mock/sleeper. No additional assertion spec."
},
{
"label": "Approach B \u2014 full contract (Recommended)",
"description": "Same two tests, but the plan specifies exact receipt fields and 502 exception type, mock call count, and backoff delay assertions."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D2 \u2014 Which implementation approach for the two new tests? Branch: main. ELI10: The plan specifies two tests. The question is how much precision to bake into the plan's assertion spec. Approach A locks down exactly the plan's stated scope. Approach B enriches that scope with concrete assertion contracts \u2014 what 'correct receipt' means field by field and what 'fails clean' means as an exception type. Approach B costs maybe 5 minutes extra with CC and prevents tests that pass against wrong behavior. Stakes if we pick wrong: A) a test that asserts 'receipt != nil' passes even if fields are wrong. B) slightly more spec to write, but pins the behavioral contract tightly. Recommendation: B because payment tests that don't assert the right fields are false confidence \u2014 an empty receipt still 'generates a receipt.' Completeness: A=7/10, B=10/10. A) Minimal viable \u2014 two tests as written (Completeness 7/10): \u2705 Implements exactly what the plan says, no scope creep \u2705 Leverages existing factory/mock/sleeper as-is \u274c 'Correct receipt' and 'fails clean' are underspecified \u2014 tests could pass against wrong behavior. B) Full behavioral contract \u2014 two tests + explicit assertion specs (Completeness 10/10, Recommended): \u2705 Pins specific receipt fields (charge ID, amount, currency, timestamp) in the happy path \u2705 Pins exception type + mock call count + backoff delay assertions in the 502 path \u2705 Tests reject wrong behavior, not just non-nil results \u274c ~20-30 extra lines of spec in the plan (human: 0 extra / CC: ~2 min). Net: the difference between a test that proves correctness and a test that proves execution.": "Approach A \u2014 minimal viable"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-08T23:14:10.790Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "4a0c76b6-b15b-4fed-8890-95a6524340ad",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Bf1FnhighHeCQRURi448Hx",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D3 \u2014 Which review mode? Branch: main / test coverage plan. ELI10: The review mode sets how aggressive I am about scope. This plan adds two unit tests and explicitly keeps production behavior unchanged. HOLD SCOPE means I make those two tests bulletproof without suggesting additional work. SELECTIVE EXPANSION means I also surface cherry-pick opportunities (additional test cases, idempotency tests, contract tests) that you can opt into. Recommendation: HOLD SCOPE because this is a test coverage fix \u2014 the scope is correct and deliberately narrow; adding cherry-picks risks scope creep on payment-critical code that should ship fast. Note: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score. A) HOLD SCOPE \u2014 make it bulletproof (Recommended): \u2705 Maximum rigor on the two tests as specified \u2705 No scope drift on payment-critical code \u274c Won't surface additional test opportunities (idempotency, 402 via processPayment(), concurrent charge). B) SELECTIVE EXPANSION \u2014 hold scope + cherry-picks: \u2705 Same rigor PLUS individual opt-ins for additional test cases \u2705 You decide each expansion \u274c Takes longer \u274c Risk of scope creep before the core two tests even ship. C) SCOPE REDUCTION \u2014 find the bare minimum: \u2705 Useful if the plan is overbuilt \u274c This plan is already minimal \u2014 nothing to cut without losing the stated goals. Net: HOLD SCOPE is right for a bounded test coverage task. <gstack-qid:ceo-mode-selection>",
"header": "Review mode",
"options": [
{
"label": "HOLD SCOPE (Recommended)",
"description": "Maximum rigor on the two specified tests. No scope expansions surfaced."
},
{
"label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION",
"description": "Same rigor, plus individual opt-ins for additional test coverage opportunities."
},
{
"label": "SCOPE REDUCTION",
"description": "Find the minimum viable version \u2014 cut anything not strictly needed."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D3 \u2014 Which review mode? Branch: main / test coverage plan. ELI10: The review mode sets how aggressive I am about scope. This plan adds two unit tests and explicitly keeps production behavior unchanged. HOLD SCOPE means I make those two tests bulletproof without suggesting additional work. SELECTIVE EXPANSION means I also surface cherry-pick opportunities (additional test cases, idempotency tests, contract tests) that you can opt into. Recommendation: HOLD SCOPE because this is a test coverage fix \u2014 the scope is correct and deliberately narrow; adding cherry-picks risks scope creep on payment-critical code that should ship fast. Note: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score. A) HOLD SCOPE \u2014 make it bulletproof (Recommended): \u2705 Maximum rigor on the two tests as specified \u2705 No scope drift on payment-critical code \u274c Won't surface additional test opportunities (idempotency, 402 via processPayment(), concurrent charge). B) SELECTIVE EXPANSION \u2014 hold scope + cherry-picks: \u2705 Same rigor PLUS individual opt-ins for additional test cases \u2705 You decide each expansion \u274c Takes longer \u274c Risk of scope creep before the core two tests even ship. C) SCOPE REDUCTION \u2014 find the bare minimum: \u2705 Useful if the plan is overbuilt \u274c This plan is already minimal \u2014 nothing to cut without losing the stated goals. Net: HOLD SCOPE is right for a bounded test coverage task. <gstack-qid:ceo-mode-selection>": "HOLD SCOPE (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-08T23:14:26.833Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "4a0c76b6-b15b-4fed-8890-95a6524340ad",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01LU7anW2hAu6KyWEm5BK1K5",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D4 \u2014 Section 2: 'fails clean' is undefined \u2014 what does the 502 test actually assert? Branch: main. ELI10: The plan says 'assert retry-with-backoff fires once, then fails clean.' 'Fails clean' is ambiguous. In payment code, it could mean: (A) a specific exception is raised (caller catches it explicitly \u2014 best for observability and correctness), (B) an error object is returned (acceptable, but caller must check it), or (C) the test just asserts no uncaught exception and the method returns \u2014 silent failure. If the implementer picks C, a test that 'fails clean' tells you nothing about whether the failure is visible to callers. Stakes if we pick wrong: a silent-failure contract in processPayment() means callers think payment succeeded when it didn't \u2014 the worst possible payment bug. Recommendation: A because payment failures must propagate explicitly; silent returns are dangerous in money code. Note: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score. A) Specify the exception contract (Recommended): \u2705 Test asserts a named exception (e.g., PaymentExhaustedError) is raised \u2705 Pins the behavioral contract callers depend on \u2705 Failure is never silent \u274c Requires knowing the actual exception class name (which should already exist in the codebase). B) Specify an error return value: \u2705 Explicit failure signal without exceptions \u274c Callers can forget to check the return value \u274c Payment processing code typically uses exceptions for control flow on failures. C) Leave 'fails clean' to the implementer: \u2705 Zero change to plan scope \u274c Implementer may choose a silent-failure path and the test will still pass. Net: 'fails clean' in a payment path must mean 'visible failure' \u2014 specify which. <gstack-qid:ceo-502-failure-contract>",
"header": "502 contract",
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Specify exception type (Recommended)",
"description": "Add to plan: the 502 test asserts a named exception is raised after retry exhaustion. Caller must explicitly handle it."
},
{
"label": "B) Specify error return value",
"description": "Add to plan: the 502 test asserts processPayment() returns an error/failure object (no exception)."
},
{
"label": "C) Leave to implementer",
"description": "Leave 'fails clean' as written \u2014 the implementer decides what form the clean failure takes."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D4 \u2014 Section 2: 'fails clean' is undefined \u2014 what does the 502 test actually assert? Branch: main. ELI10: The plan says 'assert retry-with-backoff fires once, then fails clean.' 'Fails clean' is ambiguous. In payment code, it could mean: (A) a specific exception is raised (caller catches it explicitly \u2014 best for observability and correctness), (B) an error object is returned (acceptable, but caller must check it), or (C) the test just asserts no uncaught exception and the method returns \u2014 silent failure. If the implementer picks C, a test that 'fails clean' tells you nothing about whether the failure is visible to callers. Stakes if we pick wrong: a silent-failure contract in processPayment() means callers think payment succeeded when it didn't \u2014 the worst possible payment bug. Recommendation: A because payment failures must propagate explicitly; silent returns are dangerous in money code. Note: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score. A) Specify the exception contract (Recommended): \u2705 Test asserts a named exception (e.g., PaymentExhaustedError) is raised \u2705 Pins the behavioral contract callers depend on \u2705 Failure is never silent \u274c Requires knowing the actual exception class name (which should already exist in the codebase). B) Specify an error return value: \u2705 Explicit failure signal without exceptions \u274c Callers can forget to check the return value \u274c Payment processing code typically uses exceptions for control flow on failures. C) Leave 'fails clean' to the implementer: \u2705 Zero change to plan scope \u274c Implementer may choose a silent-failure path and the test will still pass. Net: 'fails clean' in a payment path must mean 'visible failure' \u2014 specify which. <gstack-qid:ceo-502-failure-contract>": "A) Specify exception type (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-08T23:16:09.190Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "4a0c76b6-b15b-4fed-8890-95a6524340ad",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01TmcCN62AvTSCUcadNYP82P",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D5 \u2014 Section 6: should the 502 test assert the Stripe mock was called exactly twice? Branch: main. ELI10: The plan says 'an exhausted 502 operation makes exactly two charge attempts' and that the factory 'exposes the Stripe mock call history.' This is available infrastructure for an explicit assertion, but the plan doesn't say the test USES it. Without the assertion, a buggy implementation that retries 5 times (or never retries) would still 'fail clean' and the test would pass. The mock call history is already wired \u2014 asserting on it costs zero extra infrastructure. Stakes if we pick wrong: if the test skips this assertion, the retry-with-backoff behavior is untested even though the test claims to test it. Recommendation: A because 'retry fires once' is a behavioral guarantee the plan explicitly states \u2014 testing behavior without asserting the behavior is a gap. Note: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score. A) Add to plan: assert mock call count = 2 (Recommended): \u2705 Proves the retry loop ran exactly once (not 0, not 5) \u2705 Uses already-wired mock call history \u2705 Fast to add \u274c One more assertion in the test (minimal cost). B) Skip \u2014 leave call count implicit: \u2705 Plan stays minimal \u274c Retry count behavior is untested \u2014 a buggy loop is invisible to the test. Net: the mock call history is free; not using it leaves the retry behavior on faith. <gstack-qid:ceo-mock-call-count>",
"header": "Call count",
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Assert mock call count = 2 (Recommended)",
"description": "Add to plan: 502 test asserts the Stripe mock was called exactly twice (initial + one retry)."
},
{
"label": "B) Skip \u2014 leave call count implicit",
"description": "Leave the test as described; don't add explicit call count assertion to plan."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D5 \u2014 Section 6: should the 502 test assert the Stripe mock was called exactly twice? Branch: main. ELI10: The plan says 'an exhausted 502 operation makes exactly two charge attempts' and that the factory 'exposes the Stripe mock call history.' This is available infrastructure for an explicit assertion, but the plan doesn't say the test USES it. Without the assertion, a buggy implementation that retries 5 times (or never retries) would still 'fail clean' and the test would pass. The mock call history is already wired \u2014 asserting on it costs zero extra infrastructure. Stakes if we pick wrong: if the test skips this assertion, the retry-with-backoff behavior is untested even though the test claims to test it. Recommendation: A because 'retry fires once' is a behavioral guarantee the plan explicitly states \u2014 testing behavior without asserting the behavior is a gap. Note: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score. A) Add to plan: assert mock call count = 2 (Recommended): \u2705 Proves the retry loop ran exactly once (not 0, not 5) \u2705 Uses already-wired mock call history \u2705 Fast to add \u274c One more assertion in the test (minimal cost). B) Skip \u2014 leave call count implicit: \u2705 Plan stays minimal \u274c Retry count behavior is untested \u2014 a buggy loop is invisible to the test. Net: the mock call history is free; not using it leaves the retry behavior on faith. <gstack-qid:ceo-mock-call-count>": "A) Assert mock call count = 2 (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-08T23:16:31.273Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "4a0c76b6-b15b-4fed-8890-95a6524340ad",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01AezVwkmE7AsvKGhQRLoP7J",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D6 \u2014 Section 6: should the 502 test assert the virtual sleeper was called with an expected backoff delay? Branch: main. ELI10: The plan says the virtual sleeper 'records backoff without real delays.' The 502 test currently says 'assert retry-with-backoff fires once' \u2014 but 'fires' is ambiguous. Without a sleeper assertion, a buggy implementation that retries with no delay (or with the wrong delay) would still pass the test. The sleeper is already wired to the factory. Asserting the delay value proves the backoff is real, not just that a retry happened. Stakes if we pick wrong: without a delay assertion, a future diff could zero-out the backoff config and no test would catch it. Recommendation: A because backoff is the 'with-backoff' in retry-with-backoff \u2014 it's the contract. Note: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score. A) Add to plan: assert sleeper called with expected delay (Recommended): \u2705 Proves backoff is non-zero and correct value \u2705 Catches future regressions that remove delay config \u2705 Sleeper already wired, zero extra setup \u274c Requires knowing the configured backoff delay value. B) Skip \u2014 leave backoff timing implicit: \u2705 Plan stays minimal \u274c A future zero-backoff regression is silent \u274c 'Retry-with-backoff' is only half-tested. Net: the sleeper is wired to record the delay; not asserting on it wastes the investment. <gstack-qid:ceo-backoff-assertion>",
"header": "Backoff assert",
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Assert sleeper called with expected delay (Recommended)",
"description": "Add to plan: 502 test asserts the virtual sleeper was called with the expected backoff delay value."
},
{
"label": "B) Skip \u2014 leave backoff timing implicit",
"description": "Leave the test as described; don't assert on the sleeper's recorded delay."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D6 \u2014 Section 6: should the 502 test assert the virtual sleeper was called with an expected backoff delay? Branch: main. ELI10: The plan says the virtual sleeper 'records backoff without real delays.' The 502 test currently says 'assert retry-with-backoff fires once' \u2014 but 'fires' is ambiguous. Without a sleeper assertion, a buggy implementation that retries with no delay (or with the wrong delay) would still pass the test. The sleeper is already wired to the factory. Asserting the delay value proves the backoff is real, not just that a retry happened. Stakes if we pick wrong: without a delay assertion, a future diff could zero-out the backoff config and no test would catch it. Recommendation: A because backoff is the 'with-backoff' in retry-with-backoff \u2014 it's the contract. Note: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score. A) Add to plan: assert sleeper called with expected delay (Recommended): \u2705 Proves backoff is non-zero and correct value \u2705 Catches future regressions that remove delay config \u2705 Sleeper already wired, zero extra setup \u274c Requires knowing the configured backoff delay value. B) Skip \u2014 leave backoff timing implicit: \u2705 Plan stays minimal \u274c A future zero-backoff regression is silent \u274c 'Retry-with-backoff' is only half-tested. Net: the sleeper is wired to record the delay; not asserting on it wastes the investment. <gstack-qid:ceo-backoff-assertion>": "A) Assert sleeper called with expected delay (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-08T23:16:43.319Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "4a0c76b6-b15b-4fed-8890-95a6524340ad",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01GjRP3uFiPpmBNt98M268yS",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D7 \u2014 TODO: pin field-level assertions for 'correct receipt' in the happy path test? Branch: main. What: Add explicit assertions on receipt fields (charge_id, amount, currency, timestamp) in the happy path test. Why: The plan says 'assert correct receipt is generated' but 'correct' is underspecified \u2014 a test asserting only non-nil passes even if fields are wrong. This was accepted as a known trade-off in Approach A, but it's a real gap in the happy path's behavioral contract. Pros: Receipt fields become part of the tested contract; catches a wrong-field bug that a non-nil assertion misses. Cons: Requires knowing the actual field names and expected values (already available from the Stripe mock response); minor additional spec work. Context: The payment test factory exposes the Stripe mock call history; the mock response contains the expected charge data. Asserting fields against the mock response values is straightforward. Effort: S (human: ~30 min / CC: ~5 min). Priority: P2 \u2014 should land same branch. Depends on: approved happy path test (core scope). Note: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score. A) Add to TODOS.md: \u2705 Preserves the gap for the implementer to address \u2705 Documents the known limitation \u274c Still ships the test without field-level assertions initially. B) Skip \u2014 not valuable enough: \u2705 Zero extra work \u274c Silent weakness in the receipt assertion \u274c Payment receipt with wrong fields passes undetected. C) Build it now (add to accepted plan scope): \u2705 Closes the gap before implementation \u2705 Consistent with 'well-tested code is non-negotiable' \u274c Slightly expands Approach A scope. Net: field-level receipt assertions are cheap and catch real bugs \u2014 P2 at minimum. <gstack-qid:ceo-receipt-fields-todo>",
"header": "Receipt TODO",
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Add to TODOS.md",
"description": "Record as a P2 follow-up: pin receipt field assertions to the happy path test."
},
{
"label": "B) Skip \u2014 not valuable enough",
"description": "Accept the non-nil assertion as sufficient for now. No TODO recorded."
},
{
"label": "C) Build it now (Recommended)",
"description": "Add receipt field assertions to the accepted scope of the happy path test. No separate TODO needed."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D7 \u2014 TODO: pin field-level assertions for 'correct receipt' in the happy path test? Branch: main. What: Add explicit assertions on receipt fields (charge_id, amount, currency, timestamp) in the happy path test. Why: The plan says 'assert correct receipt is generated' but 'correct' is underspecified \u2014 a test asserting only non-nil passes even if fields are wrong. This was accepted as a known trade-off in Approach A, but it's a real gap in the happy path's behavioral contract. Pros: Receipt fields become part of the tested contract; catches a wrong-field bug that a non-nil assertion misses. Cons: Requires knowing the actual field names and expected values (already available from the Stripe mock response); minor additional spec work. Context: The payment test factory exposes the Stripe mock call history; the mock response contains the expected charge data. Asserting fields against the mock response values is straightforward. Effort: S (human: ~30 min / CC: ~5 min). Priority: P2 \u2014 should land same branch. Depends on: approved happy path test (core scope). Note: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score. A) Add to TODOS.md: \u2705 Preserves the gap for the implementer to address \u2705 Documents the known limitation \u274c Still ships the test without field-level assertions initially. B) Skip \u2014 not valuable enough: \u2705 Zero extra work \u274c Silent weakness in the receipt assertion \u274c Payment receipt with wrong fields passes undetected. C) Build it now (add to accepted plan scope): \u2705 Closes the gap before implementation \u2705 Consistent with 'well-tested code is non-negotiable' \u274c Slightly expands Approach A scope. Net: field-level receipt assertions are cheap and catch real bugs \u2014 P2 at minimum. <gstack-qid:ceo-receipt-fields-todo>": "A) Add to TODOS.md"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-08T23:17:37.555Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "4a0c76b6-b15b-4fed-8890-95a6524340ad",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01RgspWjGuRPToteFrtkk2Dq",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D8 \u2014 Next step: run /plan-eng-review? Branch: main. ELI10: The CEO review is complete with 0 unresolved decisions. The Eng Review is the only required shipping gate \u2014 it covers architecture, code quality, and tests at the implementation level. This plan has 0 prior eng reviews. Since this is a test-only plan, eng review is lighter than usual (no new production code), but it's still the gate. Recommendation: A because eng review is required before ship, and the three assertion additions from this CEO review (D4/D5/D6) should be verified by an independent architecture + test pass. Note: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score. A) Run /plan-eng-review next (Recommended): \u2705 Clears the required shipping gate \u2705 Independently verifies the three resolved findings (exception contract, call count, backoff) \u274c Takes ~5-10 min with CC. B) Skip \u2014 handle reviews manually: \u2705 Nothing to wait for \u274c Eng Review gate not cleared \u2014 /ship will flag this. <gstack-qid:ceo-next-step-eng-review>",
"header": "Next step",
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Run /plan-eng-review next (Recommended)",
"description": "Run the required eng review to clear the shipping gate."
},
{
"label": "B) Skip \u2014 handle reviews manually",
"description": "No review now; eng review can be run separately before shipping."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D8 \u2014 Next step: run /plan-eng-review? Branch: main. ELI10: The CEO review is complete with 0 unresolved decisions. The Eng Review is the only required shipping gate \u2014 it covers architecture, code quality, and tests at the implementation level. This plan has 0 prior eng reviews. Since this is a test-only plan, eng review is lighter than usual (no new production code), but it's still the gate. Recommendation: A because eng review is required before ship, and the three assertion additions from this CEO review (D4/D5/D6) should be verified by an independent architecture + test pass. Note: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score. A) Run /plan-eng-review next (Recommended): \u2705 Clears the required shipping gate \u2705 Independently verifies the three resolved findings (exception contract, call count, backoff) \u274c Takes ~5-10 min with CC. B) Skip \u2014 handle reviews manually: \u2705 Nothing to wait for \u274c Eng Review gate not cleared \u2014 /ship will flag this. <gstack-qid:ceo-next-step-eng-review>": "A) Run /plan-eng-review next (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-08T23:19:55.732Z"
}
]
}
test/fixtures/ceo-completion-handoff-r-calls.json
Vendored
-119
View File
@@ -1,119 +0,0 @@
[
{
"sessionId": "2aa1d111-e41c-4305-b511-560f75c591f6",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01TFNyYCkuEbD4ka29tNm3cq",
"questions": [
{
"question": "No design doc found for this branch. `/office-hours` produces a structured problem statement, premise challenge, and explored alternatives — it gives this review much sharper input to work with. Takes about 10 minutes. The design doc is per-feature, not per-product — it captures the thinking behind this specific change. Run it first, or skip straight to the standard review?",
"header": "Prerequisites",
"options": [
{
"label": "Skip — proceed with standard review (recommended)",
"description": "The plan is small and the problem is well-defined: add 2 unit tests for processPayment(). /office-hours is for exploring what to build; this plan already knows exactly what to build."
},
{
"label": "Run /office-hours now",
"description": "Produces a deeper problem statement and premise challenge before the CEO review. Best for large or ambiguous feature plans."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"No design doc found for this branch. `/office-hours` produces a structured problem statement, premise challenge, and explored alternatives — it gives this review much sharper input to work with. Takes about 10 minutes. The design doc is per-feature, not per-product — it captures the thinking behind this specific change. Run it first, or skip straight to the standard review?": "Skip — proceed with standard review (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T04:41:29.182Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "2aa1d111-e41c-4305-b511-560f75c591f6",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01HBKnGS2bULyawnQhA8RZY4",
"questions": [
{
"question": "Which implementation approach should this plan follow? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-approach>",
"header": "Approach",
"options": [
{
"label": "Minimal — 2 tests as written",
"description": "Exactly 2 tests matching the spec: happy path + 502. Assertions are left as the plan describes them ('assert correct receipt is generated', 'assert retry-with-backoff fires once, then fails clean'). Fast, small diff. Completeness: 7/10 — tests exist but assertion specifics are left to the implementer.",
"preview": "test 'happy path: successful Stripe charge' do\n receipt = process_payment(factory.valid_card)\n assert receipt.generated? # vague\nend\n\ntest '502 error: retry once, then fail' do\n result = process_payment(factory.bad_card)\n assert result.failed? # vague\nend"
},
{
"label": "Assertions-complete — 2 tests with explicit assertions (recommended)",
"description": "Same 2 tests, but the plan specifies: (1) which receipt fields to assert for the happy path, (2) the exact failure type for the 502 path, (3) Stripe call count == 2, and (4) backoff was recorded. Same file count, ~20 extra lines of assertion clarity. Completeness: 9/10 — tests are complete enough to catch real regressions.",
"preview": "test 'happy path: successful Stripe charge' do\n receipt = process_payment(factory.valid_card)\n assert_equal stripe_mock.charge_id, receipt.stripe_charge_id\n assert_equal 100_00, receipt.amount_cents\n assert_equal 'paid', receipt.status\nend\n\ntest '502 error: retry once, then fail' do\n assert_raises(PaymentError) { process_payment(factory.bad_card) }\n assert_equal 2, stripe_mock.call_count # original + 1 retry\n assert virtual_sleeper.backoff_recorded?\nend"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"Which implementation approach should this plan follow? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-approach>": "Minimal — 2 tests as written"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T04:42:01.283Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "2aa1d111-e41c-4305-b511-560f75c591f6",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01DjcTXd1dvAsF63ZXP6kzvx",
"questions": [
{
"question": "Which review mode? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-mode>",
"header": "Review mode",
"options": [
{
"label": "HOLD SCOPE — make the 2 tests bulletproof (recommended)",
"description": "Default for test coverage work. The plan's scope (2 unit tests) is locked. Review focuses on rigor: correct assertions, failure observability, test isolation, and naming. No scope additions. Note: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score."
},
{
"label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION — hold scope but surface adjacent opportunities",
"description": "Same HOLD SCOPE rigor, but also surfaces adjacent test opportunities (402, 429, idempotency) as individual cherry-picks you can accept or skip. Good if you want to see what’s nearby without committing to it. Note: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score."
},
{
"label": "SCOPE REDUCTION — strip to the absolute minimum",
"description": "Find the smallest test that proves payment works. Could reduce to a single smoke test. Use if timeline is the constraint. Note: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"Which review mode? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-mode>": "HOLD SCOPE — make the 2 tests bulletproof (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T04:42:13.320Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "2aa1d111-e41c-4305-b511-560f75c591f6",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01UHbAH2Ls8okH8qSocge4J3",
"questions": [
{
"question": "Run /plan-eng-review next (the required shipping gate), or handle reviews manually?",
"header": "Next review",
"options": [
{
"label": "Run /plan-eng-review next (recommended)",
"description": "Required gate before shipping. Validates test isolation, factory patterns, and confirms no hidden dependencies. Fast run expected given zero CEO findings."
},
{
"label": "Skip — I’ll handle reviews manually",
"description": "You’ll need to run /plan-eng-review separately before merging. The CEO review is clear but eng review is the shipping gate."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"Run /plan-eng-review next (the required shipping gate), or handle reviews manually?": "Run /plan-eng-review next (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T04:48:18.389Z"
}
]
test/fixtures/ceo-completion-handoff-t-call.json
Vendored
-298
View File
@@ -1,298 +0,0 @@
{
"sourceObservation": ".context/ship-source-t-full-paid-20260909-0639/evals/job-4/shards/skill-e2e-plan-ceo-finding-count/pty-count/ship-source-t-full-paid-20260909-0639-4/plan-ceo-review-1788936459964-URKYk7/observation.json",
"sourceSession": {
"identity": "434477-6028690",
"sessionId": "93152292-0b46-4e39-8b32-e963a6bc02cb",
"pid": 434477,
"startTicks": "6028690",
"file": "test/skill-e2e-plan-ceo-finding-count.test.ts",
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-SxF6xq/tmp/gstack-plan-count-ULTLUt",
"source": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-SxF6xq/tmp/gstack-hermetic-434287-jO1XY2/with-skills/.claude/projects/-tmp-gstack-paid-shard-SxF6xq-tmp-gstack-plan-count-ULTLUt/93152292-0b46-4e39-8b32-e963a6bc02cb.jsonl",
"openedAt": "2026-09-09T06:47:44.000956+00:00",
"sha256": "1c9131ffe4d08dfc200e5ef823dcd2d2f94fc4cbc37491bdabe7f3abbbd037eb",
"bytes": 884092,
"saved": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/.context/ship-source-t-full-paid-20260909-0639/native-observation/pinned-native/434477-6028690/93152292-0b46-4e39-8b32-e963a6bc02cb/1c9131ffe4d08dfc200e5ef823dcd2d2f94fc4cbc37491bdabe7f3abbbd037eb.jsonl",
"capturedAt": "2026-09-09T07:03:54.177177+00:00"
},
"calls": [
{
"sessionId": "93152292-0b46-4e39-8b32-e963a6bc02cb",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Y34PZugyyJFHxMzLFSitm5",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 — No design doc found for this branch. Run /office-hours before the CEO review, or skip straight to reviewing the plan as written? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-office-hours-prereq>",
"header": "Prerequisite",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Skip — review plan as-is (Recommended)",
"description": "The plan under review is already fully defined in PLAN.md. /office-hours is for problem exploration and design iteration — not applicable here. Proceed directly to the CEO review."
},
{
"label": "Run /office-hours first",
"description": "Run /office-hours to produce a structured problem statement and explored alternatives, then come back to the CEO review with sharper input. Takes ~10 minutes."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 — No design doc found for this branch. Run /office-hours before the CEO review, or skip straight to reviewing the plan as written? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-office-hours-prereq>": "Skip — review plan as-is (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T06:51:44.046Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "93152292-0b46-4e39-8b32-e963a6bc02cb",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01JDbX66NjiiemiaPAKcqm5D",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D2 — Which implementation approach should this plan target? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-impl-approach>",
"header": "Approach",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "B: Integrated Architecture (Recommended)",
"description": "Route through WebhookDispatcher; parameterized queries throughout; async email via queue; full handler unit tests + integration test. Human ~2 days / CC ~30 min. Completeness: 9/10. Fixes all critical/high issues AND the architectural bypass question. CC compresses the human effort gap to nearly zero."
},
{
"label": "A: Surgical Fix (minimal viable)",
"description": "Fix SQL injection with parameterized query; add email error handling; optimize N+1 to single JOIN query; add targeted unit tests. Human ~4h / CC ~10 min. Completeness: 7/10. Smallest diff, preserves namespace separation decision, leaves WebhookDispatcher bypass open."
},
{
"label": "C: Reject and redesign",
"description": "Reject the plan as-written — a plan that documents its own SQL injection should not ship in any form. Use Approach B as the clean rewrite target. Same implementation effort as B, stronger organizational signal: security-by-default is non-negotiable. Completeness: 9/10."
},
{
"label": "A + B (phase it)",
"description": "Land Approach A immediately (unblocks the feature), follow with Approach B as a refactor PR. Completeness: 9/10 across both phases. Human ~2.5 days / CC ~40 min total. Suitable if the feature flag means urgency is high and architectural cleanup can follow."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D2 — Which implementation approach should this plan target? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-impl-approach>": "B: Integrated Architecture (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T06:52:34.192Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "93152292-0b46-4e39-8b32-e963a6bc02cb",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01BiCKzA14Pd6KZmxKU5JwMV",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D3 — What review mode should this CEO review run in? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-mode>",
"header": "Review mode",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "HOLD SCOPE (Recommended)",
"description": "The webhook handler scope is right. The job is to make Approach B bulletproof: catch every failure mode (SQL injection, email retry loop, N+1), map every edge case (missing userId, double-delivery, partial commit), verify observability, and harden the test plan. No expansions surfaced. Note: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score."
},
{
"label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION",
"description": "Hold the current scope as baseline, but surface cherry-pick expansion opportunities (e.g., rate limiting, payment analytics, retry queue improvements). Present each individually via AskUserQuestion. Neutral recommendation posture — you opt in to each expansion. Note: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score."
},
{
"label": "SCOPE EXPANSION",
"description": "Dream bigger — propose the 10x version of the payment pipeline. What would a world-class payment webhook system look like? Present each expansion for approval. Recommended only if the team wants to revisit the scope of the payment integration beyond the immediate handler. Note: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score."
},
{
"label": "SCOPE REDUCTION",
"description": "Ruthlessly cut to the minimum that ships value. What is the absolute smallest handler that is safe and correct? Defer everything else. Recommended if timeline pressure is acute and Approach B feels overbuilt. Note: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D3 — What review mode should this CEO review run in? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-mode>": "HOLD SCOPE (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T06:52:54.252Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "93152292-0b46-4e39-8b32-e963a6bc02cb",
"toolUseId": "toolu_011UpgJGCsBgeqEKRpxY7VWn",
"questions": [
{
"question": "S1-F1 — The plan fetches each order in a loop but never explains why. What should happen here?",
"header": "Order fetch",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "S1-F1-A: Fetch orders for email content (Recommended)",
"description": "The email notification includes order-level details (items, amounts). Refactor the loop to a single JOIN or WHERE IN query instead. Approach B's parameterized-query requirement covers the safety fix; add to that scope that the order fetch must be a single query, not a loop. Verify: unit test asserts exactly 1 DB call for orders regardless of order count."
},
{
"label": "S1-F1-B: Remove the loop — orders are not needed",
"description": "The handler's job is to set payment_status=paid. If orders aren't needed for that, cut the loop entirely. Simpler code, no N+1, fewer test surface areas. Verify: confirm the email template doesn't require order data; remove the loop from the plan."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"S1-F1 — The plan fetches each order in a loop but never explains why. What should happen here?": "S1-F1-A: Fetch orders for email content (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T06:54:40.646Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "93152292-0b46-4e39-8b32-e963a6bc02cb",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01NzcEKPXm2hCQoEAEv6Cf6R",
"questions": [
{
"question": "S2-F1 — When the async email enqueue fails (queue broker down), the handler has no specified rescue behavior. What should it do?",
"header": "Enqueue error",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "S2-F1-A: Catch + log + HTTP 200 (Recommended)",
"description": "Wrap the enqueue call in error handling. On failure: log with structured context (event ID, userId, queue error message, timestamp). Return HTTP 200. Rationale: the DB has committed, the dedup guard has fired, and Stripe retries can’t help — the existing runbook handles notification retries independently. Verify: unit test that enqueue failure does NOT cause HTTP 500 and DOES emit a structured log entry."
},
{
"label": "S2-F1-B: Catch + log + HTTP 500",
"description": "Return HTTP 500 on enqueue failure to trigger Stripe retry. Problem: the dedup guard has already fired, so the retry is eaten and the email is silently lost. Only viable if the dedup guard records AFTER the enqueue (specify this ordering constraint explicitly in the plan). Higher risk of silent failures."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"S2-F1 — When the async email enqueue fails (queue broker down), the handler has no specified rescue behavior. What should it do?": "S2-F1-A: Catch + log + HTTP 200 (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T06:55:46.904Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "93152292-0b46-4e39-8b32-e963a6bc02cb",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01URtNFV5BnCFQVAPLg29P8s",
"questions": [
{
"question": "S4-F1 — If the order fetch query fails after the payment DB update has committed (and dedup has fired), what should the handler do?",
"header": "Order fetch err",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "S4-F1-A: Catch + log + HTTP 200 (Recommended)",
"description": "Wrap the order fetch in error handling. On failure: log with structured context (event ID, userId, error). Enqueue the email without order details as a fallback (if possible), OR log and return HTTP 200 and let the runbook handle it. Consistent with S2-F1-A (email enqueue failures). Verify: unit test that order fetch failure does NOT cause HTTP 500 and DOES log a structured warning."
},
{
"label": "S4-F1-B: Let it propagate (HTTP 500)",
"description": "Leave the existing ingress wrapper handling in place: exception propagates, HTTP 500, Stripe retries. Acceptable ONLY if the plan explicitly specifies that the dedup guard records completion AFTER the order fetch (not after the DB update). Verify: confirm dedup guard ordering in implementation and document it."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"S4-F1 — If the order fetch query fails after the payment DB update has committed (and dedup has fired), what should the handler do?": "S4-F1-A: Catch + log + HTTP 200 (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T06:57:27.380Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "93152292-0b46-4e39-8b32-e963a6bc02cb",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01PLavQBrkD4SyLGcHR7rd8P",
"questions": [
{
"question": "S6-F1 — The plan’s Tests section says “None planned” but Approach B requires tests. Should the Tests section be updated to enumerate T1-T6?",
"header": "Test plan",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "S6-F1-A: Update Tests section with T1-T6 (Recommended)",
"description": "Replace “None planned” with the 6-test plan above. T1-T5 are unit tests (fast, no external deps). T6 is the integration test on the existing staging payment-event replay already called out in the rollout checklist. This aligns the Tests section with the approved approach and gives implementers concrete coverage targets. The Friday-2am ship test: T5 (SQL safety) + T3/T4 (failure paths) must be green before enabling the feature flag."
},
{
"label": "S6-F1-B: Keep “None planned”, rely on PR review to catch missing tests",
"description": "Defer test specification to the implementation PR. Risk: the reviewer must reconstruct the required cases from the review history. The SQL injection resistance test (T5) and failure path tests (T3/T4) are easy to miss without an explicit list."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"S6-F1 — The plan’s Tests section says “None planned” but Approach B requires tests. Should the Tests section be updated to enumerate T1-T6?": "S6-F1-A: Update Tests section with T1-T6 (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T06:58:13.595Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "93152292-0b46-4e39-8b32-e963a6bc02cb",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01RNgxmyCPEHSCqQZeScAu4y",
"questions": [
{
"question": "TODO-1 — No proactive alert for email enqueue failures (queue-down scenario). Add to TODOS.md?",
"header": "Alert TODO",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "TODO-1-A: Add to TODOS.md (Recommended)",
"description": "The existing on-call alert covers delivery failures but not enqueue failures. If the queue is down for hours, payments succeed but notification enqueues fail silently. The logs are there; the runbook covers manual retry. But a proactive alert would catch sustained failures before the runbook is needed. What: add alert on email enqueue failure rate > N% over M minutes. Effort: S (human ~1h / CC ~5min). Priority: P2."
},
{
"label": "TODO-1-B: Skip — runbook is sufficient",
"description": "The enqueue failure is logged with full context (S2-F1-A). The runbook already directs on-call to retry notifications. A proactive alert is a nice-to-have, not a correctness requirement. Acceptable in HOLD SCOPE."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"TODO-1 — No proactive alert for email enqueue failures (queue-down scenario). Add to TODOS.md?": "TODO-1-A: Add to TODOS.md (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T06:59:38.037Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "93152292-0b46-4e39-8b32-e963a6bc02cb",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Pj9FmnhtjHMT5YMHQu44JS",
"questions": [
{
"question": "What’s the next review step after this CEO review?",
"header": "Next review",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Run /plan-eng-review (Recommended)",
"description": "Eng review is the required shipping gate. It covers architecture details, code quality, and test verification. This CEO review changed the implementation approach (Approach B: WebhookDispatcher integration, parameterized queries, async email queue) — a fresh eng review should validate the new approach before implementation begins."
},
{
"label": "Skip — handle reviews manually",
"description": "Proceed to implementation without the eng review gate. The CEO review resolved all findings, but the eng review validates the approach at a lower implementation level. Skipping is not recommended for a handler that processes payment webhooks."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"What’s the next review step after this CEO review?": "Run /plan-eng-review (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T07:03:47.073Z"
}
],
"pendingExit": {
"sessionId": "93152292-0b46-4e39-8b32-e963a6bc02cb",
"toolUseId": "toolu_018AY3h698PASCbQEvjcT6q9",
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-SxF6xq/tmp/gstack-plan-count-ULTLUt",
"transcriptPath": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-SxF6xq/tmp/gstack-hermetic-434287-jO1XY2/with-skills/.claude/projects/-tmp-gstack-paid-shard-SxF6xq-tmp-gstack-plan-count-ULTLUt/93152292-0b46-4e39-8b32-e963a6bc02cb.jsonl",
"timestamp": "2026-09-09T07:03:53.964Z"
},
"reportAtMs": 1788937345058.2493,
"reportContent": "# CEO Plan Review: Payment Processing Integration\n\n## Context\n\nReviewing `PLAN.md` — a plan to add a `StripePaymentWebhookHandler` class that processes `payment_intent.succeeded` Stripe events, updates the user record in the database, and sends a notification email.\n\n**Review mode:** HOLD SCOPE\n**Implementation approach:** B — Integrated Architecture (WebhookDispatcher, parameterized queries, async email queue, full tests)\n\nThe plan explicitly documents its own SQL injection vulnerability: `userId` from Stripe metadata is acknowledged as unsanitized, then used directly in a raw SQL fragment. This review surfaced that and five other issues, all resolved via approved remedies.\n\n---\n\n## Step 0 Decisions\n\n| Decision | Result |\n|----------|--------|\n| /office-hours prerequisite | Skipped — plan fully defined |\n| Implementation approach | B: Integrated Architecture |\n| Review mode | HOLD SCOPE |\n\n---\n\n## System Architecture (Approach B)\n\n```\nSTRIPE EXISTING NEW (APPROACH B)\n────── ────────────────────────────────── ─────────────────────────────────────\n POST Signature Verification Middleware\nStripe ──────▶ Event type filter (succeeded only)\n │\n [WebhookDispatcher] ◀── NOW ROUTES HERE\n │\n [StripePaymentWebhookHandler] ← NEW\n │\n [Event ID Dedup Guard] (existing)\n │\n [Per-user Transaction Lock] (existing)\n │\n DB Lookup: userId (PARAMETERIZED)\n │\n ┌──────┴──────────────────┐\n unknown user user found\n HTTP 200 + log DB Update: payment_status=paid\n │\n DB Fetch: orders (single JOIN)\n │\n ┌────────┴─────────────────────────┐\n fetch fails fetch succeeds\n log + HTTP 200 Async Email Enqueue (queue)\n (S4-F1-A) │\n ┌─────────────┴──────────────┐\n enqueue fails enqueue succeeds\n log + HTTP 200 HTTP 200\n (S2-F1-A) queue manages delivery\n```\n\n---\n\n## Approved Findings & Remedies\n\n| # | Section | Finding | Severity | Approved Remedy |\n|---|---------|---------|----------|-----------------|\n| S1-F1-A | Architecture | Order fetch loop — N+1 queries, purpose undocumented | HIGH | Fetch is for email content; single JOIN query; unit test asserts 1 DB round-trip |\n| S2-F1-A | Error Map | Email enqueue failure — no rescue action specified | HIGH | Catch + log (event ID, userId, error) + HTTP 200 (not HTTP 500) |\n| S4-F1-A | Data Flow | Order fetch failure after dedup fires — silent loss risk | MEDIUM | Catch + log + HTTP 200, consistent with S2-F1-A |\n| S6-F1-A | Tests | Tests section says \"None planned\" — contradicts Approach B | HIGH | Replace with T1-T6 test plan (see below) |\n\n**Approach B base remedies (inherent in approach selection):**\n- SQL injection → parameterized queries throughout\n- WebhookDispatcher bypass → route through dispatcher\n- Inline email → async email queue\n\n---\n\n## Updated Tests Section (replaces \"None planned\")\n\n```\nT1 (unit, P1): Happy path — valid userId → payment updated + email enqueued\nT2 (unit, P1): Unknown user → HTTP 200, no update, no email\nT3 (unit, P1): Email enqueue failure → HTTP 200, structured log, NOT HTTP 500\nT4 (unit, P1): Order fetch failure → HTTP 200, structured log, NOT HTTP 500\nT5 (unit, P1): SQL injection resistance — adversarial userId does not leak into SQL literal\nT6 (integration, P2): Staging payment event replay → update + email delivery + correlated traces\n```\n\n---\n\n## Error & Rescue Registry\n\n```\nMETHOD/CODEPATH EXCEPTION RESCUED? RESCUE ACTION USER SEES\n─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\nDB Lookup (userId) nil/RecordNotFound Y Line truncated
"screen": " | Unresolved decisions | 0 |\n +====================================================================+\n\n GSTACK REVIEW REPORT\n\n ┌────────────┬─────────────────────┬───────────────────────┬──────┬─────────────┬─────────────────────────────────┐\n │ Review │ Trigger │ Why │ Runs │ Status │ Findings │\n ├────────────┼─────────────────────┼───────────────────────┼──────┼─────────────┼─────────────────────────────────┤\n │ CEO Review │ /plan-ceo-review │ Scope & strategy │ 1 │ issues_open │ mode: HOLD_SCOPE, 0 critical │\n │ │ │ │ │ │ gaps, 4 findings resolved │\n ├────────────┼─────────────────────┼───────────────────────┼──────┼─────────────┼─────────────────────────────────┤\n │ Outside │ disabled │ Independent 2nd │ 0 │ disabled │ — │\n │ Review │ │ opinion │ │ │ │\n ├────────────┼─────────────────────┼───────────────────────┼──────┼─────────────┼─────────────────────────────────┤\n │ Eng Review │ /plan-eng-review │ Architecture & tests │ 0 │ — │ — │\n │ │ │ (required) │ │ │ │\n ├────────────┼─────────────────────┼───────────────────────┼──────┼─────────────┼─────────────────────────────────┤\n │ Design │ /plan-design-review │ UI/UX gaps │ 0 │ — │ — │\n │ Review │ │ │ │ │ │\n ├────────────┼─────────────────────┼───────────────────────┼──────┼─────────────┼─────────────────────────────────┤\n │ DX Review │ /plan-devex-review │ Developer experience │ 0 │ — │ — │\n │ │ │ gaps │ │ │ │\n └────────────┴──────��──────────────┴───────────────────────┴──────┴─────────────┴─────────────────────────────────┘\n\n OUTSIDE COVERAGE: Codex reviews disabled (gstack-config set codex_reviews enabled to re-enable). No outside review\n attempted.\n\n VERDICT: CEO review complete — 4 findings resolved, 0 critical gaps. Eng review required (not yet run).\n\n NO UNRESOLVED DECISIONS\n╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌\n\n───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Line truncated
"startedAtMs": 1788936429000
}
test/fixtures/ceo-completion-handoff-u-call.json
Vendored
-189
View File
@@ -1,189 +0,0 @@
{
"calls": [
{
"sessionId": "62db3fe0-af3a-479e-8e23-d045cf3d8be6",
"toolUseId": "toolu_014aEaQBfpSJq2ECNfE2f81b",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 \u2014 Run /office-hours before the CEO review? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-office-hours-offer>\n\nNo design doc found for this branch. `/office-hours` produces a structured problem statement, premise challenge, and explored alternatives \u2014 it gives this review much sharper input. Takes about 10 minutes. That said, this plan is narrowly scoped test coverage (2 unit tests), so the problem statement is already clear from the code.\n\nStakes if we pick wrong: /office-hours on a clearly-scoped test plan costs 10 minutes for minimal gain; skipping it on a murkier plan leaves the review shallow.",
"header": "Prerequisites",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Skip \u2014 proceed with standard review (Recommended)",
"description": "The plan scope is explicit: two unit tests for processPayment(). The problem statement needs no further clarification. Proceed directly to the CEO review."
},
{
"label": "Run /office-hours first",
"description": "Run the office-hours skill to produce a structured design doc, then pick up the review. Best when the problem is still being defined \u2014 less useful here."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 \u2014 Run /office-hours before the CEO review? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-office-hours-offer>\n\nNo design doc found for this branch. `/office-hours` produces a structured problem statement, premise challenge, and explored alternatives \u2014 it gives this review much sharper input. Takes about 10 minutes. That said, this plan is narrowly scoped test coverage (2 unit tests), so the problem statement is already clear from the code.\n\nStakes if we pick wrong: /office-hours on a clearly-scoped test plan costs 10 minutes for minimal gain; skipping it on a murkier plan leaves the review shallow.": "Skip \u2014 proceed with standard review (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T07:48:07.582Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "62db3fe0-af3a-479e-8e23-d045cf3d8be6",
"toolUseId": "toolu_015pRmP4ca6cL2zrzWZhJHgr",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D2 \u2014 Which implementation approach for the test coverage plan? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-approach-selection>\n\nELI10: We need unit tests for processPayment(). The plan names exactly 2 tests. Do we write precisely those 2, or do we also cover adjacent gaps at the processPayment() level that the adapter suite can't catch (nil receipt, zero-amount charge, idempotency)?\n\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too narrow = we fill the named gap but leave real failure modes untested; too broad = scope creep on what was scoped as a targeted fix.\n\nRecommendation: A because the adapter suite already covers the failure taxonomy broadly; the named gap is specific and the plan is correctly scoped. Surface the adjacents as TODOS if needed.\n\nCompleteness: A=7/10, B=9/10",
"header": "Approach",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Minimal viable \u2014 exactly the 2 named tests (Recommended)",
"description": "Write one happy-path test (successful Stripe charge \u2192 correct receipt) and one 502 test (retry fires once, then fails clean). Use existing factory + virtual sleeper. Completeness: 7/10 \u2014 covers the stated gap; broader failure taxonomy lives in the adapter suite."
},
{
"label": "B) Complete unit coverage \u2014 2 named tests + adjacent gaps",
"description": "The 2 named tests, plus: nil/zero amount guard, receipt field completeness assertion, idempotency-key collision, and concurrent call behavior. Completeness: 9/10 \u2014 covers processPayment() orchestration edge cases that the adapter suite cannot reach."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D2 \u2014 Which implementation approach for the test coverage plan? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-approach-selection>\n\nELI10: We need unit tests for processPayment(). The plan names exactly 2 tests. Do we write precisely those 2, or do we also cover adjacent gaps at the processPayment() level that the adapter suite can't catch (nil receipt, zero-amount charge, idempotency)?\n\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too narrow = we fill the named gap but leave real failure modes untested; too broad = scope creep on what was scoped as a targeted fix.\n\nRecommendation: A because the adapter suite already covers the failure taxonomy broadly; the named gap is specific and the plan is correctly scoped. Surface the adjacents as TODOS if needed.\n\nCompleteness: A=7/10, B=9/10": "A) Minimal viable \u2014 exactly the 2 named tests (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T07:49:09.726Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "62db3fe0-af3a-479e-8e23-d045cf3d8be6",
"toolUseId": "toolu_014awuScc1tYtsTh3VNuR3qX",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D3 \u2014 Which review mode should govern this plan? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-mode-selection>\n\nELI10: The plan is small (2 unit tests, clear scope, existing infrastructure). Do we review it as-is with maximum rigor, or do we also surface cherry-pick expansion opportunities (more test cases, test organization improvements) for you to opt into individually?\n\nStakes if we pick wrong: Hold Scope misses expansion opportunities that are easy to add now; Selective Expansion adds noise to a plan that's already correctly scoped.\n\nRecommendation: C (Hold Scope) because this is test gap-fill on a well-understood function. The scope is correct; the job is to make the 2 tests bulletproof.\n\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.",
"header": "Review mode",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "C) Hold Scope \u2014 make the 2 tests bulletproof (Recommended)",
"description": "Accept the plan\u2019s scope. Review with maximum rigor: failure modes, assertion completeness, infrastructure reuse correctness, edge cases within each test, naming and isolation."
},
{
"label": "B) Selective Expansion \u2014 hold scope + surface cherry-picks",
"description": "Hold the 2-test baseline, but surface adjacent test cases (nil receipt, idempotency, concurrent calls) as individual opt-in decisions. Good if you want to see what else is easy to add."
},
{
"label": "A) Scope Expansion \u2014 dream big",
"description": "Push the test suite toward its platonic ideal: property-based testing, mutation testing targets, full failure taxonomy. Best when the test suite is the product; less suited here."
},
{
"label": "D) Scope Reduction \u2014 strip to essentials",
"description": "Find the minimum tests that prove processPayment() works. Likely a single parametrized test. Only useful if the 2-test plan feels over-specified."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D3 \u2014 Which review mode should govern this plan? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-mode-selection>\n\nELI10: The plan is small (2 unit tests, clear scope, existing infrastructure). Do we review it as-is with maximum rigor, or do we also surface cherry-pick expansion opportunities (more test cases, test organization improvements) for you to opt into individually?\n\nStakes if we pick wrong: Hold Scope misses expansion opportunities that are easy to add now; Selective Expansion adds noise to a plan that's already correctly scoped.\n\nRecommendation: C (Hold Scope) because this is test gap-fill on a well-understood function. The scope is correct; the job is to make the 2 tests bulletproof.\n\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.": "C) Hold Scope \u2014 make the 2 tests bulletproof (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T07:49:25.761Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "62db3fe0-af3a-479e-8e23-d045cf3d8be6",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01DriS8PRtw2uYpL8uZ6HBnY",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D4 \u2014 Finding 1 (Sections 1+2+6): \"fails clean\" is undefined in the 502 test spec. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-finding-1-fails-clean>\n\nELI10: The plan says the 502 test should \"assert retry-with-backoff fires once, then fails clean.\" \"Fires once\" is concrete (verify stripe_mock.calls.count == 2). But \"fails clean\" has no assertion. Does processPayment() raise an exception? Return an error object? Return nil? Without specifying this, the implementer either has to read production code to guess, or writes an assertion that might accidentally pass even if the function misbehaves.\n\nStakes if we pick wrong: A test that doesn't specify what wrong result it rejects has low defensive value. A missed assertion here could let a silent-swallow bug through.\n\nRecommendation: A because naming the error contract makes the test actually fail when the behavior breaks. The plan should specify the expected failure signal even without knowing the exact exception class \u2014 at minimum, \"assert no receipt is returned\" plus \"assert the exception class or error indicator.\"\n\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.",
"header": "Finding 1",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Add failure assertion spec to the plan (Recommended)",
"description": "Add to the plan: the 502 test should assert (a) stripe_mock.calls.count == 2, AND (b) the failure mode \u2014 e.g. 'raises PaymentError or equivalent', or 'returns an error result with no receipt emitted'. The exact class is left to implementation, but the contract is stated."
},
{
"label": "B) Leave it to implementation",
"description": "Trust the implementer to read the production code and write appropriate assertions. Acceptable if the team knows the error contract well \u2014 lower plan completeness, higher implementation risk."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D4 \u2014 Finding 1 (Sections 1+2+6): \"fails clean\" is undefined in the 502 test spec. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-finding-1-fails-clean>\n\nELI10: The plan says the 502 test should \"assert retry-with-backoff fires once, then fails clean.\" \"Fires once\" is concrete (verify stripe_mock.calls.count == 2). But \"fails clean\" has no assertion. Does processPayment() raise an exception? Return an error object? Return nil? Without specifying this, the implementer either has to read production code to guess, or writes an assertion that might accidentally pass even if the function misbehaves.\n\nStakes if we pick wrong: A test that doesn't specify what wrong result it rejects has low defensive value. A missed assertion here could let a silent-swallow bug through.\n\nRecommendation: A because naming the error contract makes the test actually fail when the behavior breaks. The plan should specify the expected failure signal even without knowing the exact exception class \u2014 at minimum, \"assert no receipt is returned\" plus \"assert the exception class or error indicator.\"\n\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.": "A) Add failure assertion spec to the plan (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T07:51:38.199Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "62db3fe0-af3a-479e-8e23-d045cf3d8be6",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01MYWY5gZzeZYCHfdbsF1myg",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D5 \u2014 Finding 2 (Section 5+6): \"correct receipt\" is underspecified in the happy path test. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-finding-2-correct-receipt>\n\nELI10: The plan says the happy path test should \"assert correct receipt is generated.\" But \"correct\" isn't defined. A test that just checks `receipt != nil` would pass this description and would also pass if the receipt had the wrong amount, wrong charge_id, or wrong status. The test would then give false confidence \u2014 it would pass in CI while the receipt is actually wrong.\n\nStakes if we pick wrong: A loose assertion on receipt correctness is low-value test coverage. A future bug that puts wrong data in the receipt would sail through CI.\n\nRecommendation: A because field-level assertions are what makes a correctness test actually test correctness. The plan should name at minimum: receipt.charge_id matches the Stripe mock's charge id, and receipt.amount matches the input charge params.\n\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.",
"header": "Finding 2",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Add field-level assertion spec to the plan (Recommended)",
"description": "Add to the plan: the happy path test should assert receipt fields against the mock\u2019s charge response \u2014 e.g. receipt.charge_id == stripe_mock.last_charge.id, receipt.amount == params[:amount], receipt.status == \"succeeded\". Exact field names left to implementation."
},
{
"label": "B) Leave it to implementation",
"description": "Trust the implementer to define \u201ccorrect\u201d. Lower plan completeness; acceptable if the team has a shared definition of a valid receipt and won\u2019t write a nil-check and call it done."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D5 \u2014 Finding 2 (Section 5+6): \"correct receipt\" is underspecified in the happy path test. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-finding-2-correct-receipt>\n\nELI10: The plan says the happy path test should \"assert correct receipt is generated.\" But \"correct\" isn't defined. A test that just checks `receipt != nil` would pass this description and would also pass if the receipt had the wrong amount, wrong charge_id, or wrong status. The test would then give false confidence \u2014 it would pass in CI while the receipt is actually wrong.\n\nStakes if we pick wrong: A loose assertion on receipt correctness is low-value test coverage. A future bug that puts wrong data in the receipt would sail through CI.\n\nRecommendation: A because field-level assertions are what makes a correctness test actually test correctness. The plan should name at minimum: receipt.charge_id matches the Stripe mock's charge id, and receipt.amount matches the input charge params.\n\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.": "A) Add field-level assertion spec to the plan (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T07:51:50.237Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "62db3fe0-af3a-479e-8e23-d045cf3d8be6",
"toolUseId": "toolu_0148EaJFEcMSPAYQCEHZPJom",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D6 \u2014 What's next after this CEO review? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-next-steps>\n\nELI10: The CEO review is done. Two assertion spec gaps were caught and resolved. The plan is now ready for the Eng Review, which is the required gate before shipping. No UI scope was detected, so a design review is not needed.\n\nStakes if we pick wrong: skipping the eng review means shipping without an architecture + code quality pass. For test code this is lower risk than production code, but the eng review also validates that the test infrastructure is used correctly.\n\nRecommendation: A because eng review is the required shipping gate, and this plan is ready for it.",
"header": "Next step",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Run /plan-eng-review next (Recommended)",
"description": "Required gate. Validates architecture, test infrastructure usage, code quality, and that the 2-test plan will be implementable without hidden issues."
},
{
"label": "B) Skip \u2014 I\u2019ll handle reviews manually",
"description": "Proceed to implementation without the eng review. Lower confidence that the test infrastructure is wired correctly, but acceptable for low-risk test coverage work."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D6 \u2014 What's next after this CEO review? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-next-steps>\n\nELI10: The CEO review is done. Two assertion spec gaps were caught and resolved. The plan is now ready for the Eng Review, which is the required gate before shipping. No UI scope was detected, so a design review is not needed.\n\nStakes if we pick wrong: skipping the eng review means shipping without an architecture + code quality pass. For test code this is lower risk than production code, but the eng review also validates that the test infrastructure is used correctly.\n\nRecommendation: A because eng review is the required shipping gate, and this plan is ready for it.": "A) Run /plan-eng-review next (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T07:55:38.740Z"
}
],
"reportContent": "# CEO Review: Payment Processing \u2014 Test Coverage\n\n**Mode:** HOLD SCOPE\n**Approach:** A (minimal viable \u2014 exactly the 2 named tests)\n**Branch:** main\n\n## Context\n\n`processPayment()` is a critical revenue path with zero unit tests. The Stripe adapter suite covers network-layer failure modes (timeouts, 402, 429, 502\u2192success recovery). The gap is orchestration logic inside `processPayment()` itself: receipt assembly on success, retry wiring on failure. This review adds two unit tests using existing infrastructure (payment test factory, virtual sleeper) to close that gap.\n\n---\n\n## Amended Plan\n\n### Test 1 \u2014 Happy Path\n\n**Trigger:** successful Stripe charge\n\n**Setup:**\n- Use payment test factory (configured with valid charge params)\n- Stripe mock returns a successful charge response\n\n**Assertions:**\n- `receipt.charge_id == stripe_mock.last_charge.id`\n- `receipt.amount == params[:amount]`\n- `receipt.status == \"succeeded\"` (or equivalent success indicator)\n- Receipt-builder was called exactly once\n\n**Rationale for field-level assertions:** \"correct receipt\" as a nil-check has no defensive value. A bug that produces a receipt with wrong charge_id or wrong amount would pass. These three fields constitute minimum correctness.\n\n### Test 2 \u2014 502 Error Path\n\n**Trigger:** Stripe returns 502 on both attempts (max_retries=1 \u2192 exactly two charge attempts)\n\n**Setup:**\n- Use payment test factory (max_retries=1, Stripe mock configured to return 502 on all calls)\n- Virtual sleeper injected (records backoff delay, no real wait)\n\n**Assertions:**\n- `stripe_mock.calls.count == 2` (retry fired exactly once)\n- Failure mode: assert the error contract \u2014 either:\n - `expect { processPayment(params) }.to raise_error(PaymentError)` (or the project-specific exception class), OR\n - if processPayment() returns an error object: assert `result.success? == false` and `result.receipt == nil`\n- No receipt is emitted (receipt-builder not called, or result carries no receipt)\n\n**Rationale for failure assertion:** \"fails clean\" is not an assertion. Without specifying the error contract, the test cannot distinguish a function that raises correctly from one that silently swallows the error and returns nil.\n\n---\n\n## Required Outputs\n\n### NOT in Scope\n\n- Nil/zero amount guard at processPayment() level \u2014 the adapter suite covers this; no evidence of a gap at the orchestration level\n- Idempotency-key collision test \u2014 out of scope per HOLD SCOPE mode\n- Concurrent call behavior \u2014 out of scope\n- Property-based testing for charge params \u2014 out of scope\n- Backoff interval assertion via virtual sleeper \u2014 the plan asserts retry count (2 calls); whether to additionally assert sleeper.recorded_delays.count == 1 is left to implementation discretion\n\n### What Already Exists\n\n| Sub-problem | Existing coverage | Reused? |\n|---|---|---|\n| Network timeouts | Stripe adapter suite | Yes (retained) |\n| Card declines (402) | Stripe adapter suite | Yes (retained) |\n| Rate limits (429) | Stripe adapter suite | Yes (retained) |\n| 502\u2192success recovery | Stripe adapter suite | Yes (retained) |\n| Receipt-builder failure | Receipt-builder regression tests | Yes (retained) |\n| Test factory setup | Payment test factory (max_retries=1, mock call history) | Yes (new tests use it) |\n| Virtual sleeper | Existing virtual sleeper | Yes (new 502 test uses it) |\n\n### Dream State Delta\n\n```\nCURRENT STATE THIS PLAN 12-MONTH IDEAL\nprocessPayment() --> +2 unit tests: --> Full unit coverage:\nzero unit tests happy path (receipt happy/sad/nil/idempotency/\n field assertions) + concurrent + property-based\n 502 retry (failure for charge params + mutation\n contract assertion) testing targets\n```\n\nThis plan moves from zero to the two most critical correctness checks. The 12-month ideal would add orchestration-level edge cases; that work is deferred (no evidenced gap now).\n\n---\n\n## Error & Rescue Registry (Section 2)\n\n| Method/codepath | What can go wrong | Exception class | Rescued? | Rescue action | User sees |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| processPayment() \u2014 502 retries exhausted | Stripe returns 502 twice | PaymentError (or project equivalent) | Yes (retry logic) | Raise after max_retries | Error response to caller |\n\n*Note: the test must assert this rescue \u2014 the plan now specifies this (Finding 1 remedy).*\n\n---\n\n## Failure Modes Registry\n\n| Codepath | Failure mode | Rescued? | Test? | User sees | Logged? |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| processPayment() happy path | Stripe mock success | N/A | YES (Test 1) | Receipt | N/A |\n| processPayment() 502 \u00d7 2 | Retry exhausted | YES | YES (Test 2) | Error response | Per production code |\n| procLine truncated
"reportAtMs": 1788940503130.361,
"startedAtMs": 1788940023465,
"pendingExit": {
"sessionId": "62db3fe0-af3a-479e-8e23-d045cf3d8be6",
"toolUseId": "toolu_014FEdWvpJErR8gVHCLUgEhf",
"timestamp": "2026-09-09T07:56:06.298Z",
"failed": false
}
}
test/fixtures/ceo-completion-handoff-v-call.json
Vendored
-255
View File
@@ -1,255 +0,0 @@
{
"provenance": {
"case": "plan-ceo-review-1788943403619-u1Na4V",
"job": "job-4",
"counts": {
"step0Count": 3,
"reviewCount": 3,
"administrativeCount": 0
},
"snapshotAt": "2026-09-09T09:01:31.848146+00:00",
"capture": {
"skill": "plan-ceo-review",
"runId": "ship-source-v-full-paid-20260909-0842-4",
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-kDnq4b/tmp/gstack-plan-count-43k29x",
"claudeConfigDir": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-kDnq4b/tmp/gstack-hermetic-1359604-iZBO5z/with-skills/.claude",
"at": "2026-09-09T09:01:07.631Z"
},
"expected": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-kDnq4b/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-ceo-paired-tZmWta/gstack-test-plan-ceo-paired.md",
"reportMtimeNs": 1788944008054485123,
"reportMtimeMs": 1788944008054.4854,
"reportSha256": "259a3a842e82bf0488eb3f2253c57ab36c2aa5747d87b8bf6709c57882c457ec",
"reportBytes": 16646,
"nativeLastAt": "2026-09-09T08:55:12.022Z",
"latestAnswer": "2026-09-09T08:55:01.977Z"
},
"calls": [
{
"sessionId": "aeca06f9-ed8b-43fa-8d8a-8f9f253f8e85",
"toolUseId": "toolu_014KGxFMtuJiwvgKvcsvriqi",
"questions": [
{
"question": "gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules. Add them now? (Note: in plan mode this will be queued for after ExitPlanMode.)",
"header": "Routing Rules",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Add routing rules (Recommended)",
"description": "Appends gstack skill routing rules to CLAUDE.md and commits. Queued for after plan mode exits since files are locked during review."
},
{
"label": "Skip — invoke manually",
"description": "You can call skills by name. This prompt won't appear again for this project."
}
]
},
{
"question": "Should gstack search learnings from your other projects on this machine when reviewing?",
"header": "Learnings Scope",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Enable cross-project (Recommended)",
"description": "Searches learnings from all your local projects. Nothing leaves your machine. Best for solo developers."
},
{
"label": "Keep project-scoped only",
"description": "Only uses learnings from this project. Safer if you work across multiple client codebases."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules. Add them now? (Note: in plan mode this will be queued for after ExitPlanMode.)": "Add routing rules (Recommended)",
"Should gstack search learnings from your other projects on this machine when reviewing?": "Enable cross-project (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T08:45:31.855Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "aeca06f9-ed8b-43fa-8d8a-8f9f253f8e85",
"toolUseId": "toolu_0131426GXsU62DZp4kvF8Uy9",
"questions": [
{
"question": "No design doc found for this branch. Want to run /office-hours first to generate a structured problem statement and explored alternatives before the CEO review?",
"header": "Prerequisites",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Skip — proceed with review (Recommended)",
"description": "The plan in PLAN.md is already self-contained and specific. Proceed with standard CEO review directly."
},
{
"label": "Run /office-hours first",
"description": "Runs /office-hours to produce a design doc capturing problem framing, alternatives, and constraints. The CEO review picks up after. Takes ~10 minutes."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"No design doc found for this branch. Want to run /office-hours first to generate a structured problem statement and explored alternatives before the CEO review?": "Skip — proceed with review (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T08:45:55.416Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "aeca06f9-ed8b-43fa-8d8a-8f9f253f8e85",
"toolUseId": "toolu_016fynNQN4tmZxUj8Dp6woM2",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 — Which implementation approach for the processPayment() test coverage? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-approach-selection>",
"header": "Approach",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "B: Minimal + Assertion Depth (Recommended)",
"description": "Same 2 tests, but 'correct receipt' becomes named fields and 'fails clean' becomes a named exception or return sentinel. ~10 extra lines of assertion. Closes the spec ambiguity that Approach A leaves open. (human: ~45 min / CC: ~8 min)"
},
{
"label": "A: Minimal Viable (as written)",
"description": "Exactly the 2 tests named in the plan, using existing factory/mock/sleeper. Smallest possible diff. Leaves 'correct receipt' and 'fails clean' undefined — caller infers from code. (human: ~30 min / CC: ~5 min)"
},
{
"label": "C: Full Unit Matrix",
"description": "Parameterized test table across all Stripe error codes + receipt schema validation. Turns the test file into a living contract. More comprehensive but significantly larger than what the plan calls for. (human: ~2.5 hrs / CC: ~20 min)"
}
]
},
{
"question": "D2 — Which review mode? This plan adds tests to an existing function — not greenfield. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-mode-selection>",
"header": "Review Mode",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "HOLD SCOPE (Recommended)",
"description": "Plan scope is right. Review with maximum rigor — assert correctness, map error paths, verify the test assertions actually prove what they claim. No expansions surfaced."
},
{
"label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION",
"description": "Hold scope as baseline but surface each expansion opportunity (e.g. additional test cases, receipt field schema) individually for you to cherry-pick. Neutral recommendation posture."
},
{
"label": "SCOPE REDUCTION",
"description": "Find the absolute minimum test that ships value. Cut anything that isn't strictly necessary. Only use if you think the plan is overbuilt."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 — Which implementation approach for the processPayment() test coverage? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-approach-selection>": "B: Minimal + Assertion Depth (Recommended)",
"D2 — Which review mode? This plan adds tests to an existing function — not greenfield. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-mode-selection>": "HOLD SCOPE (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T08:47:33.171Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "aeca06f9-ed8b-43fa-8d8a-8f9f253f8e85",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01L8wHz4S8abL4BNy3wop9yV",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D3 — Section 6 Finding 1: The happy path test asserts 'correct receipt is generated' but doesn't name which receipt fields to verify. A test that only checks receipt != nil passes even if amount, currency, or charge_id are wrong — that's falsely green. How should the plan specify assertion depth? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-receipt-assertion>",
"header": "Receipt Fields",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Name specific fields (Recommended)",
"description": "Plan specifies at minimum: assert receipt.amount, receipt.currency, and receipt.charge_id match the mock charge input. Test fails if any field mismatches. Concrete and not brittle."
},
{
"label": "Assert full receipt fixture",
"description": "Assert the entire serialized receipt matches a known fixture hash. Maximum coverage, but breaks on any receipt schema change."
},
{
"label": "Leave to implementer",
"description": "The implementer knows the receipt schema and decides what fields to assert. Effectively reduces Approach B back to Approach A for this test."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D3 — Section 6 Finding 1: The happy path test asserts 'correct receipt is generated' but doesn't name which receipt fields to verify. A test that only checks receipt != nil passes even if amount, currency, or charge_id are wrong — that's falsely green. How should the plan specify assertion depth? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-receipt-assertion>": "Name specific fields (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T08:50:51.350Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "aeca06f9-ed8b-43fa-8d8a-8f9f253f8e85",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01TLkyv4VVMZD7LV48HEYmap",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D4 — Section 6 Finding 2: The 502 path says 'fails clean' but the plan doesn't define the observable outcome. A test that only verifies no crash occurred isn't testing graceful degradation. What should the plan specify? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-failure-mode>",
"header": "Failure Mode",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Exception + call count (Recommended)",
"description": "Plan specifies: assert processPayment() raises a named exception class on retry exhaustion AND assert stripe_mock.call_count == 2 AND virtual_sleeper recorded 1 backoff event. Exception-raising is the idiomatic failure contract."
},
{
"label": "Return sentinel + call count",
"description": "Plan specifies: assert processPayment() returns a failure sentinel (nil/false/error tuple) AND assert stripe_mock.call_count == 2 AND virtual_sleeper recorded 1 backoff event. Use if processPayment() uses return values instead of exceptions."
},
{
"label": "Call count only",
"description": "Assert stripe_mock.call_count == 2 and virtual_sleeper.backoff_count == 1. Verifies retry behavior but not the final failure mode. Weakest option."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D4 — Section 6 Finding 2: The 502 path says 'fails clean' but the plan doesn't define the observable outcome. A test that only verifies no crash occurred isn't testing graceful degradation. What should the plan specify? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-failure-mode>": "Exception + call count (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T08:51:01.381Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "aeca06f9-ed8b-43fa-8d8a-8f9f253f8e85",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01TJiq9DZhrqYEhvQGVMwFLd",
"questions": [
{
"question": "The CEO review is complete (0 critical gaps, 2 spec gaps resolved). Eng Review is the required shipping gate. What's next?",
"header": "Next Steps",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Run /plan-eng-review next (Recommended)",
"description": "Required gate before shipping. Covers architecture, code quality, tests, and performance. This is a test-only plan so eng review should be fast."
},
{
"label": "Skip — handle reviews manually",
"description": "You manage the eng review yourself. The dashboard will show NOT CLEARED until it runs."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"The CEO review is complete (0 critical gaps, 2 spec gaps resolved). Eng Review is the required shipping gate. What's next?": "Run /plan-eng-review next (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T08:55:01.977Z"
}
],
"planReadyRequests": [
{
"sessionId": "aeca06f9-ed8b-43fa-8d8a-8f9f253f8e85",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01C2PH5Gg2XYoKoWxQhx2CKt",
"timestamp": "2026-09-09T08:55:14.131Z",
"failed": false,
"source": "pre_tool_use"
}
],
"reportContent": "# CEO Plan Review: Payment Processing — Test Coverage\n\n**Reviewed by:** /plan-ceo-review | **Date:** 2026-09-09 | **Branch:** main | **Mode:** HOLD SCOPE | **Approach:** B (Minimal + Assertion Depth)\n\n---\n\n## Context\n\n`processPayment()` has zero unit tests. The plan adds two: a happy path (successful charge → receipt) and a 502 exhaustion path (retry once → clean failure). All tests reuse the existing payment test factory (max_retries=1, Stripe mock with call history, virtual sleeper). Production code is unchanged.\n\nThe gap is real: any refactor of `processPayment()` could silently break charge or retry behavior with no unit-level signal. Adapter-level tests exist but they validate the Stripe transport layer, not the application-level behavior of `processPayment()`.\n\n---\n\n## Step 0 Analysis\n\n### 0A — Premise Challenge\n\n**Is this the right problem?** Yes. Missing unit tests on a payment function is a genuine risk — not hypothetical. Adapter-level tests (network timeouts, card declines, rate limits) exist but validate the Stripe integration layer, not what `processPayment()` does with the result.\n\n**Most direct path?** Yes. Two targeted unit tests using the existing factory is the minimum correct approach.\n\n**What if we do nothing?** Any future refactor touches `processPayment()` blind. A silent receipt-generation regression or a missed retry wouldn't be caught until production.\n\n### 0B — Existing Code Leverage\n\nThe plan reuses everything available:\n- Payment test factory (max_retries=1, Stripe mock call history)\n- Virtual sleeper (backoff recording, no real delays)\n- Existing adapter suite (network timeouts, 402, 429, 502+recovery)\n- Receipt-builder regression tests\n\nNo parallel infrastructure needed. The 502+recovery adapter test covers the transient-502 case (one failure then success). The new unit test covers the exhausted-502 case (two failures, clean exit). These are distinct scenarios — not duplicates.\n\n### 0C — Dream State (12-month arc)\n\n```\n CURRENT STATE THIS PLAN 12-MONTH IDEAL\n processPayment() has ---> +happy path test --> Full unit matrix:\n zero unit tests +502 exhaustion test happy path (receipt fields)\n (adapter suite only) (Approach B: named fields all Stripe error codes\n + named exception) idempotency key behavior\n concurrent charge guard\n receipt field schema\n```\n\n### 0C-bis — Approach Selected\n\n**Approach B: Minimal + Assertion Depth** (user-approved)\n\nSame 2 tests as the plan, but with:\n- Happy path: assert `receipt.amount`, `receipt.currency`, `receipt.charge_id` match the mock charge input\n- 502 path: assert named exception class raised AND `stripe_mock.call_count == 2` AND `virtual_sleeper` recorded 1 backoff event\n\n---\n\n## Mode: HOLD SCOPE\n\nPlan scope accepted. Review with maximum rigor. No expansions surfaced.\n\n---\n\n## Section Review Results\n\n### Section 1: Architecture\n\nTest-only plan. No new production components.\n\n```\nTests (new)\n ├── payment_test_factory (existing) — max_retries=1\n │ ├── stripe_mock — records call history\n │ └── virtual_sleeper — records backoff, no real delays\n └── processPayment() [SUT, production code unchanged]\n ├── happy path: charge attempt → success → receipt generated\n └── 502 path: charge attempt → 502 → retry → 502 → named exception raised\n```\n\nNo new production coupling. Rollback: revert the PR (5/5 reversibility).\n\n**No findings.**\n\n### Section 2: Error & Rescue Map\n\nThe test plan covers existing behavior of `processPayment()`. Error/rescue map for the function under test:\n\n```\nMETHOD/CODEPATH | FAILURE MODE | TESTED BY\n----------------------|----------------------------|-----------------------------------------\nprocessPayment() | Stripe 502 (transient) | Adapter suite (502 → success coverage)\nprocessPayment() | Stripe 502 (exhausted) | NEW: 502 unit test (Approach B)\nprocessPayment() | Card decline (402) | Adapter suite\nprocessPayment() | Rate limit (429) | Adapter suite\nprocessPayment() | Network timeout | Adapter suite\nprocessPayment() | Receipt build failure | Separate regression tests\n```\n\n**No new gaps.** All failure modes covered between existing suites and the new tests.\n\n### Section 3: Security\n\nUnit tests, no new attack surface, no user input, no new secrets or dependencies. Stripe mock is used — no real payment credentials touched.\n\n**No findings.**\n\n### Section 4: Data Flow & Interaction Edge Cases\n\nDeterministic unit tests. No user interactiLine truncated
"screen": "\n Full review written to:\n /tmp/gstack-paid-shard-kDnq4b/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-ceo-paired-tZmWta/gstack-test-plan-ceo-paired.md\n\n GSTACK REVIEW REPORT\n\n ┌───────────┬─────────────────────┬────────────────────┬──────┬──────────────┬───────────────────────────────────┐\n │ Review │ Trigger │ Why │ Runs │ Status │ Findings │\n ├───────────┼─────────────────────┼────────────────────┼──────┼──────────────┼───────────────────────────────────┤\n │ CEO │ /plan-ceo-review │ Scope & strategy │ 1 │ issues_found │ mode: HOLD_SCOPE, 0 critical │\n │ Review │ │ │ │ │ gaps, 2 spec gaps resolved │\n ├───────────┼─────────────────────┼────────────────────┼──────┼──────────────┼───────────────────────────────────┤\n │ Outside │ disabled │ Independent 2nd │ 0 │ disabled │ codex_reviews=disabled │\n │ Review │ │ opinion │ │ │ │\n ├───────────┼─────────────────────┼────────────────────┼──────┼──────────────┼───────────────────────────────────┤\n │ Eng │ /plan-eng-review │ Architecture & │ 0 │ — │ — │\n │ Review │ │ tests (required) │ │ │ │\n ├───────────┼─────────────────────┼────────────────────┼──────┼──────────────┼───────────────────────────────────┤\n │ Design │ /plan-design-review │ UI/UX gaps │ 0 │ — │ — │\n │ Review │ │ │ │ │ │\n ├───────────┼─────────────────────┼────────────────────┼──────┼──────────────┼───────────────────────────────────┤\n │ DX Review │ /plan-devex-review │ Developer │ 0 │ — │ — │\n │ │ │ experience gaps │ │ │ │\n └───────────┴─────────────────────┴────────────────────┴──────┴──────────────┴───────────────────────────────────┘\n\n OUTSIDE COVERAGE: codex disabled (codex_reviews=disabled). No outside voice run.\n\n VERDICT: CEO review complete. Eng review required before shipping.\n\n NO UNRESOLVED DECISIONS\n╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌\n\n────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\n Claude has written up a plan and is ready to executLine truncated
}
test/fixtures/ceo-completion-handoff-w-call.json
Vendored
-252
View File
@@ -1,252 +0,0 @@
{
"provenance": {
"observation": ".context/ship-source-w-full-paid-20260909-0928/native-observer-closure-v1/attempt-final/plan-ceo-review-1788946756315-4sRoMx/observation.json",
"observationSha256": "946bb1cf1694c28cbb5bec96e7004247933b7f61f5fab39de84460243eeb45ed",
"reportProof": ".context/ship-source-w-full-paid-20260909-0928/ceo-retry-report-versions-v1/proof.json",
"reportProofSha256": "150520848c0d938fbd5b3f635ac4282e4a20efd10a0c3ebdc1b3a4e13261d8c6",
"reportSha256": "811397e1ae81671e0a32f08013f79e436a303d675f7e6c0924fdeff5a59d4c61",
"reportBytes": 21351,
"reportMtimeMs": null,
"rawCounts": {
"step0Count": 4,
"reviewCount": 3,
"administrativeCount": 0
},
"rawState": "in_progress",
"limits": "Original report mtime was not retained. Snapshot timestamps are not substituted for it. Unit freshness checks use an explicitly synthetic timestamp; W remains globally timed out."
},
"calls": [
{
"sessionId": "2bafbd5b-abe8-4b41-9872-3d8126188b94",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01DouqUfSF7pXo6AT4kdSq6S",
"questions": [
{
"question": "gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules \u2014 so the right skill gets invoked automatically. Add them to this project's CLAUDE.md?",
"header": "Routing rules",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Add routing rules (recommended)",
"description": "Appends a ## Skill routing section to CLAUDE.md. Note: this is a plan-review fixture repo, so you may prefer to skip."
},
{
"label": "No thanks, manual only",
"description": "Skips the update. You can re-enable with gstack-config set routing_declined true."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules \u2014 so the right skill gets invoked automatically. Add them to this project's CLAUDE.md?": "Add routing rules (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T09:40:40.622Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "2bafbd5b-abe8-4b41-9872-3d8126188b94",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01QM8FC4oqXEg3hKTFTBsTnf",
"questions": [
{
"question": "No design doc found for this branch. /office-hours produces a structured problem statement, premise challenge, and explored alternatives \u2014 it gives this review much sharper input. Want to run it first?",
"header": "Office hours?",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Skip \u2014 proceed with standard review (recommended)",
"description": "The plan is concise and well-scoped (two unit tests for processPayment). Standard review is sufficient here."
},
{
"label": "Run /office-hours first",
"description": "Takes ~10 min to produce a structured design doc, then we pick up the CEO review right after."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"No design doc found for this branch. /office-hours produces a structured problem statement, premise challenge, and explored alternatives \u2014 it gives this review much sharper input. Want to run it first?": "Skip \u2014 proceed with standard review (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T09:41:02.700Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "2bafbd5b-abe8-4b41-9872-3d8126188b94",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01TS918a5t4AZH9vHhUUPXDh",
"questions": [
{
"question": "Which implementation approach should guide this review?",
"header": "Approach",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A: Minimal \u2014 exactly as specified (recommended)",
"description": "Two unit tests only: happy path + 502. Reuses factory/sleeper/mock. Completeness 7/10. Smallest diff, matches plan's stated 'deliberately separate concerns' framing.",
"preview": "APPROACH A: Minimal viable\n Tests: 2 (happy path + 502 retry)\n Effort: S \u2014 human ~1h / CC ~5 min\n LOC: ~60\n Score: Completeness 7/10\n Reuses: factory, sleeper, Stripe mock"
},
{
"label": "B: Full processPayment() coverage",
"description": "The 2 specified tests + 402, 429, receipt-builder failure, idempotency under retry. Completeness 9/10. Catches more real bugs but wider diff.",
"preview": "APPROACH B: Full coverage\n Tests: 6-8 (happy + 502 + 402 + 429\n + builder failure + idempotency)\n Effort: M \u2014 human ~3-4h / CC ~15 min\n LOC: ~150-200\n Score: Completeness 9/10"
},
{
"label": "C: Table-driven / parametric",
"description": "Same breadth as B but expressed as a parametric test structure. Fewer LOC, easy to extend, but mixes correctness + degradation (contradicts plan's 'separate concerns' call).",
"preview": "APPROACH C: Table-driven\n Tests: 1 parametric covering 5+ cases\n Effort: S-M \u2014 human ~2h / CC ~10 min\n LOC: ~100\n Score: Completeness 9/10\n Risk: contradicts 'separate concerns' design"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"Which implementation approach should guide this review?": "A: Minimal \u2014 exactly as specified (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T09:42:19.517Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "2bafbd5b-abe8-4b41-9872-3d8126188b94",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01W2gJwyumADmyKD1cdjoRUh",
"questions": [
{
"question": "Which review mode should I run? (You chose Approach A: 2 unit tests, minimal scope.)",
"header": "Review mode",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "HOLD SCOPE \u2014 make the 2 tests bulletproof (recommended)",
"description": "Accept the plan's scope. Review with maximum rigor: assertion quality, edge cases within the 2 tests, observability, failure modes, mock setup correctness. No expansions surfaced."
},
{
"label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION \u2014 baseline + cherry-pick extras",
"description": "Review the 2 tests with rigor, then surface individual expansion opportunities (e.g. idempotency test, receipt-builder failure) for you to opt in or skip. Neutral recommendations."
},
{
"label": "SCOPE EXPANSION \u2014 dream bigger",
"description": "Envision the ambitious version: mutation testing, full processPayment() contract, integration test layer. Each proposal presented individually for your approval."
},
{
"label": "SCOPE REDUCTION \u2014 find the minimum",
"description": "Already minimal (2 tests) \u2014 only choose this if you think even fewer tests would suffice."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"Which review mode should I run? (You chose Approach A: 2 unit tests, minimal scope.)": "HOLD SCOPE \u2014 make the 2 tests bulletproof (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T09:42:35.584Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "2bafbd5b-abe8-4b41-9872-3d8126188b94",
"toolUseId": "toolu_015MLgtzrhpX8nh5hMiVPtAG",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D5 \u2014 What does processPayment() do when the 502 retry is exhausted? The plan says 'fails clean' but that's not a testable assertion. The 502 test must assert something specific.",
"header": "502 error contract",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Check production code \u2014 add exact exception to plan (recommended)",
"description": "Look at what processPayment() raises when Stripe retries exhaust. Add the specific class (e.g. PaymentGatewayError, Stripe::BadGateway) to the plan so the test asserts it precisely. Completeness: 10/10."
},
{
"label": "Raises an exception \u2014 document it in the plan",
"description": "The 502 test will assert `raise_error(SpecificErrorClass)`. Add the class name to the plan now. Completeness: 10/10."
},
{
"label": "Returns a sentinel (nil or Result.failure)",
"description": "The 502 test will assert nil return or Result.failure pattern. Add the expected return shape to the plan now. Completeness: 10/10."
},
{
"label": "Keep 'fails clean' \u2014 leave assertion to implementer",
"description": "Accepts the ambiguity. Developer figures out the contract from the code. Risk: test may only assert `raise_error` (catches any exception, including bugs). Completeness: 6/10."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D5 \u2014 What does processPayment() do when the 502 retry is exhausted? The plan says 'fails clean' but that's not a testable assertion. The 502 test must assert something specific.": "Check production code \u2014 add exact exception to plan (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T09:49:03.078Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "2bafbd5b-abe8-4b41-9872-3d8126188b94",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01WxzEVe9SLn16nwFDYgRHBZ",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D6 \u2014 What makes a receipt 'correct' in the happy-path test? The plan says 'assert correct receipt is generated' but doesn't say which fields to verify.",
"header": "Receipt assertion",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Assert receipt fields bound to mock charge data (recommended)",
"description": "Assert receipt.charge_id matches the Stripe mock's returned charge ID, receipt.amount matches, etc. Ties assertions to the factory's mock output \u2014 catches any mis-routing or wrong-charge bugs. Completeness: 10/10."
},
{
"label": "Assert receipt is non-nil only",
"description": "Simpler but weak \u2014 passes even if receipt has wrong charge_id or wrong amount. Completeness: 5/10."
},
{
"label": "Leave assertion definition to the implementer",
"description": "Developer decides what 'correct' means from the production code. Risk: test may only assert presence. Completeness: 6/10."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D6 \u2014 What makes a receipt 'correct' in the happy-path test? The plan says 'assert correct receipt is generated' but doesn't say which fields to verify.": "Assert receipt fields bound to mock charge data (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T09:49:13.122Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "2bafbd5b-abe8-4b41-9872-3d8126188b94",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01GHHxQzpHdBGoFtGqMRhFGt",
"questions": [
{
"question": "CEO review is CLEAR. Eng review is the required shipping gate \u2014 run it next?",
"header": "Next review",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Run /plan-eng-review (recommended)",
"description": "Architecture, code quality, tests, performance review. Required gate before shipping. This CEO review held scope and resolved 2 assertion gaps \u2014 eng review verifies the test structure is sound."
},
{
"label": "Skip \u2014 I'll handle reviews manually",
"description": "You manage the review pipeline yourself. Note: eng review is required to CLEAR for /ship."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"CEO review is CLEAR. Eng review is the required shipping gate \u2014 run it next?": "Run /plan-eng-review (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T09:52:10.256Z"
}
],
"planReadyRequests": [
{
"sessionId": "2bafbd5b-abe8-4b41-9872-3d8126188b94",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Smj246aCYcFRF8wQvHwz9a",
"timestamp": "2026-09-09T09:52:16.599Z",
"failed": false
}
],
"reportContent": "# CEO Review: Payment Processing \u2014 Test Coverage\n\n**Skill:** /plan-ceo-review | **Mode:** HOLD SCOPE | **Approach:** A (minimal, exactly as specified)\n**Branch:** main | **Date:** 2026-09-09\n\n---\n\n## Context\n\n`processPayment()` has zero unit tests. The existing test infrastructure (test factory, Stripe mock, virtual sleeper) is already in place. This plan adds two unit tests that cover the orchestration layer \u2014 not duplicating the adapter-level Stripe suite, but testing how `processPayment()` wires charge + receipt together.\n\n## Step 0 Summary\n\n**Premise:** Valid. `processPayment()` is a payment-critical path with no unit-level safety net.\n**Approach A selected:** 2 unit tests \u2014 happy path (charge \u2192 receipt) and 502 retry path.\n**Mode:** HOLD SCOPE \u2014 make these 2 tests bulletproof. No expansions surfaced.\n\n### 0A. Premise Challenge\nThe problem is real: `processPayment()` has no unit tests. The adapter suite covers Stripe responses in isolation; the receipt-builder failure tests cover one component; neither covers the orchestration. If `processPayment()` mis-routes a receipt after a charge, or silently succeeds on a 502, neither existing suite catches it.\n\nDoing nothing: next payment bug surfaces in production or is caught only if both the adapter and receipt-builder tests happen to cover the exact interaction \u2014 fragile.\n\n### 0B. Existing Code Leverage\nAll infrastructure is in place. The test factory injects:\n- Stripe mock (call history exposed)\n- Virtual sleeper (records backoff without real delays)\n- `max_retries=1` configuration (exhausted 502 = exactly 2 charge attempts)\n\nNo rebuilding needed. The plan correctly reuses all of it.\n\n### 0C. Dream State\n```\nCURRENT STATE THIS PLAN 12-MONTH IDEAL\nprocessPayment() has 0 Add happy-path test + Full processPayment()\nunit tests. Adapter suite Add 502 retry test. contract: happy, 4xx,\ncovers Stripe isolation. Reuse factory/sleeper/ 502, idempotency,\nReceipt-builder tests mock. ~2 tests, ~60 LOC. receipt-builder\nexist separately. failure propagation.\n```\n\n---\n\n## Section 1: Architecture Review\n\n**No issues.** This is a test-only change \u2014 no new production components, no new coupling, no rollback required.\n\nTest architecture:\n```\n [Payment Test Factory]\n \u251c\u2500\u2500 max_retries=1\n \u251c\u2500\u2500 Virtual Sleeper\n \u2514\u2500\u2500 Stripe Mock (call history)\n \u2502\n \u25bc\n processPayment()\n \u2502\n \u250c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2510\n \u2502 (happy path) (502 path) \u2502\n \u25bc \u25bc \u2502\n Stripe OK Stripe 502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u25bc \u25bc \u2502\n Receipt retry (\u00d71) \u2502\n Builder \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 Stripe 502 \u2502\n \u25bc \u2502 \u2502\n receipt fails \u2502\n clean \u2502\n \u2514\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500-\u2500\u2518\n```\n\nData flows for the 4 shadow paths are exercised within the 2 proposed tests:\n- Happy path: full success chain tested\n- Nil path: not tested (out of scope per Approach A \u2014 input validation is a separate concern)\n- Empty path: not tested (same)\n- Error path: 502 exhaustion tested\n\nNo security architecture changes. No new endpoints. No deployment risk.\n\n---\n\n## Section 2: Error & Rescue Map\n\n**FINDING [S2-1]:** \"fails clean\" is unspecified.\n\nThe 502 test plan says: _\"assert retry-with-backoff fires once, then fails clean.\"_\n\n`fails clean` is not a testable assertion without knowing processPayment()'s error contract:\n- Does it raise a specific exception? (e.g., `Stripe::BadGateway`, `PaymentGatewayError`)\n- Does it return a sentinel value? (nil, `Result.failure(...)`, an error struct)\n- Does the error carry context? (charge attempt count, last error code)\n\n**Why this matters:** A developer writing this test must assert something specific. Without knowing the expected error type/return value, the test can be written trivially and still \"pass\" the plan:\n```\n# Too weak \u2014 this just checks \"something was raised\":\nexpect { processPayment(payment) }.to raise_error\n```\nvs.\n```\n# Correct \u2014 this checks the exact error contract:\nexpect { processPayment(payment) }.to raise_error(PaymentGatewayError, /502/)\n```\n\nError & RLine truncated
}
test/fixtures/ceo-conditional-option-facts-c6fc.json
Vendored
-168
View File
@@ -1,168 +0,0 @@
{
"source": "c6fc33c5c375f0a9252a9aba5c256b21a8885db5",
"attempt": "plan-ceo-review-1789548755798-GQC8xC",
"originalError": "Unsupported current CEO decision; cannot exclude it from the 4\u20137 count: 0ec85e47-4a55-4dee-a0b8-87a82de80e78:toolu_019nggc7iDE1eUGaK8GVeAkA",
"provenance": [
{
"path": ".context/nouakchott-resume-validation/runtime-autoplan-close/executions/c6fc33c5c375f0a9252a9aba5c256b21a8885db5/all/run/public-retention/skill-e2e-plan-ceo-finding-count/plan-ceo-review-1789548755798-GQC8xC/latest-public-transcript.json",
"sha256": "16879af7e0e7ae5c613b18d34fe7cf5a7889b06f2863ce975d1f763df0afff13",
"bytes": 77977
},
{
"path": ".context/nouakchott-resume-validation/runtime-autoplan-close/executions/c6fc33c5c375f0a9252a9aba5c256b21a8885db5/all/run/public-retention/skill-e2e-plan-ceo-finding-count/plan-ceo-review-1789548755798-GQC8xC/public-events.ndjson",
"sha256": "d00899963a763a9c3a94a5e73f79e3daddd06856303d06c7ef23e1f281ce0c18",
"bytes": 78840
},
{
"path": ".context/nouakchott-resume-validation/runtime-autoplan-close/executions/c6fc33c5c375f0a9252a9aba5c256b21a8885db5/all/run/public-retention/skill-e2e-plan-ceo-finding-count/plan-ceo-review-1789548755798-GQC8xC/retained-files.ndjson",
"sha256": "8da9af2350a0cddd717097f7398ba2f842de2dfea42ac837f939bf8101387b10",
"bytes": 18530
},
{
"path": ".context/nouakchott-resume-validation/runtime-autoplan-close/executions/c6fc33c5c375f0a9252a9aba5c256b21a8885db5/all/run/phases/periodic-independent/shards/skill-e2e-plan-ceo-finding-count/pty-count/ship-all-c6fc33c5-382bba0e-abaa-491a-bd4b-4937554b8eae/plan-ceo-review-1789548755798-GQC8xC/observation.json",
"sha256": "9139b9aa1295f5fc7b2fc175f34432b754be8f814746746f123fd008337f8d74",
"bytes": 17914
},
{
"path": "test/helpers/ceo-payment-findings.ts",
"sha256": "1371583f8d6ae5a4c5864fb8db7e05266a04d37b04200ea2dde3623a1469a609",
"bytes": 67832
},
{
"path": "test/helpers/claude-pty-runner.ts",
"sha256": "3133cf09f36a2b3b4e44a27d87a6e93723bf1851bfabeff27347b946f5889e2f",
"bytes": 355826
},
{
"path": "test/skill-e2e-plan-ceo-finding-count.test.ts",
"sha256": "51cda277d613ecb2dbb6ed221401560f78b513d9d5815c45620acc0d9f654855",
"bytes": 21357
}
],
"seed": "Please review this plan thoroughly in HOLD SCOPE mode. As you go, write your plan-mode plan to /tmp/g-qii3emed/gstack-paid-shard-iSrUwo/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-ceo-shs0Xk/gstack-test-plan-ceo.md (use Edit/Write to that exact path).\nProceed directly to the requested CEO review; skip the optional /office-hours prerequisite.\nFinish after this CEO review; I will handle subsequent reviews manually.\n\n# Plan: Payment Processing Integration\n\n## Existing contracts retained\nThe approved motivation is to move payment orchestration out of the prior\nlibrary-adapter handler into application-owned code while retaining the\nexisting payment and receipt product behavior. The shared dispatcher remains\navailable; the proposed bypass below is still an architectural choice to review.\nThe existing ingress middleware verifies the Stripe signature against the\nraw request body and rejects invalid signatures before invoking handlers.\nThe existing ingress forwards only `payment_intent.succeeded` events to\nthis handler; other Stripe event types are acknowledged without invoking it.\nThe existing payload adapter exposes `event.data.object.metadata.user_id`\nas `request.params.userId`. This params object is the parsed body-data map,\nnot URL query/path parameters; all users share one webhook URL.\nThe adapter acknowledges missing, nil, or empty user_id metadata with\nHTTP 200 and an event-correlated warning before invoking this handler.\nFor every nonempty external string it performs no SQL-format validation.\nThe adapter forwards that external string unchanged. It does not cast,\nescape, or SQL-sanitize it; a valid signature does not make it safe for SQL.\nUser IDs are opaque TEXT values, including punctuation and Unicode. The\nlookup has no integer/UUID cast or ID-format restriction; every nonempty\nstring is a valid identifier representation.\nAn existing ingress ownership guard checks the PaymentIntent ID against\nits stored opaque user-ID binding before invoking the handler. A mismatch\nis acknowledged with HTTP 200 and an event-correlated warning. This is an\nidentity comparison, not SQL-format validation; the adapter still forwards\nthe original string unchanged.\nThe existing webhook event guard deduplicates deliveries by Stripe event ID,\nand an existing per-user lock serializes payment updates.\nThe event guard acquires the existing per-user lock before checking the\ncommitted completion marker, and rechecks after any lock wait. It holds\nthat lock through the handler and completion bookkeeping; an overlapping\ncompleted duplicate does not invoke the handler.\nThe new handler runs inside those unchanged guards; this plan does not\nreplace signature verification, event deduplication, or update locking.\nThe existing user update assigns payment_status=paid and the payment intent\nID; it does not increment a balance or counter. Repeating the same payment\nintent assigns the same values, independently of the event-ID guard.\nThe existing lookup-result guard acknowledges unknown/deleted users with\nHTTP 200, logs the event, and stops before user updates or email fan-out.\nThe retained recipient-policy helper treats a nil or empty email address as\nskipped_missing_address: payment processing continues normally, and no mail\nclient call is attempted. It persists an event/user/PaymentIntent-correlated\nskip record, emits a structured warning, and increments the existing counter.\nThe existing notification runbook already covers that skip result: correct\nthe account address, then retry only its recorded notification using the\nsame PaymentIntent idempotency key. It never replays the payment for this case.\nThat recipient policy does not catch failures from sends to nonempty addresses;\nthe shared mail client still rethrows those exceptions to this handler.\nAccount deletion uses the same per-user lock. The handler holds it from\nlookup through update and inline email, so deletion either precedes lookup\n(the existing unknown/deleted-user path) or follows the handler; it cannot\nremove the user between lookup and update.\nThe ingress wrapper already logs event IDs, outcomes, and durations, with\nalerts for failed webhook processing. Those controls remain in place.\nThe existing DB and mail clients attach the adapter user ID and event ID\nto outcome traces, including update success and email delivery success or\nfailure. These shared clients rethrow exceptions unchanged; tracing does\nnot rescue email errors or change the inline email call below.\nThe shared mail client also publishes its delivery failure rate to the\nexisting dashboard and tested on-call alert, including caught exceptions.\nThe existing incident runbook uses the correlated DB and mail outcomes to\ndistinguish committed payments from failed notifications. It directs on-call\nto check provider status and retry only the failed notification through the\nexisting notification retry procedure, never replay the payment blindly.\nDB lookup/update exceptionLine truncated
"captures": [
{
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "0ec85e47-4a55-4dee-a0b8-87a82de80e78",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Ddifun8k1gGmworhnQStvL",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 \u2014 Should the new handler bypass `WebhookDispatcher` or register through it?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count on main, reviewing PLAN.md (Payment Processing Integration) in HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: Every Stripe webhook enters one front door (the ingress guards), then a dispatcher picks the handler. The plan adds a new handler and wires it AROUND the dispatcher for \"clean namespace separation\". Namespace and routing are different things: the class can live in `Webhooks::` (already approved name) and still be registered with the dispatcher. Two routes into payment handling means two places to keep the flag, event filter and guards in sync, and this fixture cannot tell us whether any guard lives inside the dispatcher.\nStakes if we pick wrong: if a guard is dispatcher-resident, bypassing silently drops it for paid events; even if not, we carry two routing paths forever.\nRecommendation: A because the settled class name already gives namespace separation; the dispatcher gives one routing path and one flag location.\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=6/10, C=5/10\nNet: one door with a namespaced handler vs. a second door whose guard coverage we cannot yet prove.",
"header": "Dispatcher",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Register via dispatcher (recommended)",
"description": "Register Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler inside WebhookDispatcher. Effort S (human ~half day / CC ~10 min), risk low.\n\u2705 One routing path; ingress guards provably stay in front of the new handler\n\u2705 Feature flag and rollout trace attribution stay where they already live\n\u274c Touches dispatcher registration; separation is by namespace only, not by route"
},
{
"label": "B) Bypass dispatcher (as written)",
"description": "Wire the new class directly, skipping WebhookDispatcher. Effort S, risk medium-high until guard location is confirmed in code.\n\u2705 No dispatcher edit; matches the plan text and its stated separation goal\n\u2705 Handler can evolve independently of the dispatcher's conventions\n\u274c Second routing path to sync with flag and event filter; must prove in code that no guard lives in the dispatcher"
},
{
"label": "C) No new class; extend dispatcher",
"description": "Implement the payment path inside WebhookDispatcher itself. Effort S, risk low.\n\u2705 Smallest diff; every existing dispatcher test keeps covering the path\n\u2705 No new registration or flag wiring at all\n\u274c Contradicts the approved motivation (app-owned handler) and leaves the settled class name unused"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 \u2014 Should the new handler bypass `WebhookDispatcher` or register through it?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count on main, reviewing PLAN.md (Payment Processing Integration) in HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: Every Stripe webhook enters one front door (the ingress guards), then a dispatcher picks the handler. The plan adds a new handler and wires it AROUND the dispatcher for \"clean namespace separation\". Namespace and routing are different things: the class can live in `Webhooks::` (already approved name) and still be registered with the dispatcher. Two routes into payment handling means two places to keep the flag, event filter and guards in sync, and this fixture cannot tell us whether any guard lives inside the dispatcher.\nStakes if we pick wrong: if a guard is dispatcher-resident, bypassing silently drops it for paid events; even if not, we carry two routing paths forever.\nRecommendation: A because the settled class name already gives namespace separation; the dispatcher gives one routing path and one flag location.\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=6/10, C=5/10\nNet: one door with a namespaced handler vs. a second door whose guard coverage we cannot yet prove.": "A) Register via dispatcher (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-16T08:55:43.650Z"
},
"fingerprint": {
"signature": "0ec85e47-4a55-4dee-a0b8-87a82de80e78:toolu_01Ddifun8k1gGmworhnQStvL",
"promptSnippet": "Dispatcher D1 \u2014 Should the new handler bypass `WebhookDispatcher` or register through it? Project/branch/task: gstack-plan-count on main, reviewing PLAN.md (Payment Processing Integration) in HOLD SCOPE. ELI10: Every Stripe webhook enters o",
"options": [
{
"index": 1,
"label": "A) Register via dispatcher (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "B) Bypass dispatcher (as written)"
},
{
"index": 3,
"label": "C) No new class; extend dispatcher"
}
],
"observedAtMs": 222041,
"preReview": false,
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "0ec85e47-4a55-4dee-a0b8-87a82de80e78",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Ddifun8k1gGmworhnQStvL",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 \u2014 Should the new handler bypass `WebhookDispatcher` or register through it?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count on main, reviewing PLAN.md (Payment Processing Integration) in HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: Every Stripe webhook enters one front door (the ingress guards), then a dispatcher picks the handler. The plan adds a new handler and wires it AROUND the dispatcher for \"clean namespace separation\". Namespace and routing are different things: the class can live in `Webhooks::` (already approved name) and still be registered with the dispatcher. Two routes into payment handling means two places to keep the flag, event filter and guards in sync, and this fixture cannot tell us whether any guard lives inside the dispatcher.\nStakes if we pick wrong: if a guard is dispatcher-resident, bypassing silently drops it for paid events; even if not, we carry two routing paths forever.\nRecommendation: A because the settled class name already gives namespace separation; the dispatcher gives one routing path and one flag location.\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=6/10, C=5/10\nNet: one door with a namespaced handler vs. a second door whose guard coverage we cannot yet prove.",
"header": "Dispatcher",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Register via dispatcher (recommended)",
"description": "Register Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler inside WebhookDispatcher. Effort S (human ~half day / CC ~10 min), risk low.\n\u2705 One routing path; ingress guards provably stay in front of the new handler\n\u2705 Feature flag and rollout trace attribution stay where they already live\n\u274c Touches dispatcher registration; separation is by namespace only, not by route"
},
{
"label": "B) Bypass dispatcher (as written)",
"description": "Wire the new class directly, skipping WebhookDispatcher. Effort S, risk medium-high until guard location is confirmed in code.\n\u2705 No dispatcher edit; matches the plan text and its stated separation goal\n\u2705 Handler can evolve independently of the dispatcher's conventions\n\u274c Second routing path to sync with flag and event filter; must prove in code that no guard lives in the dispatcher"
},
{
"label": "C) No new class; extend dispatcher",
"description": "Implement the payment path inside WebhookDispatcher itself. Effort S, risk low.\n\u2705 Smallest diff; every existing dispatcher test keeps covering the path\n\u2705 No new registration or flag wiring at all\n\u274c Contradicts the approved motivation (app-owned handler) and leaves the settled class name unused"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 \u2014 Should the new handler bypass `WebhookDispatcher` or register through it?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count on main, reviewing PLAN.md (Payment Processing Integration) in HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: Every Stripe webhook enters one front door (the ingress guards), then a dispatcher picks the handler. The plan adds a new handler and wires it AROUND the dispatcher for \"clean namespace separation\". Namespace and routing are different things: the class can live in `Webhooks::` (already approved name) and still be registered with the dispatcher. Two routes into payment handling means two places to keep the flag, event filter and guards in sync, and this fixture cannot tell us whether any guard lives inside the dispatcher.\nStakes if we pick wrong: if a guard is dispatcher-resident, bypassing silently drops it for paid events; even if not, we carry two routing paths forever.\nRecommendation: A because the settled class name already gives namespace separation; the dispatcher gives one routing path and one flag location.\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=6/10, C=5/10\nNet: one door with a namespaced handler vs. a second door whose guard coverage we cannot yet prove.": "A) Register via dispatcher (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-16T08:55:43.650Z"
}
},
"observedAtMs": 293264,
"savedPlan": "# Plan: Payment Processing Integration (CEO review, HOLD SCOPE)\n\nReviewed plan: `PLAN.md` at repo root (commit 9fb3ee8). Branch: `main`. Base branch: `main` (git-native fallback; no remote).\nMode: HOLD SCOPE (explicit user instruction; no mode question asked). Working plan = this file.\n\n## Context\n\nThe approved motivation (PLAN.md:8-11) is to move payment orchestration out of the prior library-adapter handler into application-owned code while keeping the existing payment and receipt behavior. Every ingress guard stays: signature verification, `payment_intent.succeeded` filtering, event-ID dedup, per-user lock, ownership guard, unknown-user guard, recipient policy, mail idempotency key, feature flag + rollback. The review target is the handler body itself: the four short sections of PLAN.md:105-123 (Architecture, Database access, Webhook fan-out, Tests, Performance).\n\n## Pre-review system audit\n\n- Repo is a review fixture: `CLAUDE.md`, `PLAN.md`, one commit, no stash, no TODO/FIXME, no TODOS.md, no docs/. No design doc, no handoff note. Brain digests cold. Prior learnings: 0.\n- Retrospective check: single commit, nothing to compare.\n- Frontend/UI scope: none (server-side webhook handler). Section 11 = no-UI skip.\n- Landscape (WebSearch; Aside unavailable): Layer 1 = verify signature on raw body, dedupe by event.id, 2xx after commit, replay in staging. Layer 2 = same plus \"events row before business logic\". Layer 3 = this plan inherits all of that from unchanged ingress guards; residual risk is inside the handler body only.\n\n## Step 0\n\n### 0A. Premise Challenge\n1. Right problem? Yes. Owning orchestration in app code is the standard shape; the library-adapter handler is the thing being retired. No simpler framing beats \"new handler behind the existing flag\".\n2. Outcome: same product behavior (status=paid, one receipt per PaymentIntent) from app-owned code. The plan reaches it directly, but three of its four implementation sections introduce regressions that the retained contracts explicitly warn about (PLAN.md:21-26 on SQL, :52-53 and :96-97 on mail rethrow, :81-84 on the order loop).\n3. Do nothing: orchestration stays in the library adapter. Pain is real but not urgent; there is no deadline pressure that justifies shipping the handler with the defects below.\n\n### 0B. Existing Code Leverage (mapped from PLAN.md contracts; repo code not available in this fixture)\n| Sub-problem | Existing code | Plan reuses it? |\n|---|---|---|\n| Signature, event-type filter, dedup, per-user lock, ownership guard | ingress middleware + event guard (PLAN.md:12-39) | Yes (unchanged) |\n| Missing/empty user_id, unknown user | adapter + lookup-result guard (:19-20, :43-44) | Yes |\n| Handler routing | `WebhookDispatcher` (:10-11, :105-108) | **No: bypassed. Open decision D1.** |\n| User lookup by opaque TEXT id | existing lookup (:24-26); no cast/format restriction | **No: raw SQL fragment. D2.** |\n| Receipt send + idempotency + failure record | shared mail client + recipient-policy helper (:45-53, :85-91) | Yes, but exception handling left to handler. **D3.** |\n| Order summary loading | per-order fetch loop proposed (:122-123) | **N+1. D5.** |\n| Regression coverage | existing integration suite + manual staging replay (:76-80, :118-119) | **No handler tests. D4.** |\n\nRebuilding: the handler class itself is the intended rebuild. Bypassing `WebhookDispatcher` is the only place the plan rebuilds routing that already exists; the plan itself marks that open (PLAN.md:102-103).\n\n### 0C. Dream State Mapping\n```\n CURRENT STATE THIS PLAN 12-MONTH IDEAL\n library-adapter handler ---> app-owned Webhooks:: all Stripe event handlers are\n orchestrates payment; StripePaymentWebhookHandler app-owned classes registered\n ingress guards app-owned behind existing flag; guards through one dispatcher, each\n unchanged; handler body has with unit tests + fixture replay;\n raw SQL, coupled mail, N+1, no raw SQL anywhere in webhooks\n no tests\n```\nDirection: toward the ideal on ownership, away from it on routing (bypass), safety (raw SQL), and test coverage. The four decisions below turn \"toward\" into \"toward on every axis\" without widening scope.\n\n### 0E. Mode provenance\nExplicit user instruction: \"review this plan thoroughly in HOLD SCOPE mode\" \u2192 HOLD SCOPE. No question asked, no question log.\n\n### 0G. HOLD SCOPE checks\n1. Complexity: 1 new class, est. 2-4 files (handler, registration/flag wiring, tests, possibly a query helper). Under the 8-file / 2-class threshold. No challenge.\n2. Minimum changes for the goal: the handler class + flag wiring. Nothing in the plan is deferrable without blocking the goal; no defer/keep questions raised.\n3. Stated invarLine truncated
"savedSha256": "28b7e2c3d135aa9ec4cc123d7e42450612fd9da785921361a38f3752ddfd8bbb"
},
{
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "0ec85e47-4a55-4dee-a0b8-87a82de80e78",
"toolUseId": "toolu_019nggc7iDE1eUGaK8GVeAkA",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D2 \u2014 How does the handler look up the user from `request.params.userId`?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count on main, reviewing PLAN.md in HOLD SCOPE (D1 approved: register via dispatcher).\nELI10: The user ID arrives from Stripe metadata as any nonempty string, including quotes, semicolons and Unicode (PLAN.md:21-26). The plan pastes that string straight into a SQL fragment (PLAN.md:110-112). A valid Stripe signature proves Stripe sent it, not that whoever set the metadata was friendly. Anyone who can set `metadata.user_id` on a PaymentIntent controls part of a query running with the app's DB credentials. Every mainstream data layer already has a parameterized finder that makes this a non-issue.\nStakes if we pick wrong: SQL injection on the payment path (exfiltration or destruction with app DB credentials), plus a lookup that breaks on ordinary IDs containing quotes.\nRecommendation: A because the existing lookup already treats IDs as opaque TEXT with no cast; a bound-parameter finder is the smallest change that honors that contract and closes the injection.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=9/10\nNet: reuse the existing safe finder vs. maintain a second hand-written query that is safe only as long as nobody edits it carelessly. (Plain interpolation is not offered; PLAN.md:21-23 rules it out.)",
"header": "SQL lookup",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Existing parameterized finder (recommended)",
"description": "Use the existing ORM finder / lookup helper with userId as a bound value. Effort S (human ~1 hr / CC ~5 min), risk low.\n\u2705 Injection impossible by construction; same lookup the prior handler used, so opaque-TEXT semantics are preserved exactly\n\u2705 Nothing new to maintain; tests cover injection-shaped, Unicode, punctuation and unknown IDs\n\u274c If the prior helper is library-adapter-owned it needs a small extraction into app code"
},
{
"label": "B) Raw SQL with bind parameters",
"description": "Keep a raw query but pass userId via placeholder + args. Effort S (human ~1 hr / CC ~5 min), risk low-medium.\n\u2705 Injection closed; keeps the raw-SQL shape if there is an unstated reason for it\n\u2705 No dependency on extracting the prior lookup helper\n\u274c Second hand-written lookup for the same table that must match the ORM's TEXT comparison and be re-verified on every edit"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D2 \u2014 How does the handler look up the user from `request.params.userId`?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count on main, reviewing PLAN.md in HOLD SCOPE (D1 approved: register via dispatcher).\nELI10: The user ID arrives from Stripe metadata as any nonempty string, including quotes, semicolons and Unicode (PLAN.md:21-26). The plan pastes that string straight into a SQL fragment (PLAN.md:110-112). A valid Stripe signature proves Stripe sent it, not that whoever set the metadata was friendly. Anyone who can set `metadata.user_id` on a PaymentIntent controls part of a query running with the app's DB credentials. Every mainstream data layer already has a parameterized finder that makes this a non-issue.\nStakes if we pick wrong: SQL injection on the payment path (exfiltration or destruction with app DB credentials), plus a lookup that breaks on ordinary IDs containing quotes.\nRecommendation: A because the existing lookup already treats IDs as opaque TEXT with no cast; a bound-parameter finder is the smallest change that honors that contract and closes the injection.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=9/10\nNet: reuse the existing safe finder vs. maintain a second hand-written query that is safe only as long as nobody edits it carelessly. (Plain interpolation is not offered; PLAN.md:21-23 rules it out.)": "A) Existing parameterized finder (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-16T08:56:54.860Z"
},
"fingerprint": null,
"observedAtMs": 293264,
"savedPlan": "# Plan: Payment Processing Integration (CEO review, HOLD SCOPE)\n\nReviewed plan: `PLAN.md` at repo root (commit 9fb3ee8). Branch: `main`. Base branch: `main` (git-native fallback; no remote).\nMode: HOLD SCOPE (explicit user instruction; no mode question asked). Working plan = this file.\n\n## Context\n\nThe approved motivation (PLAN.md:8-11) is to move payment orchestration out of the prior library-adapter handler into application-owned code while keeping the existing payment and receipt behavior. Every ingress guard stays: signature verification, `payment_intent.succeeded` filtering, event-ID dedup, per-user lock, ownership guard, unknown-user guard, recipient policy, mail idempotency key, feature flag + rollback. The review target is the handler body itself: the four short sections of PLAN.md:105-123 (Architecture, Database access, Webhook fan-out, Tests, Performance).\n\n## Pre-review system audit\n\n- Repo is a review fixture: `CLAUDE.md`, `PLAN.md`, one commit, no stash, no TODO/FIXME, no TODOS.md, no docs/. No design doc, no handoff note. Brain digests cold. Prior learnings: 0.\n- Retrospective check: single commit, nothing to compare.\n- Frontend/UI scope: none (server-side webhook handler). Section 11 = no-UI skip.\n- Landscape (WebSearch; Aside unavailable): Layer 1 = verify signature on raw body, dedupe by event.id, 2xx after commit, replay in staging. Layer 2 = same plus \"events row before business logic\". Layer 3 = this plan inherits all of that from unchanged ingress guards; residual risk is inside the handler body only.\n\n## Step 0\n\n### 0A. Premise Challenge\n1. Right problem? Yes. Owning orchestration in app code is the standard shape; the library-adapter handler is the thing being retired. No simpler framing beats \"new handler behind the existing flag\".\n2. Outcome: same product behavior (status=paid, one receipt per PaymentIntent) from app-owned code. The plan reaches it directly, but three of its four implementation sections introduce regressions that the retained contracts explicitly warn about (PLAN.md:21-26 on SQL, :52-53 and :96-97 on mail rethrow, :81-84 on the order loop).\n3. Do nothing: orchestration stays in the library adapter. Pain is real but not urgent; there is no deadline pressure that justifies shipping the handler with the defects below.\n\n### 0B. Existing Code Leverage (mapped from PLAN.md contracts; repo code not available in this fixture)\n| Sub-problem | Existing code | Plan reuses it? |\n|---|---|---|\n| Signature, event-type filter, dedup, per-user lock, ownership guard | ingress middleware + event guard (PLAN.md:12-39) | Yes (unchanged) |\n| Missing/empty user_id, unknown user | adapter + lookup-result guard (:19-20, :43-44) | Yes |\n| Handler routing | `WebhookDispatcher` (:10-11, :105-108) | **No: bypassed. Open decision D1.** |\n| User lookup by opaque TEXT id | existing lookup (:24-26); no cast/format restriction | **No: raw SQL fragment. D2.** |\n| Receipt send + idempotency + failure record | shared mail client + recipient-policy helper (:45-53, :85-91) | Yes, but exception handling left to handler. **D3.** |\n| Order summary loading | per-order fetch loop proposed (:122-123) | **N+1. D5.** |\n| Regression coverage | existing integration suite + manual staging replay (:76-80, :118-119) | **No handler tests. D4.** |\n\nRebuilding: the handler class itself is the intended rebuild. Bypassing `WebhookDispatcher` is the only place the plan rebuilds routing that already exists; the plan itself marks that open (PLAN.md:102-103).\n\n### 0C. Dream State Mapping\n```\n CURRENT STATE THIS PLAN 12-MONTH IDEAL\n library-adapter handler ---> app-owned Webhooks:: all Stripe event handlers are\n orchestrates payment; StripePaymentWebhookHandler app-owned classes registered\n ingress guards app-owned behind existing flag; guards through one dispatcher, each\n unchanged; handler body has with unit tests + fixture replay;\n raw SQL, coupled mail, N+1, no raw SQL anywhere in webhooks\n no tests\n```\nDirection: toward the ideal on ownership, away from it on routing (bypass), safety (raw SQL), and test coverage. The four decisions below turn \"toward\" into \"toward on every axis\" without widening scope.\n\n### 0E. Mode provenance\nExplicit user instruction: \"review this plan thoroughly in HOLD SCOPE mode\" \u2192 HOLD SCOPE. No question asked, no question log.\n\n### 0G. HOLD SCOPE checks\n1. Complexity: 1 new class, est. 2-4 files (handler, registration/flag wiring, tests, possibly a query helper). Under the 8-file / 2-class threshold. No challenge.\n2. Minimum changes for the goal: the handler class + flag wiring. Nothing in the plan is deferrable without blocking the goal; no defer/keep questions raised.\n3. Stated invarLine truncated
"savedSha256": "2269caae115a2b93cf4f544c4a867cd9b01b0061c21bdf6f5b8ffb9302313c37"
}
]
}
test/fixtures/ceo-contract-assertions-ag-retry.json
Vendored
-175
View File
@@ -1,175 +0,0 @@
{
"sourceHead": "8d8537e5d341cc9f3d186822f06efb245ec7b8fd",
"observedOutcome": "no_review_questions",
"observedReviewCount": 0,
"calls": [
{
"sessionId": "c191a3d0-0cb5-4b6e-a843-1299e8f38bc1",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01FvGteHSWL6xHhZLbYEwdPm",
"questions": [
{
"header": "Routing",
"question": "D1 \u2014 Add gstack skill routing rules to CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-hy44HE on main, CEO review of the payment test-coverage plan.\nELI10: gstack skills work best when the project's CLAUDE.md tells Claude which skill to reach for (bugs \u2192 /investigate, ship \u2192 /ship, and so on). Without it you invoke skills by hand every time. This is a one-time, per-project prompt.\nStakes if we pick wrong: pick A and you get a short routing block appended and committed to CLAUDE.md (after plan mode ends, since plan mode blocks edits right now); pick B and nothing changes and the prompt never returns.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules make later reviews and ships one command instead of a lookup.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Add routing rules (recommended)\n \u2705 Future sessions auto-route requests like 'review this diff' to the right gstack skill\n \u2705 One small committed block; teammates get the same routing when they clone\n \u274c Adds a chore commit to CLAUDE.md that must wait until this plan-mode review finishes\nB) No thanks, invoke skills manually\n \u2705 CLAUDE.md stays exactly as-is with no extra commit on this fixture repo\n \u2705 Prompt is suppressed for this project going forward via routing_declined\n \u274c Every gstack skill has to be typed by name for the life of the project\nNet: convenience for future sessions versus keeping this repo's CLAUDE.md untouched.",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Add routing rules (recommended)",
"description": "Append the skill routing section to CLAUDE.md and commit it once plan mode ends."
},
{
"label": "B) No thanks, manual",
"description": "Set routing_declined=true; invoke gstack skills by name. Re-enable later via gstack-config."
}
]
},
{
"header": "Learnings",
"question": "D2 \u2014 Enable cross-project learnings search?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-hy44HE on main, CEO review of the payment test-coverage plan.\nELI10: gstack records small lessons per project (pitfalls, command fixes). It can also search lessons from your other projects on this machine so a pattern learned elsewhere shows up here. Everything stays local; no data leaves the machine.\nStakes if we pick wrong: enable it on a machine holding multiple client codebases and one client's project quirks may surface in another's review; keep it scoped and you lose cross-pollination between your own repos.\nRecommendation: A because for a solo developer the extra recall is free and local.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)\n \u2705 Lessons from your other repos on this machine surface in this project's reviews\n \u2705 Purely local search; nothing is uploaded or shared outside the machine\n \u274c On a shared machine with multiple clients, unrelated project quirks can bleed across\nB) Keep learnings project-scoped\n \u2705 Strict isolation: only this project's own learnings ever appear here\n \u2705 Safe default when you work across client codebases that must not mix\n \u274c Patterns you already learned in a sibling repo have to be rediscovered here\nNet: broader recall versus strict per-project isolation.",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Enable cross-project (recommended)",
"description": "Set cross_project_learnings=true; search learnings across all local projects."
},
{
"label": "B) Project-scoped only",
"description": "Set cross_project_learnings=false; only this project's learnings are searched."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 \u2014 Add gstack skill routing rules to CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-hy44HE on main, CEO review of the payment test-coverage plan.\nELI10: gstack skills work best when the project's CLAUDE.md tells Claude which skill to reach for (bugs \u2192 /investigate, ship \u2192 /ship, and so on). Without it you invoke skills by hand every time. This is a one-time, per-project prompt.\nStakes if we pick wrong: pick A and you get a short routing block appended and committed to CLAUDE.md (after plan mode ends, since plan mode blocks edits right now); pick B and nothing changes and the prompt never returns.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules make later reviews and ships one command instead of a lookup.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Add routing rules (recommended)\n \u2705 Future sessions auto-route requests like 'review this diff' to the right gstack skill\n \u2705 One small committed block; teammates get the same routing when they clone\n \u274c Adds a chore commit to CLAUDE.md that must wait until this plan-mode review finishes\nB) No thanks, invoke skills manually\n \u2705 CLAUDE.md stays exactly as-is with no extra commit on this fixture repo\n \u2705 Prompt is suppressed for this project going forward via routing_declined\n \u274c Every gstack skill has to be typed by name for the life of the project\nNet: convenience for future sessions versus keeping this repo's CLAUDE.md untouched.": "A) Add routing rules (recommended)",
"D2 \u2014 Enable cross-project learnings search?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-hy44HE on main, CEO review of the payment test-coverage plan.\nELI10: gstack records small lessons per project (pitfalls, command fixes). It can also search lessons from your other projects on this machine so a pattern learned elsewhere shows up here. Everything stays local; no data leaves the machine.\nStakes if we pick wrong: enable it on a machine holding multiple client codebases and one client's project quirks may surface in another's review; keep it scoped and you lose cross-pollination between your own repos.\nRecommendation: A because for a solo developer the extra recall is free and local.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)\n \u2705 Lessons from your other repos on this machine surface in this project's reviews\n \u2705 Purely local search; nothing is uploaded or shared outside the machine\n \u274c On a shared machine with multiple clients, unrelated project quirks can bleed across\nB) Keep learnings project-scoped\n \u2705 Strict isolation: only this project's own learnings ever appear here\n \u2705 Safe default when you work across client codebases that must not mix\n \u274c Patterns you already learned in a sibling repo have to be rediscovered here\nNet: broader recall versus strict per-project isolation.": "A) Enable cross-project (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T01:56:40.340Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "c191a3d0-0cb5-4b6e-a843-1299e8f38bc1",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01TnZyN2iBDdvyhRQe1FtPEq",
"questions": [
{
"header": "Approach",
"question": "D3 \u2014 Which implementation structure for the two new processPayment tests?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-hy44HE on main, HOLD SCOPE CEO review of the payment test-coverage plan.\nELI10: We are adding two tests to an existing suite. The only real structural question is whether the checks live inline in each test, or whether we first add small reusable assertion helpers to the shared payment test factory. Assertion content (what each test actually checks) is decided separately, finding by finding, later in the review.\nStakes if we pick wrong: over-abstract and we touch a shared factory for two call sites; under-abstract and a future third retry test copies the attempt/backoff checks.\nRecommendation: A because two call sites do not justify a shared helper yet, and A keeps the diff to tests only, matching the plan's 'production and factory unchanged' framing (engineered enough, right-sized diff).\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=10/10, C=4/10\nPros / cons:\nA) Inline tests in existing processPayment suite (recommended) (human: ~30 min / CC: ~3 min)\n \u2705 Smallest diff: two `it` blocks using the factory, mock history and sleeper directly\n \u2705 Every stated contract can be asserted inline with no new abstraction to maintain\n \u274c A third retry-shaped test later would repeat the attempt-count and backoff checks\nB) Inline tests plus shared helpers in the factory (human: ~1 h / CC: ~6 min)\n \u2705 expectReceipt/expectRetryExhausted give one home for 'attempts vs retries' semantics\n \u2705 Existing 502-recovery test could adopt the same helper later for consistency\n \u274c Changes the shared factory other suites import, widening a 'tests only' change\nC) Place the tests in the Stripe adapter suite (human: ~30 min / CC: ~3 min)\n \u2705 Sits next to the existing 502-recovery and 429 tests for discoverability\n \u2705 Reuses the adapter suite's mock arrangement helpers directly\n \u274c Wrong layer: the adapter cannot observe receipt assembly or PaymentUnavailable, so the caller's contracts stay unpinned\nNet: A pins the contracts with the least surface; B buys reuse we do not need yet; C loses the caller-level coverage the plan exists to add.",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Inline in processPayment suite (recommended)",
"description": "Two it blocks, factory/mock/sleeper used directly, assertions inline. Tests-only diff."
},
{
"label": "B) Inline + factory helpers",
"description": "Add expectReceipt and expectRetryExhausted helpers to the payment test factory; tests call them."
},
{
"label": "C) Stripe adapter suite",
"description": "Add the tests alongside adapter tests. Loses caller-level observation of receipt and PaymentUnavailable."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D3 \u2014 Which implementation structure for the two new processPayment tests?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-hy44HE on main, HOLD SCOPE CEO review of the payment test-coverage plan.\nELI10: We are adding two tests to an existing suite. The only real structural question is whether the checks live inline in each test, or whether we first add small reusable assertion helpers to the shared payment test factory. Assertion content (what each test actually checks) is decided separately, finding by finding, later in the review.\nStakes if we pick wrong: over-abstract and we touch a shared factory for two call sites; under-abstract and a future third retry test copies the attempt/backoff checks.\nRecommendation: A because two call sites do not justify a shared helper yet, and A keeps the diff to tests only, matching the plan's 'production and factory unchanged' framing (engineered enough, right-sized diff).\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=10/10, C=4/10\nPros / cons:\nA) Inline tests in existing processPayment suite (recommended) (human: ~30 min / CC: ~3 min)\n \u2705 Smallest diff: two `it` blocks using the factory, mock history and sleeper directly\n \u2705 Every stated contract can be asserted inline with no new abstraction to maintain\n \u274c A third retry-shaped test later would repeat the attempt-count and backoff checks\nB) Inline tests plus shared helpers in the factory (human: ~1 h / CC: ~6 min)\n \u2705 expectReceipt/expectRetryExhausted give one home for 'attempts vs retries' semantics\n \u2705 Existing 502-recovery test could adopt the same helper later for consistency\n \u274c Changes the shared factory other suites import, widening a 'tests only' change\nC) Place the tests in the Stripe adapter suite (human: ~30 min / CC: ~3 min)\n \u2705 Sits next to the existing 502-recovery and 429 tests for discoverability\n \u2705 Reuses the adapter suite's mock arrangement helpers directly\n \u274c Wrong layer: the adapter cannot observe receipt assembly or PaymentUnavailable, so the caller's contracts stay unpinned\nNet: A pins the contracts with the least surface; B buys reuse we do not need yet; C loses the caller-level coverage the plan exists to add.": "A) Inline in processPayment suite (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T01:58:23.098Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "c191a3d0-0cb5-4b6e-a843-1299e8f38bc1",
"toolUseId": "toolu_014sQPk2u6cRqzr7L6nnZJok",
"questions": [
{
"header": "Finding 1",
"question": "D4 \u2014 Test 1 asserts only that the receipt is truthy, but the contract is an exact receipt. Fix the assertion?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-hy44HE on main, HOLD SCOPE CEO review; PLAN.md lines 30-32 vs the contract on lines 18-21.\nELI10: The plan says a 1000-cent USD charge must return exactly { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }. The proposed test only checks that some receipt came back. A receipt with amountCents 100000, currency \"usd\", or chargeId undefined would pass. That is a silent failure: the test is green while the customer is charged or shown the wrong amount.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a regression in receipt assembly (wrong amount, wrong currency, missing charge id) ships with a passing suite and is found by a customer or by finance reconciliation.\nRecommendation: 1A because the plan already states the exact expected value; translating it into a deep-equality assertion is the only assertion that rejects a wrong result (zero silent failures, well-tested code is non-negotiable).\nCompleteness: 1A=10/10, 1B=7/10, 1C=2/10\nPros / cons:\n1A) Deep-equal the whole receipt (recommended) (human: ~5 min / CC: <1 min)\n \u2705 Rejects wrong amount, wrong currency, wrong or missing chargeId, and extra keys in one assertion\n \u2705 Failure output shows the full expected-vs-actual diff, so the regression is diagnosable from CI alone\n \u274c If the receipt legitimately gains a field later, this test must be updated (that is the point)\n1B) Assert the three fields individually, ignore extra keys (human: ~5 min / CC: <1 min)\n \u2705 Still rejects a wrong amount, currency or chargeId\n \u2705 Tolerates additive fields on the receipt without touching this test\n \u274c Lets an unexpected extra key (for example a leaked raw Stripe object) pass unnoticed\n1C) Keep truthy-only as planned (human: 0 / CC: 0)\n \u2705 Smallest possible test body\n \u2705 Cannot flake on receipt shape changes\n \u274c Accepts any non-null value, so it cannot detect a single receipt regression the plan claims to cover\nNet: 1A turns the plan's stated contract into the test; 1C leaves the contract stated but unenforced.",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "1A) Deep-equal receipt (recommended)",
"description": "expect(receipt).toEqual({ chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }). Strict value match."
},
{
"label": "1B) Assert three fields",
"description": "Check chargeId, amountCents, currency individually; allow additional keys on the receipt."
},
{
"label": "1C) Keep truthy-only",
"description": "Leave the plan as written. Receipt contract stays stated but not enforced by the test."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D4 \u2014 Test 1 asserts only that the receipt is truthy, but the contract is an exact receipt. Fix the assertion?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-hy44HE on main, HOLD SCOPE CEO review; PLAN.md lines 30-32 vs the contract on lines 18-21.\nELI10: The plan says a 1000-cent USD charge must return exactly { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }. The proposed test only checks that some receipt came back. A receipt with amountCents 100000, currency \"usd\", or chargeId undefined would pass. That is a silent failure: the test is green while the customer is charged or shown the wrong amount.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a regression in receipt assembly (wrong amount, wrong currency, missing charge id) ships with a passing suite and is found by a customer or by finance reconciliation.\nRecommendation: 1A because the plan already states the exact expected value; translating it into a deep-equality assertion is the only assertion that rejects a wrong result (zero silent failures, well-tested code is non-negotiable).\nCompleteness: 1A=10/10, 1B=7/10, 1C=2/10\nPros / cons:\n1A) Deep-equal the whole receipt (recommended) (human: ~5 min / CC: <1 min)\n \u2705 Rejects wrong amount, wrong currency, wrong or missing chargeId, and extra keys in one assertion\n \u2705 Failure output shows the full expected-vs-actual diff, so the regression is diagnosable from CI alone\n \u274c If the receipt legitimately gains a field later, this test must be updated (that is the point)\n1B) Assert the three fields individually, ignore extra keys (human: ~5 min / CC: <1 min)\n \u2705 Still rejects a wrong amount, currency or chargeId\n \u2705 Tolerates additive fields on the receipt without touching this test\n \u274c Lets an unexpected extra key (for example a leaked raw Stripe object) pass unnoticed\n1C) Keep truthy-only as planned (human: 0 / CC: 0)\n \u2705 Smallest possible test body\n \u2705 Cannot flake on receipt shape changes\n \u274c Accepts any non-null value, so it cannot detect a single receipt regression the plan claims to cover\nNet: 1A turns the plan's stated contract into the test; 1C leaves the contract stated but unenforced.": "1A) Deep-equal receipt (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T01:59:11.526Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "c191a3d0-0cb5-4b6e-a843-1299e8f38bc1",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Pe6mNvqVGsedqVtfhdTH38",
"questions": [
{
"header": "Finding 2",
"question": "D5 \u2014 Test 2 asserts only the PaymentUnavailable rejection, but the contract is exactly two attempts and one recorded 100 ms backoff. Fix the assertion?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-hy44HE on main, HOLD SCOPE CEO review; PLAN.md lines 33-36 vs the contract on lines 22-23.\nELI10: The plan says that with max_retries=1 and two 502s, processPayment must try Stripe exactly twice, wait once for 100 ms (recorded by the virtual sleeper, not actually slept), then reject with PaymentUnavailable. The proposed test only checks the rejection. Code that gives up after one attempt, or retries five times, or skips the backoff entirely, would still reject with PaymentUnavailable and the test would pass. The factory already exposes the mock call history and the sleeper record, so the checks cost one line each.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a retry regression (no retry, runaway retry hammering Stripe during an outage, or zero backoff) ships green; users see slower or spurious failures and Stripe sees a retry storm.\nRecommendation: 2A because the contract states exact counts, exact counts must not be weakened to lower bounds, and the probes already exist in the factory (zero silent failures, handle more edge cases).\nCompleteness: 2A=10/10, 2B=6/10, 2C=2/10\nPros / cons:\n2A) Assert rejection type + exactly 2 mock calls + sleeper record equals [100] (recommended) (human: ~10 min / CC: ~1 min)\n \u2705 Rejects under-retry, over-retry and missing or wrong backoff, each with a distinct failing line\n \u2705 Matching PaymentUnavailable by class (not message text) keeps the test stable if wording changes\n \u274c Depends on the sleeper record shape; implementer must read the factory to spell the exact expectation\n2B) Assert rejection type + exactly 2 mock calls, skip the sleeper check (human: ~5 min / CC: <1 min)\n \u2705 Catches under- and over-retry, the two most user-visible regressions\n \u2705 One fewer factory detail to depend on\n \u274c The stated 100 ms backoff stays unenforced; a zero-delay retry storm passes\n2C) Keep rejection-only as planned (human: 0 / CC: 0)\n \u2705 Smallest test body, no dependency on mock or sleeper internals\n \u2705 Still proves the terminal error class\n \u274c Cannot distinguish correct retry behaviour from no retry, runaway retry or no backoff\nNet: 2A enforces the whole stated retry contract with probes the factory already exposes; 2C proves only the last line of it.",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "2A) Type + 2 calls + [100] backoff (recommended)",
"description": "rejects.toBeInstanceOf(PaymentUnavailable); mock history length === 2; sleeper record deep-equals [100]."
},
{
"label": "2B) Type + 2 calls only",
"description": "Assert rejection class and exactly two Stripe attempts; leave the backoff record unchecked."
},
{
"label": "2C) Keep rejection-only",
"description": "Leave the plan as written. Attempt count and backoff stay stated but not enforced."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D5 \u2014 Test 2 asserts only the PaymentUnavailable rejection, but the contract is exactly two attempts and one recorded 100 ms backoff. Fix the assertion?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-hy44HE on main, HOLD SCOPE CEO review; PLAN.md lines 33-36 vs the contract on lines 22-23.\nELI10: The plan says that with max_retries=1 and two 502s, processPayment must try Stripe exactly twice, wait once for 100 ms (recorded by the virtual sleeper, not actually slept), then reject with PaymentUnavailable. The proposed test only checks the rejection. Code that gives up after one attempt, or retries five times, or skips the backoff entirely, would still reject with PaymentUnavailable and the test would pass. The factory already exposes the mock call history and the sleeper record, so the checks cost one line each.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a retry regression (no retry, runaway retry hammering Stripe during an outage, or zero backoff) ships green; users see slower or spurious failures and Stripe sees a retry storm.\nRecommendation: 2A because the contract states exact counts, exact counts must not be weakened to lower bounds, and the probes already exist in the factory (zero silent failures, handle more edge cases).\nCompleteness: 2A=10/10, 2B=6/10, 2C=2/10\nPros / cons:\n2A) Assert rejection type + exactly 2 mock calls + sleeper record equals [100] (recommended) (human: ~10 min / CC: ~1 min)\n \u2705 Rejects under-retry, over-retry and missing or wrong backoff, each with a distinct failing line\n \u2705 Matching PaymentUnavailable by class (not message text) keeps the test stable if wording changes\n \u274c Depends on the sleeper record shape; implementer must read the factory to spell the exact expectation\n2B) Assert rejection type + exactly 2 mock calls, skip the sleeper check (human: ~5 min / CC: <1 min)\n \u2705 Catches under- and over-retry, the two most user-visible regressions\n \u2705 One fewer factory detail to depend on\n \u274c The stated 100 ms backoff stays unenforced; a zero-delay retry storm passes\n2C) Keep rejection-only as planned (human: 0 / CC: 0)\n \u2705 Smallest test body, no dependency on mock or sleeper internals\n \u2705 Still proves the terminal error class\n \u274c Cannot distinguish correct retry behaviour from no retry, runaway retry or no backoff\nNet: 2A enforces the whole stated retry contract with probes the factory already exposes; 2C proves only the last line of it.": "2A) Type + 2 calls + [100] backoff (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T01:59:33.724Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "c191a3d0-0cb5-4b6e-a843-1299e8f38bc1",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01ED2c6H4JDQq9YjezDnNzfw",
"questions": [
{
"header": "Finding 3",
"question": "D6 \u2014 Section 6 (Tests): test 1 never checks how many times Stripe was charged on the success path. Add an exactly-one-attempt check?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-hy44HE on main, HOLD SCOPE CEO review; PLAN.md lines 30-32, hostile-QA pass on the success test.\nELI10: With 1A approved, test 1 proves the receipt is right. It still does not prove Stripe was charged once. If a retry-loop bug charged twice and returned the second receipt, the receipt would still equal { ch_paid, 1000, USD } and the test would pass while the customer is double-charged. The factory already exposes the mock call history and sleeper record, so the check is two lines: exactly one charge attempt, empty backoff record. This is beyond the plan's literally stated success contract, which is why it is a separate decision rather than folded into 1A.\nStakes if we pick wrong: add it and the test also guards the worst payment failure (double charge) for two lines; skip it and that failure mode relies on the adapter suite, which cannot observe processPayment's loop.\nRecommendation: 3A because a double charge is the highest-impact silent failure on a payment path and the probe is already in hand; it does not touch production code or add scope beyond the two planned tests (err toward handling more edge cases).\nCompleteness: 3A=10/10, 3B=7/10\nPros / cons:\n3A) Also assert exactly 1 Stripe call and an empty sleeper record (recommended) (human: ~5 min / CC: <1 min)\n \u2705 Rejects a double charge and any spurious backoff on the happy path, the two worst success-path regressions\n \u2705 Uses the same factory probes test 2 already relies on, so the two tests read symmetrically\n \u274c Goes one step past the plan's literal success contract; the plan text should record that the success path is single-attempt\n3B) Keep test 1 to the receipt assertion only (human: 0 / CC: 0)\n \u2705 Test 1 stays exactly the stated contract, nothing more\n \u2705 One fewer factory detail for the success test to depend on\n \u274c A retry-loop bug that charges twice and returns the second receipt passes this suite\nNet: two lines to close the double-charge hole versus keeping test 1 to the letter of the stated contract.",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "3A) Assert 1 call, empty backoff (recommended)",
"description": "In test 1 also expect mock history length === 1 and sleeper record toEqual([]). Record single-attempt success in the plan."
},
{
"label": "3B) Receipt assertion only",
"description": "Leave test 1 at 1A. Double-charge on the success path stays unguarded at the processPayment layer."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D6 \u2014 Section 6 (Tests): test 1 never checks how many times Stripe was charged on the success path. Add an exactly-one-attempt check?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-hy44HE on main, HOLD SCOPE CEO review; PLAN.md lines 30-32, hostile-QA pass on the success test.\nELI10: With 1A approved, test 1 proves the receipt is right. It still does not prove Stripe was charged once. If a retry-loop bug charged twice and returned the second receipt, the receipt would still equal { ch_paid, 1000, USD } and the test would pass while the customer is double-charged. The factory already exposes the mock call history and sleeper record, so the check is two lines: exactly one charge attempt, empty backoff record. This is beyond the plan's literally stated success contract, which is why it is a separate decision rather than folded into 1A.\nStakes if we pick wrong: add it and the test also guards the worst payment failure (double charge) for two lines; skip it and that failure mode relies on the adapter suite, which cannot observe processPayment's loop.\nRecommendation: 3A because a double charge is the highest-impact silent failure on a payment path and the probe is already in hand; it does not touch production code or add scope beyond the two planned tests (err toward handling more edge cases).\nCompleteness: 3A=10/10, 3B=7/10\nPros / cons:\n3A) Also assert exactly 1 Stripe call and an empty sleeper record (recommended) (human: ~5 min / CC: <1 min)\n \u2705 Rejects a double charge and any spurious backoff on the happy path, the two worst success-path regressions\n \u2705 Uses the same factory probes test 2 already relies on, so the two tests read symmetrically\n \u274c Goes one step past the plan's literal success contract; the plan text should record that the success path is single-attempt\n3B) Keep test 1 to the receipt assertion only (human: 0 / CC: 0)\n \u2705 Test 1 stays exactly the stated contract, nothing more\n \u2705 One fewer factory detail for the success test to depend on\n \u274c A retry-loop bug that charges twice and returns the second receipt passes this suite\nNet: two lines to close the double-charge hole versus keeping test 1 to the letter of the stated contract.": "3A) Assert 1 call, empty backoff (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T02:00:23.704Z"
}
]
}
test/fixtures/ceo-contract-assertions-ag.json
Vendored
-131
View File
@@ -1,131 +0,0 @@
{
"sourceHead": "8d8537e5d341cc9f3d186822f06efb245ec7b8fd",
"observedOutcome": "no_review_questions",
"observedReviewCount": 0,
"calls": [
{
"sessionId": "5311fa3e-a775-4865-840f-d11a8e890a23",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01NHQXhqHqGcPXE6LpoFSqDi",
"questions": [
{
"question": "gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules. Add them? (Note: plan mode is active, so the CLAUDE.md edit and commit would happen after this review exits plan mode.)",
"header": "Routing",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (recommended)",
"description": "Appends a '## Skill routing' section mapping request types to gstack skills, then commits it. One-time per project."
},
{
"label": "No thanks, I'll invoke skills manually",
"description": "Sets routing_declined=true in gstack config. Re-enable later via gstack-config set routing_declined false."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules. Add them? (Note: plan mode is active, so the CLAUDE.md edit and commit would happen after this review exits plan mode.)": "Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T01:48:03.927Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "5311fa3e-a775-4865-840f-d11a8e890a23",
"toolUseId": "toolu_011uiqpgBypMdzfSv8sRdqtz",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 \u2014 How should the two new processPayment tests be structured?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, adding two unit tests to the existing processPayment suite.\nELI10: We are adding two tests that pin down what processPayment already does. The only structural choice is where the tests live and whether we build any shared scaffolding for them. All options reuse the existing factory, Stripe mock and virtual sleeper; none touch production code. Assertion strength is reviewed separately in later sections, one finding at a time.\nStakes if we pick wrong: over-building scaffolding for two tests adds maintenance with no coverage gain; under-building is not a risk here since the factory already exists.\nRecommendation: A because it is the smallest diff that cleanly expresses the change and reuses the suite's existing setup (right-sized diff, DRY).\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: two inline tests versus premature shared fixtures for a two-test change.",
"header": "Approach",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Two inline tests in existing suite (recommended)",
"description": "Add two `it` blocks to the current processPayment suite, each arranging the Stripe mock via the existing factory. Effort: S (human ~1h / CC ~5min). Risk: Low. Reuses factory, mock, sleeper as-is. \u2705 Smallest diff, sits beside related tests, zero new abstractions. \u2705 Implementer needs no new helpers or files. \u274c Expected contract values are literals in the test rather than shared constants."
},
{
"label": "B) Shared contract fixture + two tests",
"description": "Extract a `chargeContract` fixture (expected receipt, expected attempts, expected backoff) reused by the processPayment suite and the Stripe adapter suite, then write the two tests against it. Effort: M (human ~3h / CC ~15min). Risk: Low-Med. \u2705 Contract values live once across suites. \u2705 Future contract tests slot in. \u274c Premature abstraction for two tests; touches the adapter suite the plan says stays as-is."
},
{
"label": "C) New dedicated contract spec file",
"description": "Create a separate processPayment.contract spec file with its own setup for the two tests. Effort: S-M (human ~2h / CC ~10min). Risk: Low. \u2705 Isolates contract tests from behavior tests. \u2705 Clear place for future contract cases. \u274c Duplicates the suite's factory setup and splits processPayment coverage across two files."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 \u2014 How should the two new processPayment tests be structured?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, adding two unit tests to the existing processPayment suite.\nELI10: We are adding two tests that pin down what processPayment already does. The only structural choice is where the tests live and whether we build any shared scaffolding for them. All options reuse the existing factory, Stripe mock and virtual sleeper; none touch production code. Assertion strength is reviewed separately in later sections, one finding at a time.\nStakes if we pick wrong: over-building scaffolding for two tests adds maintenance with no coverage gain; under-building is not a risk here since the factory already exists.\nRecommendation: A because it is the smallest diff that cleanly expresses the change and reuses the suite's existing setup (right-sized diff, DRY).\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: two inline tests versus premature shared fixtures for a two-test change.": "A) Two inline tests in existing suite (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T01:51:02.100Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "5311fa3e-a775-4865-840f-d11a8e890a23",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01M1ghsiVvKqEPyoBgXq7fhK",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D2 \u2014 Issue 1: test 2 (repeated 502) cannot detect retry or backoff regressions\nProject/branch/task: main branch, processPayment unit coverage, the repeated-502 test.\nELI10: The contract says: on two 502s, processPayment tries Stripe exactly twice, waits one recorded 100 ms between tries, then fails with PaymentUnavailable. The planned test only checks the final failure. A change that retries zero times, retries five times, or sleeps for 5 seconds still fails with PaymentUnavailable, so the test stays green while the contract is broken. The factory already exposes the mock call history and the sleeper record, so the missing checks are cheap.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a retry-budget or backoff regression on the payment path ships undetected; users see slower or double-charged-looking failures and the test suite says nothing.\nRecommendation: 1A because the plan states an exact count and an exact delay, and a test that cannot reject a wrong count is not coverage of that contract (well-tested code is non-negotiable; explicit over clever).\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=3/10\nNet: pin the whole stated contract now for a few extra lines, or keep a test that only proves the error class.",
"header": "Issue 1",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "1A) Assert error, exact 2 attempts, sleeper record [100] (recommended)",
"description": "Arrange two 502s with the mock configured to fail loudly on any third call; assert rejection is PaymentUnavailable; assert Stripe mock call history length is exactly 2; assert the virtual sleeper record is exactly one entry of 100 ms. Failure output names which of the three broke. Effort: human ~20min / CC ~2min. \u2705 Rejects zero-retry, over-retry and wrong-backoff regressions. \u2705 Uses only existing factory probes; no new helpers. \u274c A deliberate future change to the retry budget must update this test too."
},
{
"label": "1B) Assert error and exact 2 attempts only",
"description": "Add the call-history length check but leave the backoff delay unasserted. Effort: human ~10min / CC ~1min. \u2705 Catches retry-count regressions. \u2705 Slightly smaller test. \u274c A regression to 0 ms or 5000 ms backoff still passes; the stated 100 ms contract stays unguarded."
},
{
"label": "1C) Keep as planned: error class only",
"description": "Assert only that processPayment rejects with PaymentUnavailable. Effort: none. \u2705 Smallest possible test. \u2705 Still proves the terminal error class. \u274c Any retry or backoff regression passes; the plan's own stated contract for attempts and backoff has no coverage."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D2 \u2014 Issue 1: test 2 (repeated 502) cannot detect retry or backoff regressions\nProject/branch/task: main branch, processPayment unit coverage, the repeated-502 test.\nELI10: The contract says: on two 502s, processPayment tries Stripe exactly twice, waits one recorded 100 ms between tries, then fails with PaymentUnavailable. The planned test only checks the final failure. A change that retries zero times, retries five times, or sleeps for 5 seconds still fails with PaymentUnavailable, so the test stays green while the contract is broken. The factory already exposes the mock call history and the sleeper record, so the missing checks are cheap.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a retry-budget or backoff regression on the payment path ships undetected; users see slower or double-charged-looking failures and the test suite says nothing.\nRecommendation: 1A because the plan states an exact count and an exact delay, and a test that cannot reject a wrong count is not coverage of that contract (well-tested code is non-negotiable; explicit over clever).\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=3/10\nNet: pin the whole stated contract now for a few extra lines, or keep a test that only proves the error class.": "1A) Assert error, exact 2 attempts, sleeper record [100] (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T01:51:45.799Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "5311fa3e-a775-4865-840f-d11a8e890a23",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01PAebxxghdR9Thch3JtW4bu",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D3 \u2014 Issue 2: test 1 (successful charge) accepts any truthy value as a correct receipt\nProject/branch/task: main branch, processPayment unit coverage, the successful-charge test.\nELI10: The contract says a 1000-cent USD charge with Stripe id ch_paid returns exactly { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }. The planned test only checks that the result is truthy. An empty object, a receipt with chargeId undefined, amountCents 10.00, or currency \"usd\" all pass. The test would be green while every field in the stated contract is wrong.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a receipt-shape regression (wrong id, wrong amount, wrong currency) reaches customers and downstream accounting while the suite reports success.\nRecommendation: 2A because the plan already states the exact expected receipt, and a deep-equality assertion is the direct translation of that contract (well-tested code is non-negotiable; explicit over clever).\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=2/10\nNet: one deep-equality line that pins the whole receipt, versus a smoke check that proves almost nothing.",
"header": "Issue 2",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "2A) Deep-equal the full receipt (recommended)",
"description": "Assert the returned receipt deep-equals { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }. Rejects missing, extra, or wrong-typed fields and prints a field-level diff on failure. Effort: human ~10min / CC ~1min. \u2705 Every stated field and type is pinned in one assertion. \u2705 Extra unexpected fields are caught too. \u274c Adding a field to the receipt later requires updating this expectation."
},
{
"label": "2B) Assert the three fields individually",
"description": "Assert chargeId, amountCents and currency each equal the expected value; ignore any other fields. Effort: human ~10min / CC ~1min. \u2705 Pins all three stated values. \u2705 Tolerates additive receipt fields without test changes. \u274c An unexpected extra or renamed field on the receipt passes silently."
},
{
"label": "2C) Keep as planned: truthy only",
"description": "Assert only that the receipt is truthy. Effort: none. \u2705 Smallest possible test. \u2705 Proves the call resolves. \u274c Any wrong chargeId, amount, or currency passes; the plan's stated receipt contract has no coverage."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D3 \u2014 Issue 2: test 1 (successful charge) accepts any truthy value as a correct receipt\nProject/branch/task: main branch, processPayment unit coverage, the successful-charge test.\nELI10: The contract says a 1000-cent USD charge with Stripe id ch_paid returns exactly { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }. The planned test only checks that the result is truthy. An empty object, a receipt with chargeId undefined, amountCents 10.00, or currency \"usd\" all pass. The test would be green while every field in the stated contract is wrong.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a receipt-shape regression (wrong id, wrong amount, wrong currency) reaches customers and downstream accounting while the suite reports success.\nRecommendation: 2A because the plan already states the exact expected receipt, and a deep-equality assertion is the direct translation of that contract (well-tested code is non-negotiable; explicit over clever).\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=2/10\nNet: one deep-equality line that pins the whole receipt, versus a smoke check that proves almost nothing.": "2A) Deep-equal the full receipt (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T01:52:17.451Z"
}
]
}
test/fixtures/ceo-contract-question-an.json
Vendored
-191
View File
@@ -1,191 +0,0 @@
{
"fingerprints": [
{
"signature": "7d5b63b5-8f6d-4ca9-b2d8-a9b20517413d:toolu_01LpYSqjzqiWcQujEkCoMKrP",
"promptSnippet": "Routing D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md? Project/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-P5mc9W on main, reviewing PLAN.md (payment test coverage) in HOLD SCOPE. ELI10: gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md ",
"options": [
{
"index": 1,
"label": "A) Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "B) No thanks, I'll invoke skills manually"
}
],
"observedAtMs": 94378,
"preReview": true,
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "7d5b63b5-8f6d-4ca9-b2d8-a9b20517413d",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01LpYSqjzqiWcQujEkCoMKrP",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-P5mc9W on main, reviewing PLAN.md (payment test coverage) in HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules. These tell Claude which /skill to reach for when you say things like \"review this diff\" or \"ship it\", so you don't have to remember skill names. This is a one-time prompt per project.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Without the rules you invoke skills by hand; with them, a short section is appended to CLAUDE.md and committed. Either way the plan review itself is unaffected.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules make later reviews and ship steps one sentence away instead of a lookup.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: convenience for future sessions versus keeping CLAUDE.md untouched. Note we are in plan mode, so if you pick A the append and commit happen after this review exits plan mode.",
"header": "Routing",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Future requests like \"review this\" or \"ship it\" route straight to the right gstack skill without lookup.\n✅ One small committed section; teammates get the same routing when they clone the repo.\n❌ Adds a CLAUDE.md edit and a commit to a repo that currently only holds the plan fixture."
},
{
"label": "B) No thanks, I'll invoke skills manually",
"description": "✅ CLAUDE.md stays exactly as seeded; nothing is committed as a side effect of a review.\n✅ You can re-enable later with a single gstack-config command, so nothing is lost.\n❌ Every skill has to be invoked by explicit slash command in future sessions."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-P5mc9W on main, reviewing PLAN.md (payment test coverage) in HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules. These tell Claude which /skill to reach for when you say things like \"review this diff\" or \"ship it\", so you don't have to remember skill names. This is a one-time prompt per project.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Without the rules you invoke skills by hand; with them, a short section is appended to CLAUDE.md and committed. Either way the plan review itself is unaffected.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules make later reviews and ship steps one sentence away instead of a lookup.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: convenience for future sessions versus keeping CLAUDE.md untouched. Note we are in plan mode, so if you pick A the append and commit happen after this review exits plan mode.": "A) Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T10:43:34.313Z"
}
},
{
"signature": "7d5b63b5-8f6d-4ca9-b2d8-a9b20517413d:toolu_018e71SnREGZBdyiX5hYp77Y",
"promptSnippet": "Structure D2 — How should the two new processPayment tests be structured? Project/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-P5mc9W on main, PLAN.md adds two unit tests to the existing processPayment suite. ELI10: We are adding two tests: one for a goo",
"options": [
{
"index": 1,
"label": "A) Two explicit tests using the factory directly (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "B) Add a small shared arrange helper, then two tests"
},
{
"index": 3,
"label": "C) Table-driven contract test over scenarios"
}
],
"observedAtMs": 214428,
"preReview": true,
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "7d5b63b5-8f6d-4ca9-b2d8-a9b20517413d",
"toolUseId": "toolu_018e71SnREGZBdyiX5hYp77Y",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D2 — How should the two new processPayment tests be structured?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-P5mc9W on main, PLAN.md adds two unit tests to the existing processPayment suite.\nELI10: We are adding two tests: one for a good charge, one for Stripe failing twice. The question is only how to lay them out in the file, not what they check. Layout matters because the next person adding a third scenario copies whatever shape we pick.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too little structure means copy-paste arrange blocks later; too much means a helper layer nobody needs for two tests and one more place for a bug to hide.\nRecommendation: A because two tests do not justify a new abstraction, the factory is already the shared seam, and explicit arrange/act/assert per test is easiest to read in six months.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score. All three end up asserting the same behavior; assertion strength is decided separately in the next decisions.\nNet: readability of two explicit tests now versus a helper or table that only pays off once there are five or more scenarios.",
"header": "Structure",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Two explicit tests using the factory directly (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Smallest diff: two test cases in the existing suite, each with its own arrange/act/assert block (human: ~30 min / CC: ~3 min).\n✅ Reuses the existing factory, Stripe mock and virtual sleeper exactly as the plan states; nothing new to maintain.\n❌ A third scenario later repeats the arrange boilerplate until someone extracts a helper."
},
{
"label": "B) Add a small shared arrange helper, then two tests",
"description": "✅ A helper like arrangeStripe(responses) keeps each test body to three lines and is ready for more scenarios (human: ~1 h / CC: ~5 min).\n✅ Centralizes mock queueing so a future change to the mock API is a one-line fix.\n❌ Premature abstraction for two tests; the helper itself becomes untested indirection and hides the arrange step the reader most needs to see."
},
{
"label": "C) Table-driven contract test over scenarios",
"description": "✅ One parameterized test iterates {responses, expectedReceipt | expectedError, expectedAttempts, expectedBackoff}; adding a case is one row (human: ~1.5 h / CC: ~8 min).\n✅ Makes the retry-accounting expectations visible side by side across success and failure.\n❌ Two rows is a table nobody needs; failures report a row index instead of a named test, which hurts debuggability."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D2 — How should the two new processPayment tests be structured?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-P5mc9W on main, PLAN.md adds two unit tests to the existing processPayment suite.\nELI10: We are adding two tests: one for a good charge, one for Stripe failing twice. The question is only how to lay them out in the file, not what they check. Layout matters because the next person adding a third scenario copies whatever shape we pick.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too little structure means copy-paste arrange blocks later; too much means a helper layer nobody needs for two tests and one more place for a bug to hide.\nRecommendation: A because two tests do not justify a new abstraction, the factory is already the shared seam, and explicit arrange/act/assert per test is easiest to read in six months.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score. All three end up asserting the same behavior; assertion strength is decided separately in the next decisions.\nNet: readability of two explicit tests now versus a helper or table that only pays off once there are five or more scenarios.": "A) Two explicit tests using the factory directly (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T10:45:34.365Z"
}
},
{
"signature": "7d5b63b5-8f6d-4ca9-b2d8-a9b20517413d:toolu_018BfEojhYdXC5kNT9oVivsx",
"promptSnippet": "Test 1 assert D3 — Test 1 asserts only that the receipt is truthy. Should it assert the exact receipt the plan itself specifies? Project/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-P5mc9W on main, PLAN.md test 1 (successful charge). ELI10: The plan stat",
"options": [
{
"index": 1,
"label": "A) Assert deep equality with { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" } (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "B) Keep the truthy-only assertion as planned"
}
],
"observedAtMs": 234533,
"preReview": true,
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "7d5b63b5-8f6d-4ca9-b2d8-a9b20517413d",
"toolUseId": "toolu_018BfEojhYdXC5kNT9oVivsx",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D3 — Test 1 asserts only that the receipt is truthy. Should it assert the exact receipt the plan itself specifies?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-P5mc9W on main, PLAN.md test 1 (successful charge).\nELI10: The plan states the contract precisely: a 1000-cent USD charge returning id ch_paid must produce { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }. But the planned test only checks that something non-empty came back. A receipt with amountCents 100000, currency \"usd\", or chargeId undefined would all pass. The test cannot fail for the bugs it exists to catch.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A receipt-mapping regression (wrong amount, wrong currency, missing charge id) ships green, and customers see wrong numbers on receipts or support cannot match a Stripe charge.\nRecommendation: A because the plan's own 'Existing behavior retained' section is the acceptance criterion, a truthy check does not test it, and 'well-tested code is non-negotiable' means the assertion must be able to reject a wrong result.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=3/10\nNet: one deep-equality line versus a test that passes for any non-null value.",
"header": "Test 1 assert",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Assert deep equality with { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" } (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Rejects wrong amount, wrong currency, missing or altered chargeId, and any extra field leaking into the receipt; the test fails with a field-level diff naming exactly what drifted (human: ~5 min / CC: ~1 min).\n✅ Encodes the plan's stated contract verbatim, so the test doubles as documentation of the receipt shape.\n❌ If the receipt gains a legitimate new field later, this test must be updated alongside it."
},
{
"label": "B) Keep the truthy-only assertion as planned",
"description": "✅ Smallest possible test body; never needs updating when the receipt shape changes.\n✅ Still proves processPayment resolves rather than throws on the happy path.\n❌ Passes for a receipt with the wrong amount, wrong currency or no chargeId, so the stated contract stays untested and the test gives false confidence."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D3 — Test 1 asserts only that the receipt is truthy. Should it assert the exact receipt the plan itself specifies?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-P5mc9W on main, PLAN.md test 1 (successful charge).\nELI10: The plan states the contract precisely: a 1000-cent USD charge returning id ch_paid must produce { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }. But the planned test only checks that something non-empty came back. A receipt with amountCents 100000, currency \"usd\", or chargeId undefined would all pass. The test cannot fail for the bugs it exists to catch.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A receipt-mapping regression (wrong amount, wrong currency, missing charge id) ships green, and customers see wrong numbers on receipts or support cannot match a Stripe charge.\nRecommendation: A because the plan's own 'Existing behavior retained' section is the acceptance criterion, a truthy check does not test it, and 'well-tested code is non-negotiable' means the assertion must be able to reject a wrong result.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=3/10\nNet: one deep-equality line versus a test that passes for any non-null value.": "A) Assert deep equality with { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" } (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T10:45:54.479Z"
}
},
{
"signature": "7d5b63b5-8f6d-4ca9-b2d8-a9b20517413d:toolu_01QnobJ7AK1LMaARWydfTXH2",
"promptSnippet": "Test 2 assert D4 — Test 2 asserts only that processPayment rejects with PaymentUnavailable. Should it also assert the exact retry accounting the plan specifies (two attempts, one 100 ms backoff)? Project/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-P5mc9",
"options": [
{
"index": 1,
"label": "A) Assert rejection with PaymentUnavailable AND Stripe call history length exactly 2 AND sleeper record exactly [100] (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "B) Keep the rejection-only assertion as planned"
}
],
"observedAtMs": 252630,
"preReview": true,
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "7d5b63b5-8f6d-4ca9-b2d8-a9b20517413d",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01QnobJ7AK1LMaARWydfTXH2",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D4 — Test 2 asserts only that processPayment rejects with PaymentUnavailable. Should it also assert the exact retry accounting the plan specifies (two attempts, one 100 ms backoff)?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-P5mc9W on main, PLAN.md test 2 (repeated 502).\nELI10: The plan states that with max_retries=1, two 502s must mean exactly two charge attempts with exactly one recorded 100 ms backoff between them, then PaymentUnavailable. The planned test only checks the final error. A version of processPayment that never retries (one attempt), retries three times, or skips the backoff entirely would all still reject with PaymentUnavailable and pass. The factory already exposes the Stripe mock call history and the sleeper record, so the probes exist and are unused.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A retry-accounting regression ships green. Too many attempts means extra charge calls against a live processor during an outage; zero retries means transient 502s fail customers who should have recovered; a dropped backoff hammers Stripe during the exact moment it is struggling.\nRecommendation: A because the plan's own 'Existing behavior retained' section states exact counts, the review rules forbid weakening an exact count to a lower bound, and the probes are already injected so this is assertion work, not new infrastructure.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=3/10\nNet: three assertion lines using probes the factory already exposes versus a test that cannot distinguish 'retried once with backoff' from 'never retried' or 'retried forever'.",
"header": "Test 2 assert",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Assert rejection with PaymentUnavailable AND Stripe call history length exactly 2 AND sleeper record exactly [100] (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Rejects zero retries, extra retries, missing backoff and wrong backoff duration; each assertion fails with a concrete count or recorded delay so the diff names the regression (human: ~10 min / CC: ~2 min).\n✅ Uses the mock call history and virtual sleeper the plan already says the factory exposes; no new helpers, no real delays, fully deterministic.\n❌ If the backoff schedule is intentionally retuned later (say to 200 ms), this test must be updated with it."
},
{
"label": "B) Keep the rejection-only assertion as planned",
"description": "✅ Smallest test body and insensitive to future backoff tuning.\n✅ Still proves the exhausted-retry path surfaces the named error class rather than a generic failure.\n❌ Passes whether processPayment made one, two or ten charge attempts and whether it backed off at all, so the stated retry contract remains untested."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D4 — Test 2 asserts only that processPayment rejects with PaymentUnavailable. Should it also assert the exact retry accounting the plan specifies (two attempts, one 100 ms backoff)?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-P5mc9W on main, PLAN.md test 2 (repeated 502).\nELI10: The plan states that with max_retries=1, two 502s must mean exactly two charge attempts with exactly one recorded 100 ms backoff between them, then PaymentUnavailable. The planned test only checks the final error. A version of processPayment that never retries (one attempt), retries three times, or skips the backoff entirely would all still reject with PaymentUnavailable and pass. The factory already exposes the Stripe mock call history and the sleeper record, so the probes exist and are unused.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A retry-accounting regression ships green. Too many attempts means extra charge calls against a live processor during an outage; zero retries means transient 502s fail customers who should have recovered; a dropped backoff hammers Stripe during the exact moment it is struggling.\nRecommendation: A because the plan's own 'Existing behavior retained' section states exact counts, the review rules forbid weakening an exact count to a lower bound, and the probes are already injected so this is assertion work, not new infrastructure.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=3/10\nNet: three assertion lines using probes the factory already exposes versus a test that cannot distinguish 'retried once with backoff' from 'never retried' or 'retried forever'.": "A) Assert rejection with PaymentUnavailable AND Stripe call history length exactly 2 AND sleeper record exactly [100] (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T10:46:12.552Z"
}
}
],
"actualOutcome": "no_review_questions",
"actualReviewCount": 0,
"actualSetupCount": 4
}
test/fixtures/ceo-count-ac-calls.json
Vendored
-157
View File
@@ -1,157 +0,0 @@
{
"source": "AC job 4 first paired attempt; complete native calls, original answers unchanged",
"calls": [
{
"sessionId": "d44e9486-7772-4618-a28a-cdf3b994ed80",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Gdv5oCRQPXAJyw4YYz49eN",
"questions": [
{
"header": "Routing",
"question": "D1 \u2014 Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-OyYPMX on main, reviewing PLAN.md (payment test coverage) in HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: gstack wants a short 'Skill routing' section in CLAUDE.md so future requests like 'review this diff' auto-route to the right skill. This is a one-time setup prompt, unrelated to the plan itself. Plan mode forbids editing CLAUDE.md right now, so a yes would be applied after plan mode ends.\nStakes if we pick wrong: none for this review; only affects how readily skills get suggested later.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules are cheap and make skill invocation predictable.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nA) Add routing rules (recommended)\n \u2705 Future requests auto-route to the matching gstack skill without guessing names\n \u2705 One short section appended to CLAUDE.md, committed once, never prompted again\n \u274c Adds ~15 lines to CLAUDE.md that some teammates may not use\nB) No thanks\n \u2705 CLAUDE.md stays exactly as the fixture seeded it, no extra commit\n \u2705 Preference is recorded so this prompt never repeats for this project\n \u274c Skills must be invoked by name manually every time\nNet: a small convenience trade; no effect on the review.",
"options": [
{
"label": "Add routing rules (recommended)",
"description": "Append the Skill routing section to CLAUDE.md and commit it once plan mode ends."
},
{
"label": "No thanks",
"description": "Record routing_declined=true; invoke skills manually by name."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
},
{
"header": "Office hours",
"question": "D1.b \u2014 Run /office-hours first, or proceed with the standard review?\nProject/branch/task: same repo; no design doc found for branch main.\nELI10: /office-hours produces a structured problem statement, premise challenge, and explored alternatives before a plan review. It takes about 10 minutes and gives this review sharper input. This plan is a two-test coverage addition with already-implemented behavior, so the problem statement is short and mostly known.\nStakes if we pick wrong: skipping risks reviewing without a problem framing; running it costs ~10 minutes on a plan whose 'why' is already explicit.\nRecommendation: B because the plan's problem statement is already precise (two named contracts, no direct tests) and HOLD SCOPE limits how much a design doc would change.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nA) Run /office-hours now\n \u2705 Produces a design doc that downstream reviews and teammates can reuse\n \u2705 Forces an explicit premise challenge before any rigor work starts\n \u274c ~10 minutes (human) spent framing a two-test change whose premise is already stated\nB) Skip, proceed with standard review (recommended)\n \u2705 Goes straight to the rigor work the user asked for in HOLD SCOPE\n \u2705 Premise challenge still happens inside Step 0A of this review\n \u274c No standalone design doc artifact for this branch\nNet: framing depth versus time on a plan that is already narrowly framed.",
"options": [
{
"label": "Skip, standard review (recommended)",
"description": "Proceed directly; Step 0A already covers the premise challenge."
},
{
"label": "Run /office-hours now",
"description": "Produce a design doc first, then resume this review."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
},
{
"header": "Learnings",
"question": "D1.c \u2014 Let gstack search learnings from your other local projects?\nProject/branch/task: same repo; cross_project_learnings is unset (first time).\nELI10: gstack keeps per-project notes about pitfalls and patterns. It can also look at notes from your other projects on this machine to spot patterns that apply here. Nothing leaves your machine. Solo developers usually want this on; people working across multiple client codebases usually keep it off.\nStakes if we pick wrong: on for a multi-client setup could surface one client's patterns while working on another; off for a solo dev just means fewer hints.\nRecommendation: A because this is a fresh fixture with zero local learnings, so cross-project is the only source of prior hints, and the data stays local.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nA) Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)\n \u2705 Prior learnings from other repos on this machine can surface as 'Prior learning applied' hints\n \u2705 Stays local; nothing is uploaded or shared\n \u274c Not ideal if you juggle multiple client codebases and want strict separation\nB) Keep learnings project-scoped only\n \u2705 Strict separation between projects on the same machine\n \u2705 Simplest mental model: this repo's learnings only\n \u274c This repo has zero learnings today, so no hints will appear\nNet: a privacy-posture choice with no effect on the review's findings.",
"options": [
{
"label": "Enable cross-project (recommended)",
"description": "gstack-config set cross_project_learnings true (applied after plan mode)."
},
{
"label": "Project-scoped only",
"description": "gstack-config set cross_project_learnings false (applied after plan mode)."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 \u2014 Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-OyYPMX on main, reviewing PLAN.md (payment test coverage) in HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: gstack wants a short 'Skill routing' section in CLAUDE.md so future requests like 'review this diff' auto-route to the right skill. This is a one-time setup prompt, unrelated to the plan itself. Plan mode forbids editing CLAUDE.md right now, so a yes would be applied after plan mode ends.\nStakes if we pick wrong: none for this review; only affects how readily skills get suggested later.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules are cheap and make skill invocation predictable.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nA) Add routing rules (recommended)\n \u2705 Future requests auto-route to the matching gstack skill without guessing names\n \u2705 One short section appended to CLAUDE.md, committed once, never prompted again\n \u274c Adds ~15 lines to CLAUDE.md that some teammates may not use\nB) No thanks\n \u2705 CLAUDE.md stays exactly as the fixture seeded it, no extra commit\n \u2705 Preference is recorded so this prompt never repeats for this project\n \u274c Skills must be invoked by name manually every time\nNet: a small convenience trade; no effect on the review.": "Add routing rules (recommended)",
"D1.b \u2014 Run /office-hours first, or proceed with the standard review?\nProject/branch/task: same repo; no design doc found for branch main.\nELI10: /office-hours produces a structured problem statement, premise challenge, and explored alternatives before a plan review. It takes about 10 minutes and gives this review sharper input. This plan is a two-test coverage addition with already-implemented behavior, so the problem statement is short and mostly known.\nStakes if we pick wrong: skipping risks reviewing without a problem framing; running it costs ~10 minutes on a plan whose 'why' is already explicit.\nRecommendation: B because the plan's problem statement is already precise (two named contracts, no direct tests) and HOLD SCOPE limits how much a design doc would change.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nA) Run /office-hours now\n \u2705 Produces a design doc that downstream reviews and teammates can reuse\n \u2705 Forces an explicit premise challenge before any rigor work starts\n \u274c ~10 minutes (human) spent framing a two-test change whose premise is already stated\nB) Skip, proceed with standard review (recommended)\n \u2705 Goes straight to the rigor work the user asked for in HOLD SCOPE\n \u2705 Premise challenge still happens inside Step 0A of this review\n \u274c No standalone design doc artifact for this branch\nNet: framing depth versus time on a plan that is already narrowly framed.": "Skip, standard review (recommended)",
"D1.c \u2014 Let gstack search learnings from your other local projects?\nProject/branch/task: same repo; cross_project_learnings is unset (first time).\nELI10: gstack keeps per-project notes about pitfalls and patterns. It can also look at notes from your other projects on this machine to spot patterns that apply here. Nothing leaves your machine. Solo developers usually want this on; people working across multiple client codebases usually keep it off.\nStakes if we pick wrong: on for a multi-client setup could surface one client's patterns while working on another; off for a solo dev just means fewer hints.\nRecommendation: A because this is a fresh fixture with zero local learnings, so cross-project is the only source of prior hints, and the data stays local.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nA) Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)\n \u2705 Prior learnings from other repos on this machine can surface as 'Prior learning applied' hints\n \u2705 Stays local; nothing is uploaded or shared\n \u274c Not ideal if you juggle multiple client codebases and want strict separation\nB) Keep learnings project-scoped only\n \u2705 Strict separation between projects on the same machine\n \u2705 Simplest mental model: this repo's learnings only\n \u274c This repo has zero learnings today, so no hints will appear\nNet: a privacy-posture choice with no effect on the review's findings.": "Enable cross-project (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T16:37:35.604Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "d44e9486-7772-4618-a28a-cdf3b994ed80",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01BCALJsWcEqvcmY7GmTnuHK",
"questions": [
{
"header": "Approach",
"question": "D2 \u2014 Which implementation approach for the two processPayment tests?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-OyYPMX on main, PLAN.md adds two unit tests to the existing processPayment suite (HOLD SCOPE).\nELI10: The plan states two exact contracts: a success returns { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }, and repeated 502s produce exactly two charge attempts, one recorded 100 ms backoff, then PaymentUnavailable. The proposed tests only check 'receipt is truthy' and 'it rejects with PaymentUnavailable'. A test that passes when the receipt has the wrong amount, or when the retry loop makes one or five attempts, is a green checkmark that proves nothing. The factory already exposes the mock call history and the virtual sleeper record, so pinning the exact contract costs a few assertion lines.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a regression in receipt shape or retry count ships with the suite still green, which is the exact silent failure these tests exist to prevent.\nRecommendation: B because it is the complete version of the plan's own stated scope (well-tested and explicit over minimal) without adding any new behavior; C is an expansion and out of HOLD SCOPE.\nCompleteness: A=3/10, B=9/10, C=10/10\nA) As written: truthy receipt, rejects-only (human ~20 min / CC ~3 min)\n \u2705 Smallest possible diff, no new fixtures or helper usage beyond the mock\n \u2705 Matches PLAN.md text exactly, nothing to renegotiate\n \u274c Passes on wrong chargeId, wrong amountCents, wrong currency, 1 or 5 retry attempts, 0 ms backoff\nB) Contract-pinning: same two tests, exact assertions (recommended) (human ~45 min / CC ~5 min)\n \u2705 Success test deep-equals the receipt, asserts one charge call carrying amountCents=1000/currency=USD, and an empty sleeper record\n \u2705 502 test asserts rejection is a PaymentUnavailable instance, exactly 2 charge calls, exactly one 100 ms sleep, using helpers the factory already exposes\n \u274c Assertions depend on the sleeper record's existing shape, so the implementer must read the factory helper once\nC) B plus shadow-path tests for nil / zero / non-integer amount (human ~2 h / CC ~15 min)\n \u2705 Full input-shape coverage of processPayment in one PR\n \u2705 Would surface any missing production validation early\n \u274c Adds behaviors PLAN.md does not state and may require production changes; exceeds HOLD SCOPE\nNet: B pins every invariant the plan already writes down, using only helpers it already names; A leaves those invariants unverified and C changes scope.",
"options": [
{
"label": "B: Contract-pinning (recommended)",
"description": "Same two tests; assert exact receipt, call count, backoff record, and error class."
},
{
"label": "A: As written",
"description": "Keep truthy / rejects-only assertions exactly as PLAN.md describes."
},
{
"label": "C: B + shadow paths",
"description": "Add nil/zero/non-integer amount tests; leaves HOLD SCOPE."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D2 \u2014 Which implementation approach for the two processPayment tests?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-OyYPMX on main, PLAN.md adds two unit tests to the existing processPayment suite (HOLD SCOPE).\nELI10: The plan states two exact contracts: a success returns { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }, and repeated 502s produce exactly two charge attempts, one recorded 100 ms backoff, then PaymentUnavailable. The proposed tests only check 'receipt is truthy' and 'it rejects with PaymentUnavailable'. A test that passes when the receipt has the wrong amount, or when the retry loop makes one or five attempts, is a green checkmark that proves nothing. The factory already exposes the mock call history and the virtual sleeper record, so pinning the exact contract costs a few assertion lines.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a regression in receipt shape or retry count ships with the suite still green, which is the exact silent failure these tests exist to prevent.\nRecommendation: B because it is the complete version of the plan's own stated scope (well-tested and explicit over minimal) without adding any new behavior; C is an expansion and out of HOLD SCOPE.\nCompleteness: A=3/10, B=9/10, C=10/10\nA) As written: truthy receipt, rejects-only (human ~20 min / CC ~3 min)\n \u2705 Smallest possible diff, no new fixtures or helper usage beyond the mock\n \u2705 Matches PLAN.md text exactly, nothing to renegotiate\n \u274c Passes on wrong chargeId, wrong amountCents, wrong currency, 1 or 5 retry attempts, 0 ms backoff\nB) Contract-pinning: same two tests, exact assertions (recommended) (human ~45 min / CC ~5 min)\n \u2705 Success test deep-equals the receipt, asserts one charge call carrying amountCents=1000/currency=USD, and an empty sleeper record\n \u2705 502 test asserts rejection is a PaymentUnavailable instance, exactly 2 charge calls, exactly one 100 ms sleep, using helpers the factory already exposes\n \u274c Assertions depend on the sleeper record's existing shape, so the implementer must read the factory helper once\nC) B plus shadow-path tests for nil / zero / non-integer amount (human ~2 h / CC ~15 min)\n \u2705 Full input-shape coverage of processPayment in one PR\n \u2705 Would surface any missing production validation early\n \u274c Adds behaviors PLAN.md does not state and may require production changes; exceeds HOLD SCOPE\nNet: B pins every invariant the plan already writes down, using only helpers it already names; A leaves those invariants unverified and C changes scope.": "B: Contract-pinning (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T16:38:04.224Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "d44e9486-7772-4618-a28a-cdf3b994ed80",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01FyuWV4Sb2UY37isvM5NfPd",
"questions": [
{
"header": "Backoff order",
"question": "D3 \u2014 Finding 1: should Test 2 prove the 100 ms backoff happens BETWEEN the two charge attempts, not just that it happened?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-OyYPMX on main, PLAN.md Test 2 (repeated 502), HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: PLAN.md's contract says two attempts 'separated by' one 100 ms backoff. The approved D2 assertions check the final counts: two charge calls, one 100 ms sleep. But a retry loop that calls Stripe twice back-to-back and only then sleeps before throwing produces the same final counts. That bug would hammer Stripe with no gap and still pass. Proving the order needs one extra check taken mid-flight: when the mock serves the second 502, the sleeper must already hold exactly one 100 ms entry.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a reordering bug in the retry loop (sleep after the last attempt, or sleep before the first) ships green; Stripe sees two instant hits instead of a spaced retry.\nRecommendation: 1A because 'separated by' is a stated invariant of this plan, the check reuses the mock and sleeper the factory already exposes, and it costs a few lines (well-tested, explicit over clever).\nCompleteness: 1A=10/10, 1B=7/10, 1C=5/10\n1A) Assert interleaving via the second mock response (recommended) (human ~15 min / CC ~2 min)\n \u2705 Second 502 response is served by a mock implementation that snapshots sleeper.record at call time; test asserts that snapshot equals [100] and the first call's snapshot equals []\n \u2705 Rejects both violating orders (sleep-after-last, sleep-before-first) with a failure message showing the captured snapshots\n \u274c Slightly more setup than a queued-response mock; the snapshot must be captured synchronously inside the mock implementation\n1B) Assert a combined call/sleep timeline if the factory already exposes one (human ~10 min / CC ~2 min)\n \u2705 Reads as a single expected sequence: [charge, sleep 100, charge], which is the clearest statement of the contract\n \u2705 Zero mock-implementation logic if the factory records a unified timeline\n \u274c PLAN.md names separate call history and sleeper record; if there is no unified timeline this falls back to 1A anyway\n1C) Keep the approved D2 count assertions only, document ordering as untested (human ~0 / CC ~0)\n \u2705 No additional test code beyond what D2 already approved\n \u2705 Still catches wrong retry counts and missing or wrong-length backoff\n \u274c Leaves the 'separated by' clause of the stated contract unverified; a sleep-after-last-attempt bug passes\nNet: 1A proves the ordering the plan promises with helpers already in hand; 1C accepts a documented gap in the only invariant the counts cannot see.",
"options": [
{
"label": "1A: Snapshot in 2nd mock response (recommended)",
"description": "Capture sleeper.record inside the mock at each call; assert [] then [100]."
},
{
"label": "1B: Unified timeline, else 1A",
"description": "Assert [charge, sleep 100, charge] if the factory exposes one; fall back to 1A."
},
{
"label": "1C: Counts only, document gap",
"description": "Keep D2 assertions; note ordering as untested in the plan."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D3 \u2014 Finding 1: should Test 2 prove the 100 ms backoff happens BETWEEN the two charge attempts, not just that it happened?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-OyYPMX on main, PLAN.md Test 2 (repeated 502), HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: PLAN.md's contract says two attempts 'separated by' one 100 ms backoff. The approved D2 assertions check the final counts: two charge calls, one 100 ms sleep. But a retry loop that calls Stripe twice back-to-back and only then sleeps before throwing produces the same final counts. That bug would hammer Stripe with no gap and still pass. Proving the order needs one extra check taken mid-flight: when the mock serves the second 502, the sleeper must already hold exactly one 100 ms entry.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a reordering bug in the retry loop (sleep after the last attempt, or sleep before the first) ships green; Stripe sees two instant hits instead of a spaced retry.\nRecommendation: 1A because 'separated by' is a stated invariant of this plan, the check reuses the mock and sleeper the factory already exposes, and it costs a few lines (well-tested, explicit over clever).\nCompleteness: 1A=10/10, 1B=7/10, 1C=5/10\n1A) Assert interleaving via the second mock response (recommended) (human ~15 min / CC ~2 min)\n \u2705 Second 502 response is served by a mock implementation that snapshots sleeper.record at call time; test asserts that snapshot equals [100] and the first call's snapshot equals []\n \u2705 Rejects both violating orders (sleep-after-last, sleep-before-first) with a failure message showing the captured snapshots\n \u274c Slightly more setup than a queued-response mock; the snapshot must be captured synchronously inside the mock implementation\n1B) Assert a combined call/sleep timeline if the factory already exposes one (human ~10 min / CC ~2 min)\n \u2705 Reads as a single expected sequence: [charge, sleep 100, charge], which is the clearest statement of the contract\n \u2705 Zero mock-implementation logic if the factory records a unified timeline\n \u274c PLAN.md names separate call history and sleeper record; if there is no unified timeline this falls back to 1A anyway\n1C) Keep the approved D2 count assertions only, document ordering as untested (human ~0 / CC ~0)\n \u2705 No additional test code beyond what D2 already approved\n \u2705 Still catches wrong retry counts and missing or wrong-length backoff\n \u274c Leaves the 'separated by' clause of the stated contract unverified; a sleep-after-last-attempt bug passes\nNet: 1A proves the ordering the plan promises with helpers already in hand; 1C accepts a documented gap in the only invariant the counts cannot see.": "1A: Snapshot in 2nd mock response (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T16:39:58.356Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "d44e9486-7772-4618-a28a-cdf3b994ed80",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01JCRLYG3TKvLh7WVevVvx2N",
"questions": [
{
"header": "Next review",
"question": "D4 \u2014 Which review runs next?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-OyYPMX on main; CEO review of PLAN.md is complete and clean (HOLD SCOPE, 0 critical gaps, 3 P1 tasks).\nELI10: gstack chains reviews. The CEO review just settled scope and strategy. The engineering review is the required gate before shipping: it checks architecture, test design, and code quality in detail. skip_eng_review is false, so it is still required. No UI scope was detected, so the design review does not apply here.\nStakes if we pick wrong: skipping eng review leaves the ship gate NOT CLEARED; the plan is small, so the eng review should be quick.\nRecommendation: A because eng review is the required gate and the plan now has exact assertions worth a second structured pass on test design.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nA) Run /plan-eng-review next (recommended)\n \u2705 Clears the required shipping gate on a plan that is small and already decided\n \u2705 Gives the three tasks a test-design pass focused on the assertion mechanics (mock implementation, sleeper record shape)\n \u274c One more review session before implementation starts (human ~30 min / CC ~5 min)\nB) Skip, handle reviews manually\n \u2705 Move straight to implementing T1 to T3 in the real repo\n \u2705 No further review time on a three-task change\n \u274c Dashboard verdict stays NOT CLEARED until an eng review is logged\nNet: gate discipline versus getting to the code faster on a change that is already tightly specified.",
"options": [
{
"label": "A: Run /plan-eng-review next (recommended)",
"description": "Required gate; runs after this plan is approved."
},
{
"label": "B: Skip, manual reviews",
"description": "Proceed to implementation; eng gate remains open."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D4 \u2014 Which review runs next?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-OyYPMX on main; CEO review of PLAN.md is complete and clean (HOLD SCOPE, 0 critical gaps, 3 P1 tasks).\nELI10: gstack chains reviews. The CEO review just settled scope and strategy. The engineering review is the required gate before shipping: it checks architecture, test design, and code quality in detail. skip_eng_review is false, so it is still required. No UI scope was detected, so the design review does not apply here.\nStakes if we pick wrong: skipping eng review leaves the ship gate NOT CLEARED; the plan is small, so the eng review should be quick.\nRecommendation: A because eng review is the required gate and the plan now has exact assertions worth a second structured pass on test design.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nA) Run /plan-eng-review next (recommended)\n \u2705 Clears the required shipping gate on a plan that is small and already decided\n \u2705 Gives the three tasks a test-design pass focused on the assertion mechanics (mock implementation, sleeper record shape)\n \u274c One more review session before implementation starts (human ~30 min / CC ~5 min)\nB) Skip, handle reviews manually\n \u2705 Move straight to implementing T1 to T3 in the real repo\n \u2705 No further review time on a three-task change\n \u274c Dashboard verdict stays NOT CLEARED until an eng review is logged\nNet: gate discipline versus getting to the code faster on a change that is already tightly specified.": "A: Run /plan-eng-review next (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T16:42:24.264Z"
}
]
}
test/fixtures/ceo-count-ac-later-calls.json
Vendored
-538
View File
@@ -1,538 +0,0 @@
{
"distinct": {
"artifact": ".context/ship-source-ac-full-paid-20260909-1635/evals/job-4/shards/skill-e2e-plan-ceo-finding-count/pty-count/ship-source-ac-full-paid-20260909-1635-4/plan-ceo-review-1788971689504-KX5ghs",
"nativeCalls": [
{
"sessionId": "f7acf843-5678-470c-a366-58ca93b78558",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01TumGq45PQ1envL38A7FaGv",
"questions": [
{
"question": "gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules (e.g. strategy/scope \u2192 /plan-ceo-review, bugs \u2192 /investigate, ship \u2192 /ship). Add them to this project's CLAUDE.md? Note: plan mode is active, so if you choose A the edit and commit will be queued until plan mode exits.",
"header": "Routing",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (recommended)",
"description": "Appends a '## Skill routing' section mapping request types to gstack skills, then commits it (after plan mode exits)."
},
{
"label": "No thanks, I'll invoke skills manually",
"description": "Sets routing_declined=true for this project. Re-enable later with gstack-config set routing_declined false."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules (e.g. strategy/scope \u2192 /plan-ceo-review, bugs \u2192 /investigate, ship \u2192 /ship). Add them to this project's CLAUDE.md? Note: plan mode is active, so if you choose A the edit and commit will be queued until plan mode exits.": "Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T16:34:51.522Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "f7acf843-5678-470c-a366-58ca93b78558",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01GNhfWeG1x5MxjL9dZ1uwxi",
"questions": [
{
"question": "gstack can search learnings from your other projects on this machine to find patterns that might apply here. This stays local (no data leaves your machine). Recommended for solo developers. Skip if you work on multiple client codebases where cross-contamination would be a concern. Enable cross-project learnings?",
"header": "Learnings",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)",
"description": "Sets cross_project_learnings=true. Learnings search will include other local projects."
},
{
"label": "Keep learnings project-scoped only",
"description": "Sets cross_project_learnings=false. Only this project's learnings are searched."
}
]
},
{
"question": "No design doc found for this branch. /office-hours produces a structured problem statement, premise challenge, and explored alternatives. It gives this review much sharper input to work with and takes about 10 minutes. The design doc is per-feature, not per-product. Run it first?",
"header": "Design doc",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Skip \u2014 proceed with standard review (recommended)",
"description": "You asked for HOLD SCOPE with maximum rigor. The plan states its contracts in detail, so the review can proceed directly."
},
{
"label": "Run /office-hours now",
"description": "Runs office-hours inline to produce a design doc, then picks up the CEO review right after."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"gstack can search learnings from your other projects on this machine to find patterns that might apply here. This stays local (no data leaves your machine). Recommended for solo developers. Skip if you work on multiple client codebases where cross-contamination would be a concern. Enable cross-project learnings?": "Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)",
"No design doc found for this branch. /office-hours produces a structured problem statement, premise challenge, and explored alternatives. It gives this review much sharper input to work with and takes about 10 minutes. The design doc is per-feature, not per-product. Run it first?": "Skip \u2014 proceed with standard review (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T16:36:03.725Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "f7acf843-5678-470c-a366-58ca93b78558",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Lo1AkiZbKJW4iGv7NjBUtD",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 \u2014 Which implementation approach should the review hold the plan to?\nProject/branch/task: main, Stripe payment webhook handler plan review in HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: The plan sketches the simplest possible handler. The review can either hold it to that sketch, or hold it to a version that actually meets the contracts the plan promises (no SQL injection, no silent or retry-storm email failures, tested). The third option also routes through the existing dispatcher instead of building a second front door. Stakes if we pick wrong: pick A and a forged user_id string reaches SQL, and every email outage makes Stripe replay committed payments for 72 hours.\nRecommendation: C because it uses the existing routing path (reuse ladder rung 1) and makes the plan's own \"runs inside unchanged guards\" claim true by construction; B is the fallback if the dispatcher turns out to carry none of the retained guards.\nCompleteness: A=3/10, B=8/10, C=10/10\nNet: A trades correctness for a smaller diff; B fixes the internals but keeps two routing paths; C fixes internals and routing at the cost of depending on a dispatcher API we cannot inspect from this repo.",
"header": "Approach",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "C) Hardened, via WebhookDispatcher (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Single routing path; event-type filter and guards are not duplicated or bypassed\n\u2705 Parameterized lookup, post-commit email with named rescue, batched orders, full shadow-path tests\n\u274c Requires the dispatcher registration API to support a namespaced handler; verify at build time\nEffort: human ~3 days / CC ~1 hour"
},
{
"label": "B) Hardened standalone handler",
"description": "\u2705 Keeps the clean namespace the plan asks for, no dispatcher changes needed\n\u2705 Same hardening as C: parameterized SQL, post-commit email rescue, batched orders, tests\n\u274c Second routing path; the payment_intent.succeeded filter may need re-implementing\nEffort: human ~3 days / CC ~45 min"
},
{
"label": "A) As sketched",
"description": "\u2705 Smallest possible diff, matches PLAN.md literally\n\u2705 Fastest to ship behind the existing feature flag\n\u274c Raw SQL from an external string; email failure returns 500 and replays committed payments; no tests\nEffort: human ~1 day / CC ~10 min"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 \u2014 Which implementation approach should the review hold the plan to?\nProject/branch/task: main, Stripe payment webhook handler plan review in HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: The plan sketches the simplest possible handler. The review can either hold it to that sketch, or hold it to a version that actually meets the contracts the plan promises (no SQL injection, no silent or retry-storm email failures, tested). The third option also routes through the existing dispatcher instead of building a second front door. Stakes if we pick wrong: pick A and a forged user_id string reaches SQL, and every email outage makes Stripe replay committed payments for 72 hours.\nRecommendation: C because it uses the existing routing path (reuse ladder rung 1) and makes the plan's own \"runs inside unchanged guards\" claim true by construction; B is the fallback if the dispatcher turns out to carry none of the retained guards.\nCompleteness: A=3/10, B=8/10, C=10/10\nNet: A trades correctness for a smaller diff; B fixes the internals but keeps two routing paths; C fixes internals and routing at the cost of depending on a dispatcher API we cannot inspect from this repo.": "C) Hardened, via WebhookDispatcher (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T16:37:43.144Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "f7acf843-5678-470c-a366-58ca93b78558",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01RSubJqGmdExhTxzPkQaNgy",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D2 \u2014 What does the per-order fetch in the Performance section exist for?\nProject/branch/task: main, Stripe payment webhook handler plan review in HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: The plan says each webhook fetches the user and then each of their orders in a loop, but never says why. If the orders feed the confirmation email or need to be marked paid, the handler needs one query shaped for that purpose. If nothing uses them, the loop is dead weight that adds latency inside Stripe's 10-second window. Stakes if we pick wrong: we either design tests and a batched query around data nobody uses, or drop a fetch the email actually depends on.\nRecommendation: A because a payment confirmation almost always lists what was bought, and the plan mentions no other consumer; a single query keyed by user and payment intent replaces the loop.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: this is a requirements fact, not a design taste call; whichever is true, the loop becomes one query.",
"header": "Orders loop",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Orders feed the email (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Confirmation email lists the paid orders; one SELECT by user_id + payment_intent_id\n\u2705 Tests can assert the email body against a fixture order set including zero orders\n\u274c Requires deciding which orders belong to this payment intent (see Section 4)"
},
{
"label": "B) Orders must be marked paid too",
"description": "\u2705 One UPDATE ... WHERE payment_intent_id = ? inside the same transaction as the user update\n\u2705 Idempotent: repeat assigns the same values\n\u274c Adds a second table to the per-user lock's protected write set"
},
{
"label": "C) Nothing uses the orders",
"description": "\u2705 Drop the fetch; the handler is user lookup, update, email\n\u2705 Fastest handler; least test surface\n\u274c If a later consumer appears, this was a hidden requirement the plan failed to state"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D2 \u2014 What does the per-order fetch in the Performance section exist for?\nProject/branch/task: main, Stripe payment webhook handler plan review in HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: The plan says each webhook fetches the user and then each of their orders in a loop, but never says why. If the orders feed the confirmation email or need to be marked paid, the handler needs one query shaped for that purpose. If nothing uses them, the loop is dead weight that adds latency inside Stripe's 10-second window. Stakes if we pick wrong: we either design tests and a batched query around data nobody uses, or drop a fetch the email actually depends on.\nRecommendation: A because a payment confirmation almost always lists what was bought, and the plan mentions no other consumer; a single query keyed by user and payment intent replaces the loop.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: this is a requirements fact, not a design taste call; whichever is true, the loop becomes one query.": "A) Orders feed the email (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T16:38:53.003Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "f7acf843-5678-470c-a366-58ca93b78558",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Gup7nVRmM9KJ1sKFu2Q2qc",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D3 (issue 1.1) \u2014 Fix the handler sequence so the email leg runs after the payment commit?\nProject/branch/task: main, Stripe payment webhook handler plan review in HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: The plan says the user update and the email \"both happen inline\" but never says which comes first or whether the email sits inside the database transaction. If it does, an email provider outage rolls back the payment update, Stripe retries the same event for up to 72 hours, and nobody gets marked paid until email recovers. Stakes if we pick wrong: a mail outage becomes a payment outage, and the per-user lock is held across a network call.\nRecommendation: 1A because the plan's own contracts (dedup recorded after commit; runbook retries only the notification) assume the payment is committed independently of the email.\nCompleteness: 1A=10/10, 1B=4/10\nNet: 1A costs one ordering rule and one test; 1B leaves a retained contract impossible to honor.",
"header": "Issue 1.1",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "1A) Fix sequence: commit, release lock, then orders + email (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Payment commit is independent of mail provider health; dedup records completion right after commit as retained\n\u2705 Per-user lock is released before any network call, so a slow mailer cannot serialize other events for that user\n\u2705 Verified by an integration test that injects a failing mail client and asserts payment_status=paid is committed\n\u274c One more explicit ordering rule for the implementer to hold; documented in a code-comment pipeline diagram\nEffort: human ~2h / CC ~10 min"
},
{
"label": "1B) Leave \"inline\" unspecified, as sketched",
"description": "\u2705 No change to the plan text\n\u2705 Implementer picks whatever order is natural in the framework\n\u274c A mail outage can block or roll back payment commits and hold the per-user lock across a network call\n\u274c Contradicts the retained runbook contract that separates committed payments from failed notifications"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D3 (issue 1.1) \u2014 Fix the handler sequence so the email leg runs after the payment commit?\nProject/branch/task: main, Stripe payment webhook handler plan review in HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: The plan says the user update and the email \"both happen inline\" but never says which comes first or whether the email sits inside the database transaction. If it does, an email provider outage rolls back the payment update, Stripe retries the same event for up to 72 hours, and nobody gets marked paid until email recovers. Stakes if we pick wrong: a mail outage becomes a payment outage, and the per-user lock is held across a network call.\nRecommendation: 1A because the plan's own contracts (dedup recorded after commit; runbook retries only the notification) assume the payment is committed independently of the email.\nCompleteness: 1A=10/10, 1B=4/10\nNet: 1A costs one ordering rule and one test; 1B leaves a retained contract impossible to honor.": "1A) Fix sequence: commit, release lock, then orders + email (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T16:39:56.855Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "f7acf843-5678-470c-a366-58ca93b78558",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01H8u6cP9ZauKmphUU84t7o3",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D4 (issue 2.1) \u2014 Rescue the post-commit notification leg with named exceptions and return 200?\nProject/branch/task: main, Stripe payment webhook handler plan review in HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: Once the payment is committed, anything that fails afterwards (orders query, mail provider timeout or 5xx, rate limit, user has no email address, template error) currently blows up as a 500. Stripe then retries a payment that is already done, the dedup guard swallows the retry, the email is never re-sent, and the webhook-failed alert pages on-call for something that is not a webhook failure. Stakes if we pick wrong: every mail provider blip becomes a false payment incident and 72 hours of retry noise.\nRecommendation: 2A because the plan's retained mail failure-rate alert and runbook already own notification failures; the handler just has to stop turning them into fake webhook failures. Named rescues only, no catch-all (Prime Directive 2).\nCompleteness: 2A=10/10, 2B=2/10, 2C=5/10\nNet: 2A makes the ingress alert mean what it says; 2B/2C keep paging on committed payments.",
"header": "Issue 2.1",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "2A) Rescue named mail/DB classes post-commit, log correlated, return 200 (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Rescues MailClient::TimeoutError/DeliveryError/RateLimited/InvalidRecipient, TemplateRenderError, DBClient::* on the orders query; nothing broader\n\u2705 Error-level log with event_id, user_id, payment_intent_id, exception class; mail call bounded to 3s so the handler stays inside Stripe's 10s window; blank recipient skipped with a warn log\n\u2705 Failure stays visible via the retained mail failure-rate dashboard and alert; runbook retries the notification\n\u274c On-call must rely on the mail alert, not the ingress alert, for email problems (already what the runbook says)\nEffort: human ~3h / CC ~15 min"
},
{
"label": "2B) Keep \"no error handling on the email leg\" as sketched",
"description": "\u2705 Zero rescue code in the handler\n\u2705 Every failure is loud somewhere\n\u274c Committed payments produce 500s, false webhook-failed alerts, and 72h of pointless Stripe retries\n\u274c Email is still never re-sent because dedup short-circuits the retry"
},
{
"label": "2C) Rescue, add context, re-raise (still 500)",
"description": "\u2705 Better log context than 2B\n\u2705 No behavior change for the ingress wrapper\n\u274c Same false alert and retry storm as 2B; only the log line improves\n\u274c Adds code without fixing the failure mode"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D4 (issue 2.1) \u2014 Rescue the post-commit notification leg with named exceptions and return 200?\nProject/branch/task: main, Stripe payment webhook handler plan review in HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: Once the payment is committed, anything that fails afterwards (orders query, mail provider timeout or 5xx, rate limit, user has no email address, template error) currently blows up as a 500. Stripe then retries a payment that is already done, the dedup guard swallows the retry, the email is never re-sent, and the webhook-failed alert pages on-call for something that is not a webhook failure. Stakes if we pick wrong: every mail provider blip becomes a false payment incident and 72 hours of retry noise.\nRecommendation: 2A because the plan's retained mail failure-rate alert and runbook already own notification failures; the handler just has to stop turning them into fake webhook failures. Named rescues only, no catch-all (Prime Directive 2).\nCompleteness: 2A=10/10, 2B=2/10, 2C=5/10\nNet: 2A makes the ingress alert mean what it says; 2B/2C keep paging on committed payments.": "2A) Rescue named mail/DB classes post-commit, log correlated, return 200 (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T16:40:54.698Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "f7acf843-5678-470c-a366-58ca93b78558",
"toolUseId": "toolu_013yuWNENcNvLuirVSSkVivE",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D5 (issue 3.1) \u2014 Replace the raw SQL fragment with a parameterized lookup?\nProject/branch/task: main, Stripe payment webhook handler plan review in HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: The plan reads the user_id string out of the Stripe payload and pastes it into SQL. The signature only proves Stripe sent the bytes; it does not prove the string is a safe id. Anyone who can influence PaymentIntent metadata (a checkout bug, a dashboard user, a leaked API key) can run arbitrary SQL against the users table. Stakes if we pick wrong: full read or write of the database from a webhook.\nRecommendation: 3A because bind parameters are the standard-library answer (reuse ladder rung 2), cost nothing, and the plan already concedes the string is not SQL-safe.\nCompleteness: 3A=10/10, 3B=0/10\nNet: 3A is a one-line change plus one test; 3B is a known injection hole.",
"header": "Issue 3.1",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "3A) Parameterized lookup via the DB client's bind API (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 The id travels as a bound value, never as SQL text; injection is structurally impossible\n\u2705 Test feeds `' OR 1=1 --` and asserts not-found with no exception; a lint or grep rule forbids string interpolation in the handler\n\u2705 Retained traced DB client still attaches event_id and user_id to the outcome trace\n\u274c None beyond writing the test\nEffort: human ~1h / CC ~5 min"
},
{
"label": "3B) Keep the raw SQL fragment as sketched",
"description": "\u2705 Matches the plan text\n\u2705 No new test\n\u274c Arbitrary SQL from any party who can set PaymentIntent metadata\n\u274c Contradicts the plan's own retained-contract note that the string is not SQL-safe"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D5 (issue 3.1) \u2014 Replace the raw SQL fragment with a parameterized lookup?\nProject/branch/task: main, Stripe payment webhook handler plan review in HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: The plan reads the user_id string out of the Stripe payload and pastes it into SQL. The signature only proves Stripe sent the bytes; it does not prove the string is a safe id. Anyone who can influence PaymentIntent metadata (a checkout bug, a dashboard user, a leaked API key) can run arbitrary SQL against the users table. Stakes if we pick wrong: full read or write of the database from a webhook.\nRecommendation: 3A because bind parameters are the standard-library answer (reuse ladder rung 2), cost nothing, and the plan already concedes the string is not SQL-safe.\nCompleteness: 3A=10/10, 3B=0/10\nNet: 3A is a one-line change plus one test; 3B is a known injection hole.": "3A) Parameterized lookup via the DB client's bind API (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T16:41:42.523Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "f7acf843-5678-470c-a366-58ca93b78558",
"toolUseId": "toolu_018K1mmigYn7YCjUsBoy1pVk",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D6 (issue 3.2) \u2014 Validate the user_id shape before the query and acknowledge malformed ids with 200?\nProject/branch/task: main, Stripe payment webhook handler plan review in HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: Even with bind parameters, a user_id that is the wrong type (letters where the column is an integer), too long, or odd unicode makes the database raise. The plan's retained contract turns any DB exception into a 500, so Stripe retries that same broken event for 72 hours and pages on each attempt. A malformed id means our checkout wrote bad metadata; retrying cannot fix it. Stakes if we pick wrong: one bad metadata write produces three days of pointless retries and alerts, and the real bug hides in the noise.\nRecommendation: 3C because it is the same posture the retained adapter already takes for empty ids (200 plus a correlated warning), applied one step later with an error-level log and a counter so the checkout bug is found.\nCompleteness: 3C=10/10, 3D=3/10\nNet: 3C costs a regex and four tests; 3D lets a permanent bad input masquerade as a transient DB failure.",
"header": "Issue 3.2",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "3C) Shape-validate; InvalidUserIdError -> error log + metric + 200 (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Validates against the users.id format (integer or UUID per schema) and max length before touching the DB\n\u2705 Rescued in the handler: error-level log with event_id, payment_intent_id and value length (not the value), counter metric `webhook.invalid_user_id`, HTTP 200 so Stripe stops retrying\n\u2705 Tests: wrong type, over-long, unicode, valid id; each asserts no DB call and the exact status\n\u274c A genuine checkout bug now surfaces via a metric and log rather than a page; add an alert on the counter if that is too quiet\nEffort: human ~2h / CC ~10 min"
},
{
"label": "3D) No shape check; let the DB reject it (500, retries)",
"description": "\u2705 Less code in the handler\n\u2705 Failure is loud via the ingress alert\n\u274c 72 hours of retries and alerts for an event that can never succeed\n\u274c Ingress alert cannot distinguish this from a real DB outage"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D6 (issue 3.2) \u2014 Validate the user_id shape before the query and acknowledge malformed ids with 200?\nProject/branch/task: main, Stripe payment webhook handler plan review in HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: Even with bind parameters, a user_id that is the wrong type (letters where the column is an integer), too long, or odd unicode makes the database raise. The plan's retained contract turns any DB exception into a 500, so Stripe retries that same broken event for 72 hours and pages on each attempt. A malformed id means our checkout wrote bad metadata; retrying cannot fix it. Stakes if we pick wrong: one bad metadata write produces three days of pointless retries and alerts, and the real bug hides in the noise.\nRecommendation: 3C because it is the same posture the retained adapter already takes for empty ids (200 plus a correlated warning), applied one step later with an error-level log and a counter so the checkout bug is found.\nCompleteness: 3C=10/10, 3D=3/10\nNet: 3C costs a regex and four tests; 3D lets a permanent bad input masquerade as a transient DB failure.": "3C) Shape-validate; InvalidUserIdError -> error log + metric + 200 (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T16:42:04.125Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "f7acf843-5678-470c-a366-58ca93b78558",
"toolUseId": "toolu_0136oN3WUsyrRe4Gtbg8mni4",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D7 (issue 4.1) \u2014 Add an already-processed check under the per-user lock to stop duplicate emails?\nProject/branch/task: main, Stripe payment webhook handler plan review in HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: Stripe can deliver the same event twice at once. Both copies pass the dedup check before either has committed, the lock lets them run one after the other, and the second copy re-sends the confirmation email. The user update is safe to repeat; the email is not. Stakes if we pick wrong: users get two or more payment confirmations whenever Stripe retries or double-delivers, which reads as a double charge and generates support tickets.\nRecommendation: 4A because the users row already carries the payment intent id, so the check is one comparison under a lock the plan already holds; it also covers a crash between commit and dedup record.\nCompleteness: 4A=10/10, 4B=2/10\nNet: 4A is one branch and one interleaving test; 4B keeps the retained \"exactly once\" intent true for the DB and false for the inbox.",
"header": "Issue 4.1",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "4A) Already-processed check under the lock: same intent -> 200, no email (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Under the retained per-user lock, if payment_status=paid and payment_intent_id equals this event's intent, skip update and email; info log with event_id, counter `webhook.already_processed`, HTTP 200\n\u2705 Closes the dedup check-then-record window and the crash-between-commit-and-record case with one mechanism\n\u2705 Interleaving test with pause/release points asserts exactly one email and one status write across two concurrent deliveries\n\u274c Relies on payment_intent_id being persisted on the users row, which the retained update already does\nEffort: human ~2h / CC ~10 min"
},
{
"label": "4B) Rely on the event-ID dedup guard alone, as sketched",
"description": "\u2705 No handler change\n\u2705 Correct for sequential retries that arrive after the dedup record lands\n\u274c Concurrent duplicates and crash-after-commit both send a second email\n\u274c Not testable as \"exactly one email\" because the schedule is not excluded"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D7 (issue 4.1) \u2014 Add an already-processed check under the per-user lock to stop duplicate emails?\nProject/branch/task: main, Stripe payment webhook handler plan review in HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: Stripe can deliver the same event twice at once. Both copies pass the dedup check before either has committed, the lock lets them run one after the other, and the second copy re-sends the confirmation email. The user update is safe to repeat; the email is not. Stakes if we pick wrong: users get two or more payment confirmations whenever Stripe retries or double-delivers, which reads as a double charge and generates support tickets.\nRecommendation: 4A because the users row already carries the payment intent id, so the check is one comparison under a lock the plan already holds; it also covers a crash between commit and dedup record.\nCompleteness: 4A=10/10, 4B=2/10\nNet: 4A is one branch and one interleaving test; 4B keeps the retained \"exactly once\" intent true for the DB and false for the inbox.": "4A) Already-processed check under the lock: same intent -> 200, no email (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T16:42:59.995Z"
}
],
"observedOutcome": "timeout"
},
"pairedRetry": {
"artifact": ".context/ship-source-ac-full-paid-20260909-1635/evals/job-4/shards/skill-e2e-plan-ceo-finding-count/pty-count/ship-source-ac-full-paid-20260909-1635-4/plan-ceo-review-1788972231179-brHnP9",
"nativeCalls": [
{
"sessionId": "692e8fbb-26fe-4563-8270-f9738bbd61e4",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01T5zvN49EgABjTnMJQoHJh4",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 \u2014 Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-yfyOvh on main, reviewing PLAN.md (payment test coverage) in HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules, so that requests like 'review this diff' or 'ship it' automatically route to the matching skill. This is a one-time setup prompt per project. Note: we are in plan mode right now, so if you choose A the CLAUDE.md edit and commit happen after plan mode ends, not now.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Without routing, you invoke each skill by name manually; with routing, future requests auto-route. Either way this review proceeds unchanged.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules make the skill suite discoverable in future sessions at zero ongoing cost.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: convenience for future sessions vs. one extra committed section in CLAUDE.md.",
"header": "Routing",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Add routing rules (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Future requests like 'ship this' or 'review the diff' auto-route to the right gstack skill.\n\u2705 One-time append to CLAUDE.md plus a chore commit; nothing else in the repo changes.\n\u274c Adds a committed section to CLAUDE.md that teammates will see and may need to agree on."
},
{
"label": "B) No thanks, invoke manually",
"description": "\u2705 CLAUDE.md stays exactly as it is; no commit is created on this branch.\n\u2705 Sets routing_declined so this prompt never appears again for this project.\n\u274c You must type each /skill name yourself; nothing routes automatically."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 \u2014 Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-yfyOvh on main, reviewing PLAN.md (payment test coverage) in HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules, so that requests like 'review this diff' or 'ship it' automatically route to the matching skill. This is a one-time setup prompt per project. Note: we are in plan mode right now, so if you choose A the CLAUDE.md edit and commit happen after plan mode ends, not now.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Without routing, you invoke each skill by name manually; with routing, future requests auto-route. Either way this review proceeds unchanged.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules make the skill suite discoverable in future sessions at zero ongoing cost.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: convenience for future sessions vs. one extra committed section in CLAUDE.md.": "A) Add routing rules (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T16:44:41.541Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "692e8fbb-26fe-4563-8270-f9738bbd61e4",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01SF1ri7h8o7ZNVcAyURK7H1",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D2 \u2014 Enable cross-project learnings search on this machine?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-yfyOvh on main, reviewing PLAN.md in HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: gstack can search learnings recorded from your other projects on this machine to find patterns that might apply here. Everything stays local; no data leaves your machine. It is recommended for solo developers. Skip it if you work across multiple client codebases where cross-contamination would be a concern. This is a one-time setting.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Enabling on a multi-client machine could surface one client's patterns while working on another's code. Disabling on a solo machine just means fewer prior learnings surface.\nRecommendation: A because this looks like a solo development machine and local-only search has no privacy cost.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: broader recall of your own past lessons vs. strict per-project isolation.",
"header": "Learnings",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Enable cross-project (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Learnings logged in any of your projects can inform reviews here, so patterns compound.\n\u2705 Stays entirely on this machine; nothing is uploaded or shared anywhere.\n\u274c If you work on several clients' codebases, patterns from one could surface while on another."
},
{
"label": "B) Keep project-scoped only",
"description": "\u2705 Strict isolation: only learnings logged in this repo ever appear in this repo's reviews.\n\u2705 Safe default for consultants and multi-client machines.\n\u274c Lessons learned elsewhere on this machine never help here; slower compounding."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D2 \u2014 Enable cross-project learnings search on this machine?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-yfyOvh on main, reviewing PLAN.md in HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: gstack can search learnings recorded from your other projects on this machine to find patterns that might apply here. Everything stays local; no data leaves your machine. It is recommended for solo developers. Skip it if you work across multiple client codebases where cross-contamination would be a concern. This is a one-time setting.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Enabling on a multi-client machine could surface one client's patterns while working on another's code. Disabling on a solo machine just means fewer prior learnings surface.\nRecommendation: A because this looks like a solo development machine and local-only search has no privacy cost.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: broader recall of your own past lessons vs. strict per-project isolation.": "A) Enable cross-project (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T16:45:09.718Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "692e8fbb-26fe-4563-8270-f9738bbd61e4",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01WscPDFzKT47QkXKi8eXaAd",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D3 \u2014 No design doc found for this branch. Run /office-hours first, or proceed with the standard review?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-yfyOvh on main, reviewing PLAN.md (two new processPayment unit tests) in HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: /office-hours produces a structured problem statement, a premise challenge, and explored alternatives. That gives this review sharper input to work with and takes about 10 minutes. The design doc is per-feature, not per-product; it captures the thinking behind this specific change. This plan is small and well-specified (two unit tests against existing, documented contracts), so the marginal value of a design doc is lower than for a greenfield feature.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Skipping on a vague plan means the review argues with an unclear premise. Running it on a crisp two-test plan costs 10 minutes for little new information.\nRecommendation: B because the plan already states its contracts, factory, and exact expected values; the premise is clear enough to review directly.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: 10 minutes of upstream framing vs. going straight into rigor on a plan whose premise is already legible.",
"header": "Prereq",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "B) Skip, standard review (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Goes straight into the HOLD SCOPE review you asked for; the plan's contracts are already explicit.\n\u2705 No extra 10-minute detour for a two-test change against documented behavior.\n\u274c If the plan's premise turns out to be wrong, we discover it mid-review instead of upfront."
},
{
"label": "A) Run /office-hours now",
"description": "\u2705 Produces a design doc with problem statement and alternatives that this review then uses as source of truth.\n\u2705 Catches a wrong premise before any rigor is spent on details.\n\u274c About 10 minutes (human) of framing for a plan that is two unit tests against stated contracts."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D3 \u2014 No design doc found for this branch. Run /office-hours first, or proceed with the standard review?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-yfyOvh on main, reviewing PLAN.md (two new processPayment unit tests) in HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: /office-hours produces a structured problem statement, a premise challenge, and explored alternatives. That gives this review sharper input to work with and takes about 10 minutes. The design doc is per-feature, not per-product; it captures the thinking behind this specific change. This plan is small and well-specified (two unit tests against existing, documented contracts), so the marginal value of a design doc is lower than for a greenfield feature.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Skipping on a vague plan means the review argues with an unclear premise. Running it on a crisp two-test plan costs 10 minutes for little new information.\nRecommendation: B because the plan already states its contracts, factory, and exact expected values; the premise is clear enough to review directly.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: 10 minutes of upstream framing vs. going straight into rigor on a plan whose premise is already legible.": "B) Skip, standard review (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T16:45:35.920Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "692e8fbb-26fe-4563-8270-f9738bbd61e4",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01GNFKHSQdojtu9gmrat1vCe",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D4 \u2014 Which implementation approach for the two processPayment tests?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-yfyOvh on main, PLAN.md adds two unit tests to the processPayment suite; HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: The plan spells out exact contracts (receipt equals { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }; exactly two Stripe attempts with one 100 ms backoff before PaymentUnavailable) but the proposed tests assert only 'receipt is truthy' and 'it rejects'. The question is how tightly the tests should pin those contracts. This approves a direction only; each individual assertion gap still gets its own decision in the review sections.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too loose and a refactor that double-charges, mis-copies the amount, or drops the retry passes CI. Too elaborate and we add a parameterized harness nobody needs for two cases.\nRecommendation: B because it is the smallest diff that verifies the plan's own stated invariants using probes the factory already exposes (explicit over clever, well-tested is non-negotiable).\nCompleteness: A=3/10, B=9/10, C=9/10\nNet: A trades correctness for brevity; C trades clarity for future flexibility; B pins the contracts with no new abstraction.",
"header": "Approach",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "B) Contract-exact assertions (recommended)",
"description": "Completeness 9/10. Same two tests and factory; success test deep-equals the stated receipt; 502 test asserts PaymentUnavailable plus exact call count and sleeper record. Effort: human ~1h / CC ~5min.\n\u2705 Every clause of the stated contracts is pinned and a failure names the broken field.\n\u2705 Uses the mock call history and sleeper record the factory already exposes for this purpose.\n\u274c Implementer must read the factory to confirm the exact shape of the sleeper record before asserting."
},
{
"label": "A) As written (smoke-level)",
"description": "Completeness 3/10. Assert receipt truthy and rejection type only. Effort: human ~30min / CC ~3min.\n\u2705 Smallest possible diff; nothing cosmetic can break it.\n\u2705 Zero risk of mismatching the sleeper record shape.\n\u274c Passes when amountCents is wrong, when zero retries happen, or when backoff is 0 ms or 10 s; does not test what the plan says it tests."
},
{
"label": "C) Table-driven scenario matrix",
"description": "Completeness 9/10. One parameterized test over rows of (responses, expected calls, sleeps, outcome). Effort: human ~half day / CC ~15min.\n\u2705 Future Stripe scenarios become one table row; attempts vs retries stays explicit.\n\u2705 Same exact assertions as B once the rows are filled in.\n\u274c Premature abstraction for two rows; less direct failure output; diverges from the suite's existing style."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D4 \u2014 Which implementation approach for the two processPayment tests?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-yfyOvh on main, PLAN.md adds two unit tests to the processPayment suite; HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: The plan spells out exact contracts (receipt equals { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }; exactly two Stripe attempts with one 100 ms backoff before PaymentUnavailable) but the proposed tests assert only 'receipt is truthy' and 'it rejects'. The question is how tightly the tests should pin those contracts. This approves a direction only; each individual assertion gap still gets its own decision in the review sections.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too loose and a refactor that double-charges, mis-copies the amount, or drops the retry passes CI. Too elaborate and we add a parameterized harness nobody needs for two cases.\nRecommendation: B because it is the smallest diff that verifies the plan's own stated invariants using probes the factory already exposes (explicit over clever, well-tested is non-negotiable).\nCompleteness: A=3/10, B=9/10, C=9/10\nNet: A trades correctness for brevity; C trades clarity for future flexibility; B pins the contracts with no new abstraction.": "B) Contract-exact assertions (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T16:48:06.530Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "692e8fbb-26fe-4563-8270-f9738bbd61e4",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01RztXMTceUCT9p7UW2vanZN",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D5 \u2014 Finding 1 (Section 2): the repeated-502 test does not verify the attempt count. Assert exactly two Stripe charge calls?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-yfyOvh on main, PLAN.md test 2 (repeated 502 -> PaymentUnavailable); HOLD SCOPE, Approach B.\nELI10: The plan states the contract as 'max_retries=1 means two total charge attempts', and the factory exposes the Stripe mock call history for exactly this purpose. The planned test asserts only that the call rejects with PaymentUnavailable. That passes if the code gives up after one attempt (customers lose a sale that one retry would have saved) or keeps hammering Stripe for five attempts. The remedy is one exact-count assertion on the mock's call history, plus arranging the mock so any un-scripted third call fails loudly instead of returning undefined.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A retry regression in either direction ships green. In a payment path 'too many attempts' can also mean duplicate charges when Stripe actually succeeded on a late attempt.\nRecommendation: 1A because the contract states an exact count, the probe already exists, and a lower bound or no check would let both regressions through (edge cases over speed; explicit over clever).\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=5/10, C=3/10\nNet: one line of assertion vs. a test that cannot tell one attempt from five.",
"header": "Finding 1",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "1A) Assert exactly 2 calls (recommended)",
"description": "Completeness 10/10. After the rejection, assert stripeMock call history length === 2 (exact), and arrange the mock so a third call throws an 'unexpected call' error. Failure output: the count diff or the unexpected-call error. Effort: human ~10min / CC ~1min.\n\u2705 Rejects both regressions: giving up after one attempt and retrying past max_retries.\n\u2705 Uses the call history the factory already exposes; no new test infrastructure.\n\u274c Test must be updated if max_retries in the factory ever changes (which is the point)."
},
{
"label": "1B) Assert at least 2 calls",
"description": "Completeness 5/10. Assert call history length >= 2. Effort: human ~5min / CC ~1min.\n\u2705 Catches the 'gave up after one attempt' regression.\n\u2705 Never fails if retries are later increased.\n\u274c Passes when the code retries past max_retries, which is the double-charge risk; contradicts the plan's stated exact count."
},
{
"label": "1C) Do nothing (keep rejects-only)",
"description": "Completeness 3/10. Keep the test as planned. Effort: none.\n\u2705 Smallest test body; matches the plan text literally.\n\u2705 No dependency on the mock's call-history shape.\n\u274c The retry contract the plan itself states remains untested; zero or five attempts both pass."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D5 \u2014 Finding 1 (Section 2): the repeated-502 test does not verify the attempt count. Assert exactly two Stripe charge calls?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-yfyOvh on main, PLAN.md test 2 (repeated 502 -> PaymentUnavailable); HOLD SCOPE, Approach B.\nELI10: The plan states the contract as 'max_retries=1 means two total charge attempts', and the factory exposes the Stripe mock call history for exactly this purpose. The planned test asserts only that the call rejects with PaymentUnavailable. That passes if the code gives up after one attempt (customers lose a sale that one retry would have saved) or keeps hammering Stripe for five attempts. The remedy is one exact-count assertion on the mock's call history, plus arranging the mock so any un-scripted third call fails loudly instead of returning undefined.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A retry regression in either direction ships green. In a payment path 'too many attempts' can also mean duplicate charges when Stripe actually succeeded on a late attempt.\nRecommendation: 1A because the contract states an exact count, the probe already exists, and a lower bound or no check would let both regressions through (edge cases over speed; explicit over clever).\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=5/10, C=3/10\nNet: one line of assertion vs. a test that cannot tell one attempt from five.": "1A) Assert exactly 2 calls (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T16:48:56.432Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "692e8fbb-26fe-4563-8270-f9738bbd61e4",
"toolUseId": "toolu_015FnhxkUbGvQDENsy2kygyX",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D6 \u2014 Finding 2 (Section 2): the repeated-502 test does not verify the backoff. Assert the virtual sleeper recorded exactly one 100 ms sleep?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-yfyOvh on main, PLAN.md test 2 (repeated 502 -> PaymentUnavailable); HOLD SCOPE, Approach B.\nELI10: The plan states 'two total charge attempts separated by one recorded 100 ms backoff', and the factory injects a virtual sleeper that records every backoff without real delays, so this assertion is free of timing flakiness. The planned test never reads that record. As written it passes if the code retries instantly (hammering a struggling Stripe), sleeps 10 seconds (the customer stares at a spinner), or sleeps after the final attempt for no reason. This is independent of Finding 1: the attempt count can be right while the backoff is wrong, and vice versa.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A backoff regression is invisible to every existing suite the plan lists; it surfaces in production as either a 502 storm or a slow checkout.\nRecommendation: 2A because the contract states the exact count and duration, the sleeper exists precisely to make this deterministic, and a looser check misses the 'zero backoff' and 'extra sleep' cases (thoughtfulness over speed).\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=3/10\nNet: one deep-equal on a recorded array vs. a retry test that never looks at the retry delay.",
"header": "Finding 2",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "2A) Assert sleeper record equals [100] (recommended)",
"description": "Completeness 10/10. After the rejection, deep-equal the sleeper's recorded backoffs to exactly one entry of 100 ms (adapt to the factory's record shape, e.g. [100] or [{ms:100}]). Failure output: array diff. Effort: human ~10min / CC ~1min.\n\u2705 Rejects zero backoff, wrong duration, and a stray sleep after the last attempt.\n\u2705 Deterministic: the virtual sleeper records without waiting, so no fake-timer races.\n\u274c Implementer must read the factory to match the record's exact shape before asserting."
},
{
"label": "2B) Assert the sleeper was called once",
"description": "Completeness 6/10. Assert exactly one recorded sleep, ignore its duration. Effort: human ~5min / CC ~1min.\n\u2705 Catches instant-retry and extra-sleep regressions.\n\u2705 Not coupled to the 100 ms constant.\n\u274c A backoff of 0 ms or 10 s passes; the plan's stated 100 ms is left untested."
},
{
"label": "2C) Do nothing (keep rejects-only)",
"description": "Completeness 3/10. Do not read the sleeper record. Effort: none.\n\u2705 Matches the plan text literally; shortest test.\n\u2705 No coupling to the sleeper's record shape.\n\u274c The backoff clause of the stated contract is untested; instant retry or a 10 s stall both pass."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D6 \u2014 Finding 2 (Section 2): the repeated-502 test does not verify the backoff. Assert the virtual sleeper recorded exactly one 100 ms sleep?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-yfyOvh on main, PLAN.md test 2 (repeated 502 -> PaymentUnavailable); HOLD SCOPE, Approach B.\nELI10: The plan states 'two total charge attempts separated by one recorded 100 ms backoff', and the factory injects a virtual sleeper that records every backoff without real delays, so this assertion is free of timing flakiness. The planned test never reads that record. As written it passes if the code retries instantly (hammering a struggling Stripe), sleeps 10 seconds (the customer stares at a spinner), or sleeps after the final attempt for no reason. This is independent of Finding 1: the attempt count can be right while the backoff is wrong, and vice versa.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A backoff regression is invisible to every existing suite the plan lists; it surfaces in production as either a 502 storm or a slow checkout.\nRecommendation: 2A because the contract states the exact count and duration, the sleeper exists precisely to make this deterministic, and a looser check misses the 'zero backoff' and 'extra sleep' cases (thoughtfulness over speed).\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=3/10\nNet: one deep-equal on a recorded array vs. a retry test that never looks at the retry delay.": "2A) Assert sleeper record equals [100] (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T16:49:18.609Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "692e8fbb-26fe-4563-8270-f9738bbd61e4",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01LRTDoL73213kTD5ERzJ4Ag",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D7 \u2014 Finding 3 (Section 4): the success test asserts only that the receipt is truthy. Deep-equal the receipt to the stated contract?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-yfyOvh on main, PLAN.md test 1 (successful 1000-cent USD charge); HOLD SCOPE, Approach B.\nELI10: The plan states the exact receipt for this input: { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }. The planned assertion is 'receipt is truthy', which any non-null object satisfies, including { chargeId: undefined, amountCents: 100000, currency: \"EUR\" } or an error object. The remedy is one deep-equality assertion against the stated literal, which also fails loudly if extra fields appear.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A receipt that mis-copies the amount or drops chargeId ships green; downstream reconciliation and refunds break on a field the caller-level test never looked at.\nRecommendation: 3A because the plan already states the exact expected value, so the assertion is a transcription, and truthy-only tests are the classic false-confidence smell (well-tested is non-negotiable).\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=2/10\nNet: three known fields checked exactly vs. a test that passes for any object at all.",
"header": "Finding 3",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "3A) Deep-equal the full receipt (recommended)",
"description": "Completeness 10/10. Assert the receipt deep-equals { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }. Failure output: field-level diff. Effort: human ~5min / CC ~1min.\n\u2705 Pins chargeId copy, amount integrity, and currency in one assertion that names the broken field.\n\u2705 Fails if unexpected fields leak into the receipt, which strict equality catches for free.\n\u274c If the receipt legitimately gains a field later, this test must be updated alongside."
},
{
"label": "3B) Assert the three fields individually",
"description": "Completeness 7/10. Three separate equality checks on chargeId, amountCents, currency. Effort: human ~5min / CC ~1min.\n\u2705 Each stated field is pinned; readable one-line failures.\n\u2705 Tolerates extra receipt fields without a test change.\n\u274c Extra or renamed fields go unnoticed; three lines where one strict deep-equal does the job."
},
{
"label": "3C) Do nothing (keep truthy)",
"description": "Completeness 2/10. Keep 'receipt is truthy'. Effort: none.\n\u2705 Matches the plan text literally.\n\u2705 Never breaks on receipt shape changes.\n\u274c Any object passes, including wrong amount or missing chargeId; the stated contract stays untested."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D7 \u2014 Finding 3 (Section 4): the success test asserts only that the receipt is truthy. Deep-equal the receipt to the stated contract?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-yfyOvh on main, PLAN.md test 1 (successful 1000-cent USD charge); HOLD SCOPE, Approach B.\nELI10: The plan states the exact receipt for this input: { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }. The planned assertion is 'receipt is truthy', which any non-null object satisfies, including { chargeId: undefined, amountCents: 100000, currency: \"EUR\" } or an error object. The remedy is one deep-equality assertion against the stated literal, which also fails loudly if extra fields appear.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A receipt that mis-copies the amount or drops chargeId ships green; downstream reconciliation and refunds break on a field the caller-level test never looked at.\nRecommendation: 3A because the plan already states the exact expected value, so the assertion is a transcription, and truthy-only tests are the classic false-confidence smell (well-tested is non-negotiable).\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=2/10\nNet: three known fields checked exactly vs. a test that passes for any object at all.": "3A) Deep-equal the full receipt (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T16:49:50.342Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "692e8fbb-26fe-4563-8270-f9738bbd61e4",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01AMsw3VXQ8LMvNWacXyWboT",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D8 \u2014 Finding 4 (Section 4): the success test never looks at the outbound Stripe call. Assert exactly one charge call, made with amountCents 1000 and currency USD?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-yfyOvh on main, PLAN.md test 1 (successful charge); HOLD SCOPE, Approach B.\nELI10: Honest framing first: the plan's stated success contract covers only the returned receipt, so this check is not a transcription of stated text the way findings 1-3 are. It is the hostile-QA question for the same test: did processPayment call Stripe once, with the amount and currency the caller asked for? A code path that charges twice on success, or sends 100000 instead of 1000, still returns a perfect-looking receipt and passes finding 3. The mock's call history already exposes both facts, so the remedy is two assertions on data the test already has in hand. Skipping is a legitimate HOLD SCOPE call because it adds an outcome the plan did not state.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Include: two extra lines. Skip: the single highest-stakes payment bug (double charge or wrong amount sent to Stripe) has no caller-level test.\nRecommendation: 4A because the receipt is what the caller sees but the Stripe call is what the customer pays, the probe exists, and the cost is two assertion lines (I err toward more edge cases, not fewer).\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=4/10\nNet: observing the side effect vs. observing only the return value of a function whose whole job is the side effect.",
"header": "Finding 4",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "4A) Assert 1 call with 1000/USD (recommended)",
"description": "Completeness 10/10. Assert Stripe mock call history length === 1 and that the single call's arguments carry amountCents 1000 and currency USD. Failure output: count diff or argument diff. Effort: human ~10min / CC ~1min.\n\u2705 Rejects double-charge-on-success and wrong-amount-sent, the two money-losing regressions no listed suite covers at the caller level.\n\u2705 Reuses the same call-history probe finding 1 already relies on; no new infrastructure.\n\u274c Goes beyond the plan's stated success contract; couples the test to the mock's argument shape."
},
{
"label": "4B) Assert exactly 1 call only",
"description": "Completeness 7/10. Assert call history length === 1; do not inspect arguments. Effort: human ~5min / CC ~1min.\n\u2705 Catches double charge on success with one line.\n\u2705 No coupling to the mock's argument shape.\n\u274c Sending the wrong amount or currency to Stripe still passes."
},
{
"label": "4C) Skip, stay within stated contract",
"description": "Completeness 4/10. Do not inspect the Stripe call in the success test. Effort: none.\n\u2705 Strictly honors the plan's stated success contract; no scope movement at all.\n\u2705 Shortest test body.\n\u274c Double charge and wrong-amount-sent remain untested at the caller level; the receipt can look right while the charge is wrong."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D8 \u2014 Finding 4 (Section 4): the success test never looks at the outbound Stripe call. Assert exactly one charge call, made with amountCents 1000 and currency USD?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-yfyOvh on main, PLAN.md test 1 (successful charge); HOLD SCOPE, Approach B.\nELI10: Honest framing first: the plan's stated success contract covers only the returned receipt, so this check is not a transcription of stated text the way findings 1-3 are. It is the hostile-QA question for the same test: did processPayment call Stripe once, with the amount and currency the caller asked for? A code path that charges twice on success, or sends 100000 instead of 1000, still returns a perfect-looking receipt and passes finding 3. The mock's call history already exposes both facts, so the remedy is two assertions on data the test already has in hand. Skipping is a legitimate HOLD SCOPE call because it adds an outcome the plan did not state.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Include: two extra lines. Skip: the single highest-stakes payment bug (double charge or wrong amount sent to Stripe) has no caller-level test.\nRecommendation: 4A because the receipt is what the caller sees but the Stripe call is what the customer pays, the probe exists, and the cost is two assertion lines (I err toward more edge cases, not fewer).\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=4/10\nNet: observing the side effect vs. observing only the return value of a function whose whole job is the side effect.": "4A) Assert 1 call with 1000/USD (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T16:50:12.533Z"
}
],
"observedOutcome": "running"
}
}
test/fixtures/ceo-count-mode-ab-call.json
Vendored
-36
View File
@@ -1,36 +0,0 @@
{
"sessionId": "abff750e-b5df-42fa-a1cf-a4abd940e117",
"toolUseId": "toolu_019fZWZV41QiqKrrudHhjLXo",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D3 — Which review mode should I use for this test coverage plan? <gstack-qid:ceo-mode-selection>",
"header": "Review mode",
"options": [
{
"label": "SCOPE EXPANSION — Dream big, propose ambitious version",
"description": "Push scope up. Surface the 10x version of this test suite (property-based tests, mutation testing, chaos scenarios). Every expansion is your opt-in."
},
{
"label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION — Hold scope, cherry-pick extras",
"description": "Hold the two-test baseline. Surface expansion opportunities individually (e.g. contract assertions, mock-call-count checks). You choose which to add."
},
{
"label": "HOLD SCOPE — Maximum rigor (Recommended)",
"description": "Accept the plan's scope (two minimal tests). Review it with maximum rigor: architecture, error paths, edge cases, observability. No expansions surfaced. Default for test coverage plans."
},
{
"label": "SCOPE REDUCTION — Strip to essentials",
"description": "Find the minimum viable version. Ruthlessly cut anything that isn’t absolutely required."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D3 — Which review mode should I use for this test coverage plan? <gstack-qid:ceo-mode-selection>": "SCOPE EXPANSION — Dream big, propose ambitious version"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T13:51:25.511Z"
}
test/fixtures/ceo-count-s-paired.json
Vendored
-169
View File
@@ -1,169 +0,0 @@
{
"provenance": "Exact S native calls/report, output-only captured audit; raw paid outcome remains unchanged",
"calls": [
{
"sessionId": "68f98687-5f11-4ca5-9204-88e36361cca8",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Bmmcj4wYEZUydJjJbihKpP",
"questions": [
{
"question": "Which implementation approach should the processPayment() tests use? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-0c-bis-approach>",
"header": "Test approach",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Pinned assertions \u2014 assert specific fields (recommended)",
"description": "Happy path asserts exact receipt fields (charge ID, amount, currency, status). 502 path asserts exactly 2 Stripe call attempts via mock history, backoff was invoked, and the precise error the caller sees. Completeness: 10/10. Human: ~2-3h / CC: ~8min."
},
{
"label": "Minimal \u2014 match the plan exactly",
"description": "Happy path asserts a receipt was generated. 502 path asserts retry fired and it failed clean. Faster, but assertions are existence-level \u2014 a refactor that changes receipt fields or error type silently passes. Completeness: 7/10. Human: ~2h / CC: ~5min."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"Which implementation approach should the processPayment() tests use? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-0c-bis-approach>": "Pinned assertions \u2014 assert specific fields (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T05:41:37.010Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "68f98687-5f11-4ca5-9204-88e36361cca8",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01UG9knknRwzaBLgXnE6e4V8",
"questions": [
{
"question": "Which review mode for this test-coverage plan? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-0f-mode>",
"header": "Review mode",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "HOLD SCOPE \u2014 make it bulletproof (recommended)",
"description": "Scope is right. Review for architecture, edge cases, assertion completeness, and failure observability. No expansions surfaced. Right for a targeted test-coverage addition."
},
{
"label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION \u2014 hold scope, surface extras",
"description": "Same rigor, but also surfaces cherry-pick ideas (e.g., nil-arg test, concurrent payment test, property-based tests). You opt in to each one. Right if you want to see what else is possible."
},
{
"label": "SCOPE EXPANSION \u2014 dream big",
"description": "Propose the ambitious version: full path coverage, integration tests, mutation testing. Right if you want to see what 10x test coverage looks like before scoping down."
},
{
"label": "SCOPE REDUCTION \u2014 find the minimum viable tests",
"description": "Cut to the absolute minimum. Right if the plan feels over-specified or you just want a smoke-test for now."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"Which review mode for this test-coverage plan? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-0f-mode>": "HOLD SCOPE \u2014 make it bulletproof (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T05:41:49.038Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "68f98687-5f11-4ca5-9204-88e36361cca8",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01S6zM54HTkMs2Jzbcry9GCb",
"questions": [
{
"question": "Section 6, Finding #1: The 502 test says 'fails clean' \u2014 what does the caller receive? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-s6-finding1>",
"header": "502 failure type",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Define it in the plan \u2014 add the exception class (recommended)",
"description": "Add one line: 'The 502 test asserts processPayment() raises [ExceptionClass] after exactly 2 Stripe charge attempts.' Ensures the test rejects wrong error types (e.g., a generic RuntimeError instead of StripeGatewayError). The implementer reads the existing Stripe adapter to confirm the class name."
},
{
"label": "Leave it to the implementer",
"description": "Trust the implementer to pick the right assertion. Faster now, but risks a test that passes on the wrong error type or silently swallows the error. Lower assertion strength."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"Section 6, Finding #1: The 502 test says 'fails clean' \u2014 what does the caller receive? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-s6-finding1>": "Define it in the plan \u2014 add the exception class (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T05:44:08.976Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "68f98687-5f11-4ca5-9204-88e36361cca8",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01HT1oRfAxg6XFVjEr77ymVD",
"questions": [
{
"question": "Section 6, Finding #2: 'Correct receipt' needs a field list for pinned assertions. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-s6-finding2>",
"header": "Receipt field spec",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Name the fields in the plan (recommended)",
"description": "Add to the plan: 'Happy path asserts receipt.charge_id equals the mock charge ID, receipt.amount equals the input amount, receipt.currency matches, and receipt.status equals the success marker.' Implementer verifies exact field names against the schema. Strong regression signal."
},
{
"label": "Assert at least non-nil receipt + one key field",
"description": "Specify only 'receipt is not nil and receipt.charge_id is set.' Weaker but still better than existence-only. Leaves schema details to the implementer."
},
{
"label": "Leave entirely to the implementer",
"description": "Trust the implementer to decide which receipt fields to assert. No plan change. Risk: 'correct' remains undefined and assertion strength depends on implementer's judgment."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"Section 6, Finding #2: 'Correct receipt' needs a field list for pinned assertions. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-s6-finding2>": "Name the fields in the plan (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T05:44:16.998Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "68f98687-5f11-4ca5-9204-88e36361cca8",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01P9ix663Ywm1aC4x8QzdkU2",
"questions": [
{
"question": "CEO Review is CLEAN. Run /plan-eng-review next? It's the required shipping gate. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-next-step>",
"header": "Next review",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Run /plan-eng-review next (recommended)",
"description": "Required gate before shipping. Covers architecture, security, test quality, performance. This CEO review found no architecture concerns, so eng review should be fast."
},
{
"label": "Skip \u2014 I\u2019ll handle reviews manually",
"description": "Proceed without the eng review gate. You own ensuring correctness before shipping."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"CEO Review is CLEAN. Run /plan-eng-review next? It's the required shipping gate. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-next-step>": "Run /plan-eng-review next (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T05:46:48.647Z"
}
],
"planReadyRequests": [
{
"sessionId": "68f98687-5f11-4ca5-9204-88e36361cca8",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01HDZYASGm7kjr8pPrCvcEvQ",
"timestamp": "2026-09-09T05:47:50.455Z",
"failed": false
}
],
"report": "# CEO Plan Review \u2014 Payment Processing Test Coverage\n\n**Branch:** main | **Mode:** TBD | **Review date:** 2026-09-09\n\n---\n\n## Context\n\n`processPayment()` has zero unit tests. The plan proposes two: a happy-path test (successful\nStripe charge \u2192 correct receipt) and a 502-failure test (Stripe returns 502 \u2192 retry-with-backoff\nfires once \u2192 fails clean). The existing test factory, Stripe mock, and virtual sleeper are\nwell-chosen infrastructure; the plan reuses them rather than reinventing.\n\n---\n\n## Step 0: Scope Challenge\n\n### 0A. Premise Challenge\n\n- **Right problem?** Yes. Zero unit tests on a payment function is a concrete risk \u2014 regressions\n in success or failure handling go undetected until QA or production.\n- **Actual outcome?** Deployment confidence; automated regression detection for the two most\n critical paths: money is charged correctly, and partial failures don't corrupt state.\n- **What if we did nothing?** Next Stripe API change or receipt-builder refactor could break\n `processPayment()` silently. Real pain point, not hypothetical.\n\n### 0B. Existing Code Leverage\n\nAll relevant infrastructure is already in place and the plan explicitly invokes it:\n\n| Sub-problem | Existing code |\n|-------------|--------------|\n| Stripe mock with call history | payment test factory (mock call history exposed) |\n| Backoff without real delays | virtual sleeper injected by factory |\n| max_retries=1 configuration | factory explicitly sets this |\n| Receipt-builder regression protection | separate passing suite (not touched) |\n\nThe plan reuses all four. No parallel infrastructure proposed.\n\n### 0C. Dream State Mapping\n\n```\nCURRENT STATE THIS PLAN 12-MONTH IDEAL\nprocessPayment() has ---> 2 unit tests: ---> Full path coverage:\nzero unit tests happy path + success, all error codes\n 502 failure (402, 429, 502, timeout),\n idempotency, concurrent\n calls, property-based\n charge-amount tests\n```\n\nThis plan moves clearly toward the 12-month ideal; it captures the two highest-leverage\npaths first. Acceptable starting point.\n\n### 0C-bis. Implementation Alternatives\n\n**APPROACH A \u2014 Minimal (matches the plan exactly)**\n```\nSummary: Two tests, as described. Happy path asserts \"a receipt is generated\";\n 502 path asserts \"fails clean\" (mechanism TBD).\nEffort: S (human ~2h / CC ~5min)\nRisk: Low\nPros: - Fastest to ship; zero scope creep\n - Happy/failure separation is clean design\nCons: - \"Correct receipt\" and \"fails clean\" are vague \u2014 a future refactor\n could change receipt fields or the error type without breaking these tests\n - Assertion strength is low: tests confirm existence, not correctness\nReuses: factory, mock, virtual sleeper\nCompleteness: 7/10\n```\n\n**APPROACH B \u2014 Pinned assertions (recommended)**\n```\nSummary: Same two tests, but with explicit assertion targets:\n - Happy path: assert specific receipt fields (charge ID, amount, currency,\n status) not just \"receipt exists\"\n - 502 path: assert exactly 2 charge attempts via mock call history,\n assert virtual sleeper was invoked (backoff confirmed), and assert\n the precise caller-visible outcome (exception class, or nil+error, etc.)\nEffort: S (human ~2-3h / CC ~8min)\nRisk: Low\nPros: - Tests reject wrong behavior, not just missing behavior\n - Future refactors that change receipt shape or error type are caught\n - \"Exactly 2 attempts\" is stronger than \"retry fired once\"\nCons: - Requires knowing the exact receipt schema and error contract upfront\n - Slightly more brittle if receipt schema is intentionally loose\nReuses: same \u2014 factory, mock, virtual sleeper\nCompleteness: 10/10\n```\n\n**RECOMMENDATION: Approach B.** Completeness is cheap with CC \u2014 3 extra minutes nets 10/10\ncoverage vs 7/10. Tests that assert existence without pinning values are fragile; they pass\neven when behavior is wrong. \"Correct receipt\" needs a definition, and this is the moment to\nwrite it down. Aligns with engineering preference: thoughtfulness > speed, handle more edge\ncases not fewer.\n\n---\n\n## Step 0F \u2014 Mode Selection\n\n**HOLD SCOPE** \u2014 make the plan bulletproof; no expansions surfaced.\n\n---\n\n## Step 0E \u2014 Temporal Interrogation\n\n```\nHOUR 1 (setup): Pick the assertion library; confirm mock call-count API.\nHOUR 2 (happy): Write the happy-path test \u2014 need the receipt schema in hand.\nHOUR 3 (502): Write the 502 test \u2014 need the exact error contract (exception vs nil).\nHOUR 4 (polish): Run full suite, verify virtual sLine truncated
"screen": " Sections 1 (Architecture), 2 (Errors), 3 (Security), 4 (Data/UX), 5 (Code Quality),\n 7 (Performance), 8 (Observability), 9 (Deployment), 10 (Long-term). Section 11 skipped (no UI).\n\n GSTACK REVIEW REPORT\n\n \u250c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u252c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u252c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u252c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u252c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u252c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2510\n \u2502 Review \u2502 Trigger \u2502 Why \u2502 Runs \u2502 Status \u2502 Findings \u2502\n \u251c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2524\n \u2502 CEO \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 mode: HOLD_SCOPE, 0 critical gaps; 2 \u2502\n \u2502 Review \u2502 /plan-ceo-review \u2502 Scope & strategy \u2502 1 \u2502 CLEAN \u2502 findings resolved (exception class + \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 receipt fields) \u2502\n \u251c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2524\n \u2502 Outside \u2502 disabled \u2502 Independent 2nd \u2502 0 \u2502 DISABLED \u2502 codex_reviews=disabled \u2502\n \u2502 Review \u2502 \u2502 opinion \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u251c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2524\n \u2502 Eng \u2502 /plan-eng-review \u2502 Architecture & \u2502 0 \u2502 \u2014 \u2502 not yet run \u2502\n \u2502 Review \u2502 \u2502 tests (required) \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u251c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2524\n \u2502 Design \u2502 /plan-design-review \u2502 UI/UX gaps \u2502 0 Line truncated
"initialReportWriteAt": "2026-09-09T05:41:26.362Z",
"reportMtimeMs": 1788932785090.0876
}
test/fixtures/ceo-count-w-paired.json
Vendored
-105
View File
@@ -1,105 +0,0 @@
{
"source": "W paired first attempt native AskUserQuestion calls, exact question/options/answers; no rescore of historical run",
"calls": [
{
"sessionId": "e085f9ed-106c-4221-885e-31ef6d1f6704",
"toolUseId": "toolu_011esQs6aZmjLoM9yFnAu4Jp",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 \u2014 What does processPayment() return or raise when 502 retries are exhausted? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-failure-sig>\n\nELI10: When Stripe keeps returning 502 and the retry budget runs out (max_retries=1 means 2 total attempts), processPayment() has to signal failure to its caller. The 502 exhaustion test needs to assert this exact behavior \u2014 but the plan says only \"fails clean\" without defining what that means. Without a specified failure contract (exception class or error return), the test cannot be written correctly.\n\nStakes: An assumption here that's wrong means the test asserts the wrong contract \u2014 it may pass while not actually verifying the intended behavior, giving false confidence in a payment-critical path.\n\nRecommendation: A because exception-raising is the most common payment failure pattern, most explicit for callers, and most directly testable.\n\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=8/10, C=4/10\n\nNet: A or B adds one sentence to the plan and unblocks implementation; C defers and creates ambiguity the implementer must resolve alone.",
"header": "Failure sig",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Specify: raises exception (Recommended)",
"description": "Add to plan: \"processPayment() raises PaymentError (or equivalent) on 502 exhaustion; no receipt is emitted.\" Implementer asserts the exception class in the 502 test."
},
{
"label": "Specify: returns error value",
"description": "Add to plan: \"processPayment() returns an error tuple/result on 502 exhaustion; no receipt is emitted.\" Implementer asserts the error return in the 502 test."
},
{
"label": "Defer to implementer",
"description": "Leave failure contract unspecified. The developer reads the existing code to determine it at implementation time. Creates ambiguity; acceptable if the contract is already documented elsewhere."
}
]
}
],
"answers": {
"D1 \u2014 What does processPayment() return or raise when 502 retries are exhausted? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-failure-sig>\n\nELI10: When Stripe keeps returning 502 and the retry budget runs out (max_retries=1 means 2 total attempts), processPayment() has to signal failure to its caller. The 502 exhaustion test needs to assert this exact behavior \u2014 but the plan says only \"fails clean\" without defining what that means. Without a specified failure contract (exception class or error return), the test cannot be written correctly.\n\nStakes: An assumption here that's wrong means the test asserts the wrong contract \u2014 it may pass while not actually verifying the intended behavior, giving false confidence in a payment-critical path.\n\nRecommendation: A because exception-raising is the most common payment failure pattern, most explicit for callers, and most directly testable.\n\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=8/10, C=4/10\n\nNet: A or B adds one sentence to the plan and unblocks implementation; C defers and creates ambiguity the implementer must resolve alone.": "Specify: raises exception (Recommended)"
},
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T09:36:36.913Z",
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"unansweredQuestionIndices": []
},
{
"sessionId": "e085f9ed-106c-4221-885e-31ef6d1f6704",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01VuyZDEogxPgphTdJQxB8Sj",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D2 \u2014 What must the happy path test assert about the receipt? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-receipt-spec>\n\nELI10: The plan says \"assert correct receipt is generated\" but doesn't define what \"correct\" means. A receipt struct has multiple fields (amount, currency, customer_id, stripe_charge_id, etc.). The test could assert: (A) all key business fields by value, (B) only the Stripe-linked field (charge ID) to confirm the right charge was recorded, or (C) just that a receipt exists (smoke test only). Option A is a correctness test; C is a smoke test that would pass even with a half-populated receipt.\n\nStakes: A test that only checks receipt presence could pass while critical fields (amount, customer_id) are wrong \u2014 a payment is charged correctly in Stripe but the internal record is broken.\n\nRecommendation: A because correctness means verifying the business-critical fields, not just existence. CC writes this in seconds.\n\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=3/10\n\nNet: A vs C is the difference between a correctness test and a smoke test.",
"header": "Receipt spec",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Full field assertion (Recommended)",
"description": "Plan specifies: assert receipt.amount, receipt.currency, receipt.customer_id, and receipt.stripe_charge_id match expected values. Full structural correctness test."
},
{
"label": "Stripe linkage only",
"description": "Plan specifies: assert receipt.stripe_charge_id matches the mock charge ID. Confirms the right charge was recorded; other fields assumed correct."
},
{
"label": "Presence only (smoke test)",
"description": "Plan specifies: assert a receipt is returned (not nil/error). Minimal \u2014 does not verify field values."
}
]
}
],
"answers": {
"D2 \u2014 What must the happy path test assert about the receipt? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-receipt-spec>\n\nELI10: The plan says \"assert correct receipt is generated\" but doesn't define what \"correct\" means. A receipt struct has multiple fields (amount, currency, customer_id, stripe_charge_id, etc.). The test could assert: (A) all key business fields by value, (B) only the Stripe-linked field (charge ID) to confirm the right charge was recorded, or (C) just that a receipt exists (smoke test only). Option A is a correctness test; C is a smoke test that would pass even with a half-populated receipt.\n\nStakes: A test that only checks receipt presence could pass while critical fields (amount, customer_id) are wrong \u2014 a payment is charged correctly in Stripe but the internal record is broken.\n\nRecommendation: A because correctness means verifying the business-critical fields, not just existence. CC writes this in seconds.\n\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=3/10\n\nNet: A vs C is the difference between a correctness test and a smoke test.": "Full field assertion (Recommended)"
},
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T09:36:50.950Z",
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"unansweredQuestionIndices": []
},
{
"sessionId": "e085f9ed-106c-4221-885e-31ef6d1f6704",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01GPeo4Z8FQvGf5MF2vZ21L3",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D3\u2013D6 \u2014 Which of these test quality additions should be added to the plan? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-test-quality>\n\nELI10: The plan's two tests are scoped correctly but leave 4 test quality gaps unspecified. Each is a one-liner to add to the plan and a few lines of test code. All are recommended \u2014 they separate a correctness test suite from a smoke test suite. With CC, implementation cost is negligible.\n\nRecommendation: All four \u2014 each closes a real gap in what the test proves. Completeness: each is 10/10 with all selected, 7/10 without any.\n\nNet: Selecting all turns the plan into a complete test specification; selecting none leaves implementation details to the developer's discretion.",
"header": "Test quality",
"multiSelect": true,
"options": [
{
"label": "Assert charge count (mock.call_count == 2)",
"description": "502 test must assert the Stripe mock was called exactly twice (one original + one retry). The factory exposes call history \u2014 the plan should require using it."
},
{
"label": "Assert backoff invoked (virtual_sleeper)",
"description": "502 test must assert the virtual sleeper was invoked (backoff actually fired, not skipped). The plan mentions the sleeper records backoff but doesn't require asserting it."
},
{
"label": "State test isolation explicitly",
"description": "Plan should state: factory provides a fully mocked Stripe client; no real network calls. Prevents future confusion about whether these are true unit tests."
},
{
"label": "Require descriptive test names + messages",
"description": "Plan should require descriptive test names and failure messages (e.g., 'expected 2 Stripe calls, got N'). Makes CI failures debuggable without reading the implementation."
}
]
}
],
"answers": {
"D3\u2013D6 \u2014 Which of these test quality additions should be added to the plan? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-test-quality>\n\nELI10: The plan's two tests are scoped correctly but leave 4 test quality gaps unspecified. Each is a one-liner to add to the plan and a few lines of test code. All are recommended \u2014 they separate a correctness test suite from a smoke test suite. With CC, implementation cost is negligible.\n\nRecommendation: All four \u2014 each closes a real gap in what the test proves. Completeness: each is 10/10 with all selected, 7/10 without any.\n\nNet: Selecting all turns the plan into a complete test specification; selecting none leaves implementation details to the developer's discretion.": "Assert charge count (mock.call_count == 2)"
},
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T09:37:26.560Z",
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"unansweredQuestionIndices": []
}
]
}
test/fixtures/ceo-current-contract-an.json
Vendored
-332
View File
@@ -1,332 +0,0 @@
{
"fingerprints": [
{
"signature": "9f9026fd-6764-431d-9389-3ad685bc96ba:toolu_01BWfLstbb7s9fnR84ozpnYq",
"promptSnippet": "Routing gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules (one-time setup prompt from skill-start). Add them? Note: we are in plan mode, so if you pick A the CLAUDE.md edit and commit happen after this review exit",
"options": [
{
"index": 1,
"label": "Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "No thanks, I'll invoke skills manually"
},
{
"index": 1,
"label": "Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "Keep learnings project-scoped only"
}
],
"observedAtMs": 98311,
"preReview": true,
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "9f9026fd-6764-431d-9389-3ad685bc96ba",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01BWfLstbb7s9fnR84ozpnYq",
"questions": [
{
"header": "Routing",
"question": "gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules (one-time setup prompt from skill-start). Add them? Note: we are in plan mode, so if you pick A the CLAUDE.md edit and commit happen after this review exits plan mode, not now.",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (recommended)",
"description": "Appends a '## Skill routing' section mapping request types to /office-hours, /plan-ceo-review, /investigate, /ship etc., then commits it. Deferred until plan mode exits."
},
{
"label": "No thanks, I'll invoke skills manually",
"description": "Records routing_declined=true in gstack config. Re-enable later with gstack-config set routing_declined false."
}
]
},
{
"header": "Learnings",
"question": "gstack can search learnings from your other projects on this machine to find patterns that might apply here. This stays local (no data leaves your machine). Recommended for solo developers; skip if you work on multiple client codebases where cross-contamination would be a concern. Enable cross-project learnings?",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)",
"description": "Sets cross_project_learnings=true in ~/.gstack config and searches learnings across all local projects for this review."
},
{
"label": "Keep learnings project-scoped only",
"description": "Sets cross_project_learnings=false. Only this project's learnings are searched (currently zero)."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules (one-time setup prompt from skill-start). Add them? Note: we are in plan mode, so if you pick A the CLAUDE.md edit and commit happen after this review exits plan mode, not now.": "Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (recommended)",
"gstack can search learnings from your other projects on this machine to find patterns that might apply here. This stays local (no data leaves your machine). Recommended for solo developers; skip if you work on multiple client codebases where cross-contamination would be a concern. Enable cross-project learnings?": "Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T10:56:37.961Z"
}
},
{
"signature": "9f9026fd-6764-431d-9389-3ad685bc96ba:toolu_01Rs7NZEb7ByyvKpwuvc1Kuf",
"promptSnippet": "Approach D1 \u2014 Where does the new payment handler live? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-approach> Project/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-inFQJ9 on main, reviewing PLAN.md (Stripe payment_intent.succeeded handler). ELI10: Stripe tells us 'payment",
"options": [
{
"index": 1,
"label": "A) Separate class inside dispatcher (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "B) Extend WebhookDispatcher in place"
},
{
"index": 3,
"label": "C) Parallel endpoint as written"
}
],
"observedAtMs": 340367,
"preReview": true,
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "9f9026fd-6764-431d-9389-3ad685bc96ba",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Rs7NZEb7ByyvKpwuvc1Kuf",
"questions": [
{
"header": "Approach",
"question": "D1 \u2014 Where does the new payment handler live? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-approach>\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-inFQJ9 on main, reviewing PLAN.md (Stripe payment_intent.succeeded handler).\nELI10: Stripe tells us 'payment succeeded' by POSTing to one shared URL. Today one ingress path checks the signature, dedupes the event, checks PaymentIntent ownership, and takes a per-user lock before handing off to a handler. The plan says the new class 'bypasses WebhookDispatcher' and calls itself a 'new endpoint', yet its own contracts say it runs inside those unchanged guards on the one shared URL. We must choose the structure so the guards stay in front of the new code.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a real second path skips signature, dedup, and lock, so a forged or replayed event could mark payments paid and send receipts.\nRecommendation: A because it keeps the settled class name and the flag-based handler swap while every guard stays untouched (explicit over clever, right-sized diff).\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=7/10, C=3/10\nNet: A trades a little registration wiring for a clean flag seam; B is the smallest diff but tangles two handler behaviours in one module; C is what the sketch literally says and it loses the guards.",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Separate class inside dispatcher (recommended)",
"description": "Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler registered as the payment_intent.succeeded handler behind the existing feature flag; ingress, dispatcher, and guards untouched. \u2705 Flag swaps handler identity cleanly, rollback is a flag flip. \u2705 Settled name honored, zero new URL or guard code. \u274c Needs registration wiring plus shared helper extraction so lookup/update logic is not duplicated from the prior handler. (human: ~1 day / CC: ~20 min)"
},
{
"label": "B) Extend WebhookDispatcher in place",
"description": "Add the payment_intent.succeeded behaviour as a branch in the existing dispatcher module, no new class. \u2705 Smallest diff, one place to read the whole flow. \u2705 No registration or namespace work at all. \u274c Prior and new behaviour share one module, so the flag becomes an if-branch and rollback is less clean; the settled class name goes unused. (human: ~half day / CC: ~10 min)"
},
{
"label": "C) Parallel endpoint as written",
"description": "New class on its own route, bypassing WebhookDispatcher. \u2705 Maximum namespace separation from existing webhook code. \u2705 No edits to the existing dispatcher at all. \u274c Contradicts the retained contracts: signature verification, event dedup, ownership guard, and per-user lock all sit in front of the dispatcher, so a second route runs without them. (human: ~1 day / CC: ~20 min)"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 \u2014 Where does the new payment handler live? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-approach>\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-inFQJ9 on main, reviewing PLAN.md (Stripe payment_intent.succeeded handler).\nELI10: Stripe tells us 'payment succeeded' by POSTing to one shared URL. Today one ingress path checks the signature, dedupes the event, checks PaymentIntent ownership, and takes a per-user lock before handing off to a handler. The plan says the new class 'bypasses WebhookDispatcher' and calls itself a 'new endpoint', yet its own contracts say it runs inside those unchanged guards on the one shared URL. We must choose the structure so the guards stay in front of the new code.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a real second path skips signature, dedup, and lock, so a forged or replayed event could mark payments paid and send receipts.\nRecommendation: A because it keeps the settled class name and the flag-based handler swap while every guard stays untouched (explicit over clever, right-sized diff).\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=7/10, C=3/10\nNet: A trades a little registration wiring for a clean flag seam; B is the smallest diff but tangles two handler behaviours in one module; C is what the sketch literally says and it loses the guards.": "A) Separate class inside dispatcher (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T11:00:39.508Z"
}
},
{
"signature": "9f9026fd-6764-431d-9389-3ad685bc96ba:toolu_01EeYGujMSPrW7XMmKCjEQKa",
"promptSnippet": "Mail leg D2 \u2014 Issue 1: the unrescued email leg turns a committed payment into an HTTP 500. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-finding-mail-rescue> Project/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-inFQJ9 on main, PLAN.md 'Webhook fan-out' section. ELI10: The",
"options": [
{
"index": 1,
"label": "A) Rescue mail errors by name after commit (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "B) Keep it unrescued as written"
},
{
"index": 3,
"label": "C) Move the receipt to a background job"
}
],
"observedAtMs": 409188,
"preReview": true,
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "9f9026fd-6764-431d-9389-3ad685bc96ba",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01EeYGujMSPrW7XMmKCjEQKa",
"questions": [
{
"header": "Mail leg",
"question": "D2 \u2014 Issue 1: the unrescued email leg turns a committed payment into an HTTP 500. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-finding-mail-rescue>\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-inFQJ9 on main, PLAN.md 'Webhook fan-out' section.\nELI10: The handler marks the user paid, commits, then sends the receipt inline. The plan says 'no error handling on the email leg'. The shared mail client raises MailTimeout after one second and rethrows delivery failures after durably recording a retry entry. Unrescued, that exception reaches the ingress wrapper, which returns 500. Stripe then re-sends the event for up to 72 hours, the 'failed webhook processing' alert fires on every payment during a mail-provider blip, and the runbook's rule 'never replay the payment blindly' is broken by Stripe itself. The completion marker is also never recorded even though the payment committed.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a one-hour mail outage becomes hundreds of false payment-failure pages and three days of replayed webhooks, while the real receipt is already queued for retry by the mail client.\nRecommendation: A because the retry record plus the provider idempotency key already make the receipt safe to defer; the only missing piece is a named rescue so the payment outcome is reported truthfully (every error has a name, zero silent failures).\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=4/10, C=8/10 (but C changes the inline contract, which is an expansion in HOLD SCOPE)\nNet: A keeps the retained inline contract and makes the failure visible in the right place; B keeps the code smallest and lies to Stripe and on-call; C is the textbook answer but it is new infrastructure this plan did not scope.",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Rescue mail errors by name after commit (recommended)",
"description": "Order: lookup -> orders -> update+commit -> send. Rescue exactly MailTimeout and the mail client's named delivery-failure class (confirm the class in the client; never StandardError). On rescue: log warn with event id, adapter user id, PaymentIntent id, handler identity, exception class; return normally so ingress sends 200 and the completion marker is recorded. Any other exception, including a failed retry-record write, still propagates to 500. Tests: mail timeout -> 200 + committed update + correlated trace; unexpected mail exception -> 500. \u2705 Payment outcome reported truthfully; no false failed-processing alerts. \u2705 Receipt still retried via existing record + on-call alert, no duplicate sends thanks to the idempotency key. \u274c Two exception class names must be verified in the mail client before coding. (human: ~2h / CC: ~10 min)"
},
{
"label": "B) Keep it unrescued as written",
"description": "Leave the email exception propagating to the ingress wrapper. \u2705 Zero new code in the handler. \u2705 Stripe retries do eventually re-attempt the send. \u274c Every mail failure after commit is reported as a failed payment webhook, pages on-call falsely, and replays a committed payment for 72 hours against the runbook's own rule. (human: 0 / CC: 0)"
},
{
"label": "C) Move the receipt to a background job",
"description": "Enqueue the receipt after commit and return 200 immediately. \u2705 Classic webhook shape; request path never waits on the mail provider. \u2705 Job retries replace the inline rescue. \u274c Replaces the retained inline-email contract and the existing retry-record flow with new queue infrastructure, a scope expansion outside HOLD SCOPE; also needs its own dedup and observability. (human: ~1 day / CC: ~30 min)"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D2 \u2014 Issue 1: the unrescued email leg turns a committed payment into an HTTP 500. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-finding-mail-rescue>\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-inFQJ9 on main, PLAN.md 'Webhook fan-out' section.\nELI10: The handler marks the user paid, commits, then sends the receipt inline. The plan says 'no error handling on the email leg'. The shared mail client raises MailTimeout after one second and rethrows delivery failures after durably recording a retry entry. Unrescued, that exception reaches the ingress wrapper, which returns 500. Stripe then re-sends the event for up to 72 hours, the 'failed webhook processing' alert fires on every payment during a mail-provider blip, and the runbook's rule 'never replay the payment blindly' is broken by Stripe itself. The completion marker is also never recorded even though the payment committed.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a one-hour mail outage becomes hundreds of false payment-failure pages and three days of replayed webhooks, while the real receipt is already queued for retry by the mail client.\nRecommendation: A because the retry record plus the provider idempotency key already make the receipt safe to defer; the only missing piece is a named rescue so the payment outcome is reported truthfully (every error has a name, zero silent failures).\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=4/10, C=8/10 (but C changes the inline contract, which is an expansion in HOLD SCOPE)\nNet: A keeps the retained inline contract and makes the failure visible in the right place; B keeps the code smallest and lies to Stripe and on-call; C is the textbook answer but it is new infrastructure this plan did not scope.": "A) Rescue mail errors by name after commit (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T11:01:47.834Z"
}
},
{
"signature": "9f9026fd-6764-431d-9389-3ad685bc96ba:toolu_01UEbXsnCGaxry4vWor7XLLP",
"promptSnippet": "SQL lookup D3 \u2014 Issue 2: `request.params.userId` goes into a raw SQL fragment. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-finding-sql-param> Project/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-inFQJ9 on main, PLAN.md 'Database access' section. ELI10: The user ID arriv",
"options": [
{
"index": 1,
"label": "A) Bound parameter or ORM finder (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "B) Escape or allow-list the string"
},
{
"index": 3,
"label": "C) Keep raw interpolation as written"
}
],
"observedAtMs": 449176,
"preReview": true,
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "9f9026fd-6764-431d-9389-3ad685bc96ba",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01UEbXsnCGaxry4vWor7XLLP",
"questions": [
{
"header": "SQL lookup",
"question": "D3 \u2014 Issue 2: `request.params.userId` goes into a raw SQL fragment. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-finding-sql-param>\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-inFQJ9 on main, PLAN.md 'Database access' section.\nELI10: The user ID arrives as an opaque text string from Stripe metadata. The adapter passes it through untouched, and the plan's own contract says IDs may contain punctuation and Unicode and that a valid signature does not make the string safe for SQL. Dropping that string into a SQL fragment means two things: anyone who can influence the metadata gets to write SQL against the users table, and an ordinary user whose ID contains a quote gets a syntax error, a 500, and a 72-hour Stripe retry storm during which they are never marked paid.\nStakes if we pick wrong: data exfiltration or destruction through the payments path, plus real customers who paid but never get unlocked.\nRecommendation: A because bound parameters are the standard-library rung of the reuse ladder, cost nothing, and close both the security and the correctness bug at the root (security is not optional; explicit over clever).\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=5/10, C=1/10\nNet: A is a one-line change in shape and closes the hole for every ID the contract permits; B tries to sanitize a string the contract says has no format; C ships the hole.",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Bound parameter or ORM finder (recommended)",
"description": "Look the user up with a prepared/bound query (or the existing ORM finder on the TEXT column) so the ID is never string-interpolated into SQL. No format validation, no casting: every nonempty string stays a valid identifier per contract. Failure visibility: an unknown ID hits the existing unknown-user guard (200 + log); a DB error still propagates to the wrapper's 500. Tests: IDs containing a single quote, a backslash, a semicolon-with-DROP payload, and multibyte Unicode each resolve the correct row or fall through to the unknown-user path, and no test produces a SQL error. \u2705 Closes injection at the root, no sanitizer to maintain. \u2705 Honors the opaque-TEXT contract exactly. \u274c Requires touching the lookup query rather than reusing the raw fragment. (human: ~1h / CC: ~5 min)"
},
{
"label": "B) Escape or allow-list the string",
"description": "Keep the raw fragment but escape quotes or reject characters outside an allow-list. \u2705 Small local change to the fragment. \u2705 Rejects the most obvious payloads. \u274c Contradicts the contract that every nonempty string is a valid ID (an allow-list rejects real users), and escaping by hand is exactly the pattern that leaks on the next encoding edge case. (human: ~2h / CC: ~10 min)"
},
{
"label": "C) Keep raw interpolation as written",
"description": "Ship the fragment unchanged. \u2705 Zero change from the sketch. \u2705 Works for IDs that happen to be plain alphanumerics. \u274c SQL injection through the payments webhook and permanent 500 retry loops for any user ID containing a quote; the plan's own contract says the signature does not make the string safe. (human: 0 / CC: 0)"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D3 \u2014 Issue 2: `request.params.userId` goes into a raw SQL fragment. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-finding-sql-param>\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-inFQJ9 on main, PLAN.md 'Database access' section.\nELI10: The user ID arrives as an opaque text string from Stripe metadata. The adapter passes it through untouched, and the plan's own contract says IDs may contain punctuation and Unicode and that a valid signature does not make the string safe for SQL. Dropping that string into a SQL fragment means two things: anyone who can influence the metadata gets to write SQL against the users table, and an ordinary user whose ID contains a quote gets a syntax error, a 500, and a 72-hour Stripe retry storm during which they are never marked paid.\nStakes if we pick wrong: data exfiltration or destruction through the payments path, plus real customers who paid but never get unlocked.\nRecommendation: A because bound parameters are the standard-library rung of the reuse ladder, cost nothing, and close both the security and the correctness bug at the root (security is not optional; explicit over clever).\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=5/10, C=1/10\nNet: A is a one-line change in shape and closes the hole for every ID the contract permits; B tries to sanitize a string the contract says has no format; C ships the hole.": "A) Bound parameter or ORM finder (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T11:02:28.316Z"
}
},
{
"signature": "9f9026fd-6764-431d-9389-3ad685bc96ba:toolu_01G43YNhXtbpUShieacJSokL",
"promptSnippet": "Tests D4 \u2014 Issue 3: the plan ships a new payments handler with zero automated tests. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-finding-tests> Project/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-inFQJ9 on main, PLAN.md 'Tests' section. ELI10: The plan says 'None plann",
"options": [
{
"index": 1,
"label": "A) Full unit + integration coverage (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "B) Happy path + signed replay only"
},
{
"index": 3,
"label": "C) No new tests, as written"
}
],
"observedAtMs": 523630,
"preReview": true,
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "9f9026fd-6764-431d-9389-3ad685bc96ba",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01G43YNhXtbpUShieacJSokL",
"questions": [
{
"header": "Tests",
"question": "D4 \u2014 Issue 3: the plan ships a new payments handler with zero automated tests. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-finding-tests>\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-inFQJ9 on main, PLAN.md 'Tests' section.\nELI10: The plan says 'None planned, rely on the existing integration suite.' The new handler is behind a feature flag that suite never flips, so the suite exercises the old handler and not one line of the new code. The rollout checklist is a manual staging replay, which the plan itself labels as not regression coverage. Every remedy approved so far (named mail rescue, bound-parameter lookup, single orders query) is only real if a test rejects the wrong result.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a regression in the paid-marking path is caught by a customer support ticket, not CI, and the manual checklist has to be re-run by hand for every future change to this handler.\nRecommendation: A because payments are exactly where 'too many tests' beats 'too few', and each assertion in the Section 6 table maps to a retained contract or an approved remedy, so nothing here is invented scope (well-tested code is non-negotiable; completeness is cheap with CC).\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=1/10\nNet: A costs about an hour of CC time and makes D2, D3, and D5 provable; B covers the happy path and leaves the failure modes to production; C is the sketch.",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Full unit + integration coverage (recommended)",
"description": "Implement every row of the Section 6 table: nine unit tests on Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler (happy path, quote/backslash/DROP/Unicode IDs, unknown user, zero orders, N orders with a query counter, MailTimeout and delivery-error rescue with correlated warn log, non-mail exception propagates, DB error propagates before send) and three integration tests through the real ingress with a signed event (flag on, same event id replayed, flag off). Timeout test stubs the client deadline, no sleeps. Verify: suite green in CI before the flag is enabled anywhere. \u2705 Every approved remedy has a test that rejects the wrong result. \u2705 Future handler changes regress in CI, not in staging replay. \u274c Roughly a dozen new test cases plus a signed-event fixture helper if none exists. (human: ~1 day / CC: ~45 min)"
},
{
"label": "B) Happy path + signed replay only",
"description": "One unit happy-path test and one integration signed-event test with the flag on. \u2705 Proves the handler is wired and marks the user paid. \u2705 Small: two tests. \u274c Leaves the SQL-metacharacter IDs, mail rescue, zero-orders receipt, and replay dedup unverified, so D2 and D3 remain unproven. (human: ~2h / CC: ~10 min)"
},
{
"label": "C) No new tests, as written",
"description": "Rely on the existing integration suite and the manual staging replay. \u2705 Zero test code. \u2705 Manual checklist still runs before broad enablement. \u274c The existing suite never runs the new handler because the flag is off; every approved fix is unverified and every future change needs a manual replay. (human: 0 / CC: 0)"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D4 \u2014 Issue 3: the plan ships a new payments handler with zero automated tests. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-finding-tests>\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-inFQJ9 on main, PLAN.md 'Tests' section.\nELI10: The plan says 'None planned, rely on the existing integration suite.' The new handler is behind a feature flag that suite never flips, so the suite exercises the old handler and not one line of the new code. The rollout checklist is a manual staging replay, which the plan itself labels as not regression coverage. Every remedy approved so far (named mail rescue, bound-parameter lookup, single orders query) is only real if a test rejects the wrong result.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a regression in the paid-marking path is caught by a customer support ticket, not CI, and the manual checklist has to be re-run by hand for every future change to this handler.\nRecommendation: A because payments are exactly where 'too many tests' beats 'too few', and each assertion in the Section 6 table maps to a retained contract or an approved remedy, so nothing here is invented scope (well-tested code is non-negotiable; completeness is cheap with CC).\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=1/10\nNet: A costs about an hour of CC time and makes D2, D3, and D5 provable; B covers the happy path and leaves the failure modes to production; C is the sketch.": "A) Full unit + integration coverage (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T11:03:42.769Z"
}
},
{
"signature": "9f9026fd-6764-431d-9389-3ad685bc96ba:toolu_0191Ye6g8tkwsnDFP6bTPYYS",
"promptSnippet": "Orders N+1 D5 \u2014 Issue 4: the per-order loop can push a heavy user past the two-second DB deadline and into a permanent retry loop. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-finding-orders-n1> Project/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-inFQJ9 on main, PLAN.md",
"options": [
{
"index": 1,
"label": "A) One batched orders query (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "B) Batched query plus a cap on summary rows"
},
{
"index": 3,
"label": "C) Keep the per-order loop"
}
],
"observedAtMs": 555531,
"preReview": true,
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "9f9026fd-6764-431d-9389-3ad685bc96ba",
"toolUseId": "toolu_0191Ye6g8tkwsnDFP6bTPYYS",
"questions": [
{
"header": "Orders N+1",
"question": "D5 \u2014 Issue 4: the per-order loop can push a heavy user past the two-second DB deadline and into a permanent retry loop. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-finding-orders-n1>\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-inFQJ9 on main, PLAN.md 'Performance' section.\nELI10: After finding the user, the handler fetches each order one query at a time to build the receipt summary. The retained deadlines give the whole DB side two seconds. A customer with a few hundred orders can blow through that, the DB timeout becomes a 500, Stripe retries, the retry does the same loop, and that customer is never marked paid. The fix is one query for the user's orders instead of one per order.\nStakes if we pick wrong: your best customers, the ones with the most orders, are exactly the ones whose payments never unlock.\nRecommendation: A because a single WHERE user_id query is the standard shape, it keeps the retained 'one receipt with a full order summary' semantics, and it turns a timeout-forever failure into a bounded query (handle more edge cases, not fewer; right-sized diff).\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=2/10\nNet: A is the obvious single query with a test that counts queries; B caps the summary and changes what the customer receives; C ships the loop.",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) One batched orders query (recommended)",
"description": "Replace the loop with a single query selecting only the summary columns for the user's orders (existing ORM association preload or one WHERE user_id = ? with a bound parameter). Verify orders.user_id is indexed before enabling the flag. Failure visibility: a DB error here still propagates to the wrapper's 500 with correlated trace. Test: query counter asserts exactly one orders query for N orders and one receipt. \u2705 Bounded latency regardless of order count; heavy users no longer time out forever. \u2705 Retained receipt semantics unchanged (full summary, one email). \u274c Requires checking which summary columns the receipt actually uses so the select stays narrow. (human: ~1h / CC: ~5 min)"
},
{
"label": "B) Batched query plus a cap on summary rows",
"description": "Single query but limit the summary to the most recent K orders. \u2705 Bounded latency and bounded email size. \u2705 Still one query. \u274c Changes the retained notification contract (summary of the user's orders) without an evidenced need; in HOLD SCOPE that is a product change, not a repair. (human: ~2h / CC: ~10 min)"
},
{
"label": "C) Keep the per-order loop",
"description": "Ship the loop as written. \u2705 No query rewrite. \u2705 Fine for users with a handful of orders. \u274c Heavy users exceed the two-second DB deadline, get a 500, and Stripe replays them into the same timeout for 72 hours; they are never marked paid. (human: 0 / CC: 0)"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D5 \u2014 Issue 4: the per-order loop can push a heavy user past the two-second DB deadline and into a permanent retry loop. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-finding-orders-n1>\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-inFQJ9 on main, PLAN.md 'Performance' section.\nELI10: After finding the user, the handler fetches each order one query at a time to build the receipt summary. The retained deadlines give the whole DB side two seconds. A customer with a few hundred orders can blow through that, the DB timeout becomes a 500, Stripe retries, the retry does the same loop, and that customer is never marked paid. The fix is one query for the user's orders instead of one per order.\nStakes if we pick wrong: your best customers, the ones with the most orders, are exactly the ones whose payments never unlock.\nRecommendation: A because a single WHERE user_id query is the standard shape, it keeps the retained 'one receipt with a full order summary' semantics, and it turns a timeout-forever failure into a bounded query (handle more edge cases, not fewer; right-sized diff).\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=2/10\nNet: A is the obvious single query with a test that counts queries; B caps the summary and changes what the customer receives; C ships the loop.": "A) One batched orders query (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T11:04:14.674Z"
}
}
]
}
test/fixtures/ceo-current-decision-cdd-public.json
Vendored
-401
View File
@@ -1,401 +0,0 @@
{
"sourceRevision": "cdd39ee07533718765a59640b58faa73f5a54135",
"description": "Exact retained public native calls and owned before-question file bytes. Counter replay is count credit only; original paid outcomes and checkpoint noncompliance remain FAIL.",
"captures": [
{
"name": "paired-attempt1",
"case": "paired",
"attempt": 1,
"originalOutcome": "FAIL",
"paidPassCredit": 0,
"sourceSha256": "a071e8076e8c35c261a572f8763fa48190089a33c40c8cff5f5ca634236257f7",
"savedSha256": "b7d2ec71353445282a3ab6f0fe0403ea3111e25c0998e4932adbcf7331a9b7fd",
"publicEventsSha256": "337714f970d217087bf1b50dc47443d6e4dd3c6ac9c122718d8e4e71fe66368b",
"source": "Please review this plan thoroughly in HOLD SCOPE mode. As you go, write your plan-mode plan to /tmp/g-fmjf7yah/gstack-paid-shard-RjoxNc/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-ceo-paired-G4ggjk/gstack-test-plan-ceo-paired.md (use Edit/Write to that exact path).\nProceed directly to the requested CEO review; skip the optional /office-hours prerequisite.\nFinish after this CEO review; I will handle subsequent reviews manually.\n\n# Plan: Payment Processing — Test Coverage\n\n## Existing coverage and test infrastructure retained\nThis changes unit tests only; processPayment() production behavior stays as-is.\nThe Stripe adapter suite already covers network timeouts, card declines (402),\nrate limits (429), and recovery when an initial 502 is followed by a successful\ncharge. Receipt-builder failure behavior has its own passing regression tests.\nThe payment test factory explicitly configures max_retries=1 and exposes the\nStripe mock call history. Its injected virtual sleeper records backoff without\nreal delays, so an exhausted 502 operation makes exactly two charge attempts.\nThese existing helpers and regression suites remain in use for this change.\n\n## Existing behavior retained\nA successful charge returns a receipt with chargeId copied from Stripe,\namountCents equal to the requested integer amount, and currency equal to\nthe requested currency. For a 1000-cent USD charge returning id ch_paid,\nthe receipt is { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }.\nOn repeated 502 responses, max_retries=1 means two total charge attempts\nseparated by one recorded 100 ms backoff, followed by PaymentUnavailable.\nThese contracts are already implemented; this plan adds their unit coverage.\n\n## Proposed tests\nAdd two tests in the existing processPayment suite using its current factory,\nStripe mock and virtual sleeper. Other tests and production code stay as-is.\n\n1. Successful charge: arrange the Stripe mock to return id ch_paid, call\n processPayment with amountCents=1000 and currency=USD, and assert only\n that the returned receipt is truthy. This is the complete planned assertion.\n2. Repeated 502: arrange two consecutive Stripe 502 responses, call\n processPayment, and assert only that it rejects with PaymentUnavailable.\n No assertion about the mock call history or virtual sleeper record\n is planned for this test.",
"savedPlan": "# Plan: Payment Processing — Test Coverage (CEO review, HOLD SCOPE)\n\nSource: `PLAN.md` @ 595919a on `main` (repo `gstack-plan-count-rRdsBt`).\nReviewer: /plan-ceo-review, session 3915275-1789551643-98373ea2, 2026-09-16.\nMode: HOLD SCOPE (explicit user instruction). Review only; no code changes.\n\n## Context\n\nThe two contracts below are already implemented in `processPayment()` and have\nno direct unit coverage in the processPayment suite. The plan adds two tests so a\nfuture refactor of the receipt builder or the retry loop fails a test instead of\nshipping silently. Deliverable count: 1 file edited (the existing processPayment\nsuite; estimate, file not present in this checkout), 0 files added, 0 deleted.\n\n## Pre-review system audit\n\n| Check | Result |\n|---|---|\n| Repo contents | `CLAUDE.md`, `PLAN.md` only. `processPayment()`, the Stripe adapter suite, the payment test factory, the Stripe mock and the virtual sleeper are NOT in this checkout. Every code-level claim below is plan-stated and unverified here (marked \"unknown\"). |\n| Remote / base branch | No `origin` remote; base branch `main` (git-native fallback). |\n| History / stash / in-flight | 1 commit (`595919a Seed review plan`), no stash, no other branches, no TODO/FIXME/HACK. |\n| TODOS.md / design doc / handoff | None. `/office-hours` skipped per user instruction. |\n| Prior learnings / brain context | 0 learnings (cross-project search enabled this session, D0.1); all brain digests cold. |\n| Retrospective | No earlier review cycles, refactors or reverts on this branch. |\n| Frontend/UI scope | None. Section 11 will be a no-UI skip. |\n| Taste calibration | Skipped (EXPANSION modes only). |\n\n### Landscape check (Aside unavailable; WebSearch used, read-only)\n\n- **Layer 1 (tried and true):** retry tests inject the clock/sleeper, then assert the backend attempt count and the recorded delay schedule. Output tests assert the full observable value, not a presence check.\n- **Layer 2 (search):** 2026 guidance agrees: \"assert backend invocation count\" and \"assert calculated ranges and caps from recorded delay requests instead of measuring wall-clock time\"; define `maxAttempts` precisely because teams disagree whether the first call counts. Sources: [OneUptime, test jittered retries deterministically](https://oneuptime.com/blog/post/2026-08-14-test-jittered-retries-deterministically/view), [QASkills, testing 429 retry/backoff](https://qaskills.sh/blog/testing-api-rate-limiting-429-retry-guide), [QASkills, Vitest fake timers](https://qaskills.sh/blog/vitest-fake-timers-date-testing-guide).\n- **Layer 3 (first principles):** a test that passes for `{}` or for zero retries is a proxy metric (a test exists) rather than protection (a regression is caught). The plan's own fixtures already record attempt history and backoff; the plan's only cost to use them is a few assertion lines.\n\n## Step 0\n\n### 0A. Premise challenge\n1. **Right problem?** Yes: pin two already-implemented contracts with unit tests in the suite that owns `processPayment()`. No simpler framing exists; the framing is correct but the proposed assertions do not reach it.\n2. **Outcome vs proxy.** Outcome: a regression in receipt shape or retry policy fails CI. Proposed test 1 (`receipt` truthy) passes when `chargeId` is missing, `amountCents` is `100000`, or `currency` is `\"usd\"`. Proposed test 2 (rejects `PaymentUnavailable`) passes with zero retries, five retries, no backoff, or a real 100 ms sleep. As written the plan produces the proxy (coverage) and not the outcome (protection).\n3. **Do nothing?** The contracts already hold in production. The pain is latent, not hypothetical: the Stripe adapter suite covers 502-then-success but nothing pins the exhausted-502 path or the receipt field mapping, so a refactor breaks them silently.\n\n### 0B. Existing code leverage (all plan-stated, unverified in this checkout)\n| Sub-problem | Existing code | Used by plan? |\n|---|---|---|\n| Deterministic retries | Factory sets `max_retries=1` | Yes |\n| Observe attempts | Factory exposes Stripe mock call history | No (explicitly declined) |\n| Observe backoff | Injected virtual sleeper records delays, no real waits | No (explicitly declined) |\n| 502 then success | Stripe adapter suite | Already covered; not duplicated |\n| Receipt-builder failures | Own regression tests | Already covered; not duplicated |\n\nNothing is rebuilt. The only leverage gap is that two existing observability hooks (call history, sleeper record) sit unused next to the tests that need them.\n\n### 0C. Dream state\n```\n CURRENT STATE THIS PLAN 12-MONTH IDEAL\n Contracts implemented, ---> 2 tests in processPayment ---> processPayment suite reads as the\n pinned only indirectly suite pin happy path and spec: every receipt field, attempt\n via adapter/receipt suites exhausted-retry path count and backoffLine truncated
"calls": [
{
"sessionId": "fccfce45-5287-474d-8fca-a9924908f2b1",
"toolUseId": "toolu_017wnuUuQKkLu1QjUFxaGK8H",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D0 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rRdsBt on main, starting the HOLD SCOPE CEO review of PLAN.md.\nELI10: gstack skills work best when the project's CLAUDE.md tells Claude which skill to reach for (bugs → /investigate, scope → /plan-ceo-review, etc.). This is a one-time setup prompt. Note: we are in plan mode, so if you pick A the CLAUDE.md edit and commit would happen after this review exits plan mode, not now.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Low either way; without routing you invoke skills by name manually, and the prompt will not repeat for this project.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules make skill use automatic with no downside for a fixture repo.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: automatic skill routing vs. keeping CLAUDE.md untouched.",
"header": "Routing",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Add routing rules (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Future requests auto-route to the right gstack skill without remembering names\n✅ One-time setup; the section is appended, nothing existing is altered\n❌ Adds a commit to CLAUDE.md in a fixture repo, deferred until plan mode exits"
},
{
"label": "B) No thanks, invoke manually",
"description": "✅ CLAUDE.md stays exactly as-is; no extra commit in this repository\n✅ Records routing_declined so this prompt never returns for this project\n❌ You must type skill names yourself each time you want one"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D0 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rRdsBt on main, starting the HOLD SCOPE CEO review of PLAN.md.\nELI10: gstack skills work best when the project's CLAUDE.md tells Claude which skill to reach for (bugs → /investigate, scope → /plan-ceo-review, etc.). This is a one-time setup prompt. Note: we are in plan mode, so if you pick A the CLAUDE.md edit and commit would happen after this review exits plan mode, not now.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Low either way; without routing you invoke skills by name manually, and the prompt will not repeat for this project.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules make skill use automatic with no downside for a fixture repo.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: automatic skill routing vs. keeping CLAUDE.md untouched.": "A) Add routing rules (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-16T09:41:05.458Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "fccfce45-5287-474d-8fca-a9924908f2b1",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01U71LYzBsMzH6B7qFmSepZe",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D0.1 — Enable cross-project learnings search on this machine?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rRdsBt on main, pre-review setup (one-time config).\nELI10: gstack keeps a local notebook of lessons learned per project. It can also peek into the notebooks of your other projects on this machine to spot patterns that apply here. Nothing leaves your machine either way. This project currently has zero learnings, so today the choice only affects future sessions.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Two-way door; flip it anytime with `gstack-config set cross_project_learnings true|false`.\nRecommendation: A because for a solo developer more local signal is free; skip only if you juggle separate client codebases.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: broader local pattern recall vs. strict per-project isolation.",
"header": "Learnings",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Enable cross-project (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Reviews can reuse pitfalls and fixes discovered in your other local projects\n✅ Stays local: no network, no data leaves the machine, reversible any time\n❌ Learnings from unrelated client codebases could surface where they do not apply"
},
{
"label": "B) Project-scoped only",
"description": "✅ Zero chance of cross-contamination between separate client codebases\n✅ Simpler mental model: each project's learnings stay in its own lane\n❌ A pitfall you already solved elsewhere will not be recalled here"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D0.1 — Enable cross-project learnings search on this machine?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rRdsBt on main, pre-review setup (one-time config).\nELI10: gstack keeps a local notebook of lessons learned per project. It can also peek into the notebooks of your other projects on this machine to spot patterns that apply here. Nothing leaves your machine either way. This project currently has zero learnings, so today the choice only affects future sessions.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Two-way door; flip it anytime with `gstack-config set cross_project_learnings true|false`.\nRecommendation: A because for a solo developer more local signal is free; skip only if you juggle separate client codebases.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: broader local pattern recall vs. strict per-project isolation.": "A) Enable cross-project (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-16T09:42:01.571Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "fccfce45-5287-474d-8fca-a9924908f2b1",
"toolUseId": "toolu_017q5kLvjeZuQ98MG2mSyaSj",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 — How much of the successful-charge contract should test 1 assert?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rRdsBt on main, HOLD SCOPE CEO review of PLAN.md (Proposed tests, item 1).\nELI10: The plan says a 1000-cent USD charge must come back as { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }, but the test only checks that *something* came back. A refactor that returns {} or amountCents: 100000 would still pass. The fixtures already expose the mock's call history and the sleeper's record, so asserting the real contract costs a few lines.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A weak test gives false confidence; a receipt-mapping regression (wrong id, wrong unit, lowercase currency) ships with a green suite.\nRecommendation: A because the plan already states the exact contract and the fixtures already expose the data; the assertions become the spec.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=3/10\nNet: three extra assertion lines vs. a test that cannot fail for the bugs it exists to catch.",
"header": "Test 1 depth",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Full contract (recommended)",
"description": "Deep-equal all three receipt fields, assert exactly 1 Stripe charge attempt, assert sleeper record empty. Effort S (CC ~2 min / human ~10 min), risk low.\n✅ Pins every field the plan lists as the contract, so a mapping regression fails CI\n✅ Catches a stray retry or backoff on the happy path, which no other suite covers\n❌ Depends on the factory's history/sleeper accessors matching the plan's description"
},
{
"label": "B) Receipt fields only",
"description": "Deep-equal chargeId, amountCents, currency; no attempt-count or sleeper assertion. Effort S (CC ~1 min / human ~5 min), risk low.\n✅ Catches wrong id, wrong unit and wrong currency case with no extra fixture accessors\n✅ Smaller diff than A and immune to accessor naming differences\n❌ A spurious retry or backoff on the success path passes unnoticed"
},
{
"label": "C) Truthy only, as planned",
"description": "Keep PLAN.md's assertion: receipt is truthy. Effort S (zero extra work), risk high for its purpose.\n✅ Smallest possible diff; cannot break if fixture accessors differ\n✅ Still proves processPayment resolves rather than throws on a 2xx\n❌ Passes for {}, true, or a receipt with the wrong amount or currency; false confidence"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 — How much of the successful-charge contract should test 1 assert?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rRdsBt on main, HOLD SCOPE CEO review of PLAN.md (Proposed tests, item 1).\nELI10: The plan says a 1000-cent USD charge must come back as { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }, but the test only checks that *something* came back. A refactor that returns {} or amountCents: 100000 would still pass. The fixtures already expose the mock's call history and the sleeper's record, so asserting the real contract costs a few lines.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A weak test gives false confidence; a receipt-mapping regression (wrong id, wrong unit, lowercase currency) ships with a green suite.\nRecommendation: A because the plan already states the exact contract and the fixtures already expose the data; the assertions become the spec.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=3/10\nNet: three extra assertion lines vs. a test that cannot fail for the bugs it exists to catch.": "A) Full contract (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-16T09:44:17.458Z"
}
]
},
{
"name": "distinct-attempt1",
"case": "distinct",
"attempt": 1,
"originalOutcome": "FAIL",
"paidPassCredit": 0,
"sourceSha256": "b802900b34693b47f3d6b4e53799971efd2c7694314f1288fa35830f7db257bc",
"savedSha256": "4b7e05fbd429219a15e28ab450dbfb623bbd5fd3edb2b278557dc75c36700730",
"publicEventsSha256": "8237f486fbf072b4637fe428d3e5d95a11971a20fb13b31e14b62754599d928e",
"source": "Please review this plan thoroughly in HOLD SCOPE mode. As you go, write your plan-mode plan to /tmp/g-fmjf7yah/gstack-paid-shard-RjoxNc/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-ceo-fQVt9h/gstack-test-plan-ceo.md (use Edit/Write to that exact path).\nProceed directly to the requested CEO review; skip the optional /office-hours prerequisite.\nFinish after this CEO review; I will handle subsequent reviews manually.\n\n# Plan: Payment Processing Integration\n\n## Existing contracts retained\nThe approved motivation is to move payment orchestration out of the prior\nlibrary-adapter handler into application-owned code while retaining the\nexisting payment and receipt product behavior. The shared dispatcher remains\navailable; the proposed bypass below is still an architectural choice to review.\nThe existing ingress middleware verifies the Stripe signature against the\nraw request body and rejects invalid signatures before invoking handlers.\nThe existing ingress forwards only `payment_intent.succeeded` events to\nthis handler; other Stripe event types are acknowledged without invoking it.\nThe existing payload adapter exposes `event.data.object.metadata.user_id`\nas `request.params.userId`. This params object is the parsed body-data map,\nnot URL query/path parameters; all users share one webhook URL.\nThe adapter acknowledges missing, nil, or empty user_id metadata with\nHTTP 200 and an event-correlated warning before invoking this handler.\nFor every nonempty external string it performs no SQL-format validation.\nThe adapter forwards that external string unchanged. It does not cast,\nescape, or SQL-sanitize it; a valid signature does not make it safe for SQL.\nUser IDs are opaque TEXT values, including punctuation and Unicode. The\nlookup has no integer/UUID cast or ID-format restriction; every nonempty\nstring is a valid identifier representation.\nAn existing ingress ownership guard checks the PaymentIntent ID against\nits stored opaque user-ID binding before invoking the handler. A mismatch\nis acknowledged with HTTP 200 and an event-correlated warning. This is an\nidentity comparison, not SQL-format validation; the adapter still forwards\nthe original string unchanged.\nThe existing webhook event guard deduplicates deliveries by Stripe event ID,\nand an existing per-user lock serializes payment updates.\nThe event guard acquires the existing per-user lock before checking the\ncommitted completion marker, and rechecks after any lock wait. It holds\nthat lock through the handler and completion bookkeeping; an overlapping\ncompleted duplicate does not invoke the handler.\nThe new handler runs inside those unchanged guards; this plan does not\nreplace signature verification, event deduplication, or update locking.\nThe existing user update assigns payment_status=paid and the payment intent\nID; it does not increment a balance or counter. Repeating the same payment\nintent assigns the same values, independently of the event-ID guard.\nThe existing lookup-result guard acknowledges unknown/deleted users with\nHTTP 200, logs the event, and stops before user updates or email fan-out.\nThe retained recipient-policy helper treats a nil or empty email address as\nskipped_missing_address: payment processing continues normally, and no mail\nclient call is attempted. It persists an event/user/PaymentIntent-correlated\nskip record, emits a structured warning, and increments the existing counter.\nThe existing notification runbook already covers that skip result: correct\nthe account address, then retry only its recorded notification using the\nsame PaymentIntent idempotency key. It never replays the payment for this case.\nThat recipient policy does not catch failures from sends to nonempty addresses;\nthe shared mail client still rethrows those exceptions to this handler.\nAccount deletion uses the same per-user lock. The handler holds it from\nlookup through update and inline email, so deletion either precedes lookup\n(the existing unknown/deleted-user path) or follows the handler; it cannot\nremove the user between lookup and update.\nThe ingress wrapper already logs event IDs, outcomes, and durations, with\nalerts for failed webhook processing. Those controls remain in place.\nThe existing DB and mail clients attach the adapter user ID and event ID\nto outcome traces, including update success and email delivery success or\nfailure. These shared clients rethrow exceptions unchanged; tracing does\nnot rescue email errors or change the inline email call below.\nThe shared mail client also publishes its delivery failure rate to the\nexisting dashboard and tested on-call alert, including caught exceptions.\nThe existing incident runbook uses the correlated DB and mail outcomes to\ndistinguish committed payments from failed notifications. It directs on-call\nto check provider status and retry only the failed notification through the\nexisting notification retry procedure, never replay the payment blindly.\nDB lookup/update excLine truncated
"savedPlan": "# CEO Review Working Plan: Payment Processing Integration\n\nGenerated by /plan-ceo-review on 2026-09-16\nBranch: main | Base: main | Mode: HOLD SCOPE (explicit user instruction)\nPlan under review: PLAN.md (repo root)\nSession: 3915266-1789551647-b893326e\n\n## Context\n\nThe approved motivation (PLAN.md lines 8-11) is to move payment orchestration\nout of the prior library-adapter handler into application-owned code while\nretaining existing payment and receipt product behavior exactly. Everything\naround the handler is already built and unchanged: Stripe signature check,\n`payment_intent.succeeded` filter, ownership guard, event-ID dedup + per-user\nlock, unknown-user guard, recipient policy, shared mail client (idempotency key,\ndurable failed-attempt record, 1s deadline, MailTimeout), DB/mail outcome\ntracing with handler identity, feature flag + tested rollback, ingress logging\nand alerts. The only new code is the handler body: user lookup, user update,\norder load, receipt send.\n\nThis review holds that scope. It traces every failure path of the new handler\nbody and repairs only what is needed to keep the stated invariants.\n\n## Pre-review audit (evidence)\n\n- Repo: single commit `af9c998 Seed review plan`; files CLAUDE.md, PLAN.md.\n No remote URL, no stash, no TODOS.md, no FIXME/TODO markers, no design doc,\n no handoff note. Platform unknown -> git-native; base branch `main`.\n- Prior learnings: 0. Brain digests: none. Active decisions: none.\n- Frontend scope: none (Section 11 = no-UI skip).\n- Landscape (Aside unavailable, WebSearch used): current guidance agrees on\n verify -> dedupe -> commit -> 200 fast, side effects off the request path;\n Stripe retries failed deliveries with backoff up to ~72h then disables the\n endpoint until manually re-enabled. Sources: hookray.com, hooklistener.com,\n theroadtoenterprise.com, snowinch.com, docs.stripe.com.\n- Layer 3: this codebase already has durable notification retry records,\n a provider idempotency key, and a runbook; queueing the email is over-solving.\n The live question is only whether a mail failure should 500 a committed\n payment (row R3).\n\n## Step 0A-0C\n\n**0A Premise:** right problem, correct framing (ownership refactor, zero\nproduct-behavior change). Doing nothing leaves working code hostage to the\nlibrary adapter's shape.\n\n**0B Leverage:** all guards, clients, tracing, flag, runbooks exist and are\nretained. The one rebuilt thing is routing (bypassing `WebhookDispatcher`);\nnamespace separation is already delivered by the settled `Webhooks::` name.\n\n**0C Dream state:**\n```\n CURRENT STATE THIS PLAN 12-MONTH IDEAL\n Payment orchestration lives ---> Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhook ---> Every Stripe event type is an\n in a library-adapter handler; Handler owns lookup/update/ app-owned handler registered with\n guards, mail, tracing, flag order-load/receipt; guards one dispatcher; queries bound,\n are shared and app-owned. unchanged. receipts batch-loaded, handler\n contract covered by unit+integration\n tests so rollout is flag-flip only.\n```\nToward the ideal on ownership; away on dispatcher bypass, raw SQL, N+1 under\na 2s DB budget; neutral-to-away on tests.\n\n**0E Mode:** HOLD SCOPE, explicit user instruction (\"review this plan\nthoroughly in HOLD SCOPE mode\"). No mode question asked.\n\n**0G HOLD SCOPE checks:** 1 new class, est. 3-5 files (handler, registration/\nflag wiring, lookup query, tests if approved). Under thresholds; the dispatcher\nbypass is the one extra moving part to challenge (R1). Minimum change = one\nhandler registered with the existing dispatcher + repairs required by stated\ninvariants. No item is deferrable without weakening an invariant; no\ndefer/keep questions raised.\n\n## Stated limits (keep unchanged)\n\n| Measure | Value | Source |\n|---|---|---|\n| Webhook deadline | 10 s | PLAN.md L95 |\n| DB + ingress combined deadline | 2 s | PLAN.md L94-95 |\n| Mail client deadline | 1 s, cancel, no inline retries, raises MailTimeout | PLAN.md L92-94 |\n| Receipts per PaymentIntent | exactly 1 (empty order summary allowed) | PLAN.md L81-84 |\n| User update | assign payment_status=paid + PI id (idempotent, no counters) | PLAN.md L40-42 |\n| Handler class name (if separate) | `Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler` | PLAN.md L100-103 (settled) |\n| Rollout | existing feature flag + tested rollback + manual staging replay | PLAN.md L74-80 |\n\n## Decision ledger\n\n| ID and owner | Contract and evidence | Current | Proposed | Status | Exact approval and scope |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| R1 (plan author) Dispatcher integration | PLAN.md L10-11, L100-108: \"whether to add a separate implementation or reuse WebhookDLine truncated
"calls": [
{
"sessionId": "6b6e9a8e-7ea5-4b5a-8747-8e14fe6028a5",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01516Yhgtj5xXJZveQEJEXPu",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-Kkbsjq on main, starting the /plan-ceo-review of PLAN.md.\nELI10: gstack has a bunch of slash-command skills (review, ship, investigate, etc). A short routing table in CLAUDE.md tells Claude which skill to reach for when you say things like \"review this\" or \"ship it\", so you don't have to remember skill names. It's a one-time, per-project setup. Note: plan mode is active, so if you pick A the CLAUDE.md edit and commit happen after this review finishes and plan mode exits.\nStakes if we pick wrong: pick A and you get an extra ~15-line section in CLAUDE.md; pick B and you invoke skills by name manually. Either is reversible.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules make later skills fire on natural requests instead of exact names.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: a small CLAUDE.md addition for smoother skill invocation vs. keeping CLAUDE.md untouched.",
"header": "Routing",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Add routing rules (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Natural-language requests (\"review this\", \"ship it\") route to the right skill automatically\n✅ One-time per project; the section is short and lives at the end of CLAUDE.md\n❌ Adds ~15 lines to CLAUDE.md and a chore commit, applied after plan mode exits"
},
{
"label": "No thanks, invoke manually",
"description": "✅ CLAUDE.md stays exactly as it is; no extra commit in this fixture repo\n✅ You keep full control over when skills run\n❌ You must remember and type skill names; the offer is not repeated for this project"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-Kkbsjq on main, starting the /plan-ceo-review of PLAN.md.\nELI10: gstack has a bunch of slash-command skills (review, ship, investigate, etc). A short routing table in CLAUDE.md tells Claude which skill to reach for when you say things like \"review this\" or \"ship it\", so you don't have to remember skill names. It's a one-time, per-project setup. Note: plan mode is active, so if you pick A the CLAUDE.md edit and commit happen after this review finishes and plan mode exits.\nStakes if we pick wrong: pick A and you get an extra ~15-line section in CLAUDE.md; pick B and you invoke skills by name manually. Either is reversible.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules make later skills fire on natural requests instead of exact names.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: a small CLAUDE.md addition for smoother skill invocation vs. keeping CLAUDE.md untouched.": "Add routing rules (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-16T09:41:05.454Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "6b6e9a8e-7ea5-4b5a-8747-8e14fe6028a5",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01X9sS2w47Yqoj9wsdr7Tq6A",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D2 (row R1) — How does the new handler get invoked: through `WebhookDispatcher` or around it?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-Kkbsjq on main, HOLD SCOPE review of the Stripe payment handler plan.\nELI10: Your app already has one front door (`WebhookDispatcher`) that decides which code handles which Stripe event. The plan proposes to give the new payment handler its own side door for \"clean namespace separation\". But the separation you want already comes from the settled class name `Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler`; a side door just means two routing paths to keep in sync. PLAN.md L103 says separate-vs-reuse is still open, so this is a real decision, not a re-litigation.\nStakes if we pick wrong: with a second path, the feature flag and the handler-identity trace may not sit in front of the bypass, so a rollout or an incident could route or attribute events wrongly and nobody notices until a payment is mis-handled.\nRecommendation: A because it gives you the app-owned class you approved with one routing path and no re-proving of the guards.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: A keeps one front door and the approved name; B trades that for a self-contained class plus unverified wiring; C removes the class and makes the dispatcher payment-aware.",
"header": "Dispatcher",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Register with dispatcher (recommended)",
"description": "S effort (human ~half day / CC ~10 min), low risk.\n✅ One routing path; flag switch and handler-identity trace stay exactly where they are today\n✅ Namespace separation is delivered by the settled `Webhooks::` class name, nothing else needed\n❌ Depends on the dispatcher's registration API accepting an app-namespace handler (unknown, cheap to check)"
},
{
"label": "B) Bypass dispatcher as written",
"description": "S effort (human ~1 day incl. wiring / CC ~15 min), medium risk.\n✅ No coupling to the dispatcher's API; the class is fully self-contained\n✅ Matches the plan text verbatim, no rewording of the Architecture section\n❌ Second routing path; where the feature flag and identity trace attach relative to the bypass is unknown, so \"runs inside unchanged guards\" must be re-proven with new wiring tests"
},
{
"label": "C) Fold into dispatcher, no new class",
"description": "S-M effort (human ~1 day / CC ~15 min), medium risk.\n✅ Zero new files; one routing path\n✅ No registration API question at all\n❌ Dispatcher becomes payment-aware, which defeats the approved ownership goal and leaves the settled class name unused; flag-switching prior vs new gets harder"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D2 (row R1) — How does the new handler get invoked: through `WebhookDispatcher` or around it?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-Kkbsjq on main, HOLD SCOPE review of the Stripe payment handler plan.\nELI10: Your app already has one front door (`WebhookDispatcher`) that decides which code handles which Stripe event. The plan proposes to give the new payment handler its own side door for \"clean namespace separation\". But the separation you want already comes from the settled class name `Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler`; a side door just means two routing paths to keep in sync. PLAN.md L103 says separate-vs-reuse is still open, so this is a real decision, not a re-litigation.\nStakes if we pick wrong: with a second path, the feature flag and the handler-identity trace may not sit in front of the bypass, so a rollout or an incident could route or attribute events wrongly and nobody notices until a payment is mis-handled.\nRecommendation: A because it gives you the app-owned class you approved with one routing path and no re-proving of the guards.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: A keeps one front door and the approved name; B trades that for a self-contained class plus unverified wiring; C removes the class and makes the dispatcher payment-aware.": "A) Register with dispatcher (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-16T09:45:01.084Z"
}
]
},
{
"name": "paired-attempt2",
"case": "paired",
"attempt": 2,
"originalOutcome": "FAIL",
"paidPassCredit": 0,
"sourceSha256": "49acdaf79f350f99da250fa8932f78f67c598132be724740251cb40791d61fb3",
"savedSha256": "7613297ec1c4a889c8c0fed00741a43e23e510a57573b71d95f395644ead3a84",
"publicEventsSha256": "48d26162847c432b81e852c17ce8ffa98fc2c946747c0942ed470da6715bb531",
"source": "Please review this plan thoroughly in HOLD SCOPE mode. As you go, write your plan-mode plan to /tmp/g-fmjf7yah/gstack-paid-shard-RjoxNc/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-ceo-paired-Jh6y11/gstack-test-plan-ceo-paired.md (use Edit/Write to that exact path).\nProceed directly to the requested CEO review; skip the optional /office-hours prerequisite.\nFinish after this CEO review; I will handle subsequent reviews manually.\n\n# Plan: Payment Processing — Test Coverage\n\n## Existing coverage and test infrastructure retained\nThis changes unit tests only; processPayment() production behavior stays as-is.\nThe Stripe adapter suite already covers network timeouts, card declines (402),\nrate limits (429), and recovery when an initial 502 is followed by a successful\ncharge. Receipt-builder failure behavior has its own passing regression tests.\nThe payment test factory explicitly configures max_retries=1 and exposes the\nStripe mock call history. Its injected virtual sleeper records backoff without\nreal delays, so an exhausted 502 operation makes exactly two charge attempts.\nThese existing helpers and regression suites remain in use for this change.\n\n## Existing behavior retained\nA successful charge returns a receipt with chargeId copied from Stripe,\namountCents equal to the requested integer amount, and currency equal to\nthe requested currency. For a 1000-cent USD charge returning id ch_paid,\nthe receipt is { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }.\nOn repeated 502 responses, max_retries=1 means two total charge attempts\nseparated by one recorded 100 ms backoff, followed by PaymentUnavailable.\nThese contracts are already implemented; this plan adds their unit coverage.\n\n## Proposed tests\nAdd two tests in the existing processPayment suite using its current factory,\nStripe mock and virtual sleeper. Other tests and production code stay as-is.\n\n1. Successful charge: arrange the Stripe mock to return id ch_paid, call\n processPayment with amountCents=1000 and currency=USD, and assert only\n that the returned receipt is truthy. This is the complete planned assertion.\n2. Repeated 502: arrange two consecutive Stripe 502 responses, call\n processPayment, and assert only that it rejects with PaymentUnavailable.\n No assertion about the mock call history or virtual sleeper record\n is planned for this test.",
"savedPlan": "# Plan: Payment Processing — Test Coverage (CEO review working plan)\n\nSource: `PLAN.md` @ 09e1a93 on `main`. Review: `/plan-ceo-review`, mode HOLD SCOPE (explicit user instruction). Base branch: `main`.\n\n## Context\nprocessPayment() already implements two contracts (successful receipt shape; retry-then-PaymentUnavailable on repeated 502). PLAN.md adds two unit tests for them in the existing processPayment suite. Production code, other tests, and the test factory (max_retries=1, Stripe mock with call history, virtual sleeper) stay as-is. This working plan records the review's evidence, the decision ledger, and the amended plan as decisions are made.\n\n## Stated limits (recorded, unchanged unless approved)\n| Measure | Value | Unit | Source |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| Retries | max_retries=1 → 2 total attempts | attempts | PLAN.md L12-14, L22 |\n| Backoff between attempts | 100 | ms, recorded by virtual sleeper | PLAN.md L23 |\n| Test amount / currency / charge id | 1000 / USD / ch_paid | cents / ISO code / id | PLAN.md L20-21 |\n| Deliverables | 2 tests added, 1 test file edited, 0 new files, 0 production changes | count | PLAN.md L27-28 |\n| Retained | Stripe adapter suite (timeouts, 402, 429, 502→success), receipt-builder regressions | suites | PLAN.md L9-11 |\n\n## Pre-review system audit\n- Repo contains only `PLAN.md` and `CLAUDE.md`; one commit (\"Seed review plan\"). No production or test source is checked in here, so the processPayment suite, factory, mock and sleeper described in PLAN.md cannot be read. All references to them below are taken from PLAN.md and are marked **unverified**.\n- No stash, no TODO/FIXME, no TODOS.md, no design doc, no handoff note, no prior learnings, no brain digests.\n- Retrospective check: no prior review cycles in history.\n- Frontend/UI scope: none (DESIGN_SCOPE = no).\n- Landscape (Layer 1/2/3): mock the vendor adapter and use fake timers; assert your own contract, not Stripe's; for retry logic the load-bearing assertions are attempt count and backoff, not only the terminal error.\n\n## Step 0 evidence\n\n### 0A. Premise Challenge\n1. Right problem: yes. Two implemented contracts have no direct unit coverage at the processPayment level; adding them is the correct, minimal framing.\n2. Outcome: a regression in receipt shape or retry behavior fails CI before it reaches users. As written, test 1 (truthy) and test 2 (rejection only) do not reach that outcome: they pass on a receipt with the wrong chargeId/amount/currency and on a retry loop that makes 1, 3 or 50 attempts with no backoff. The plan solves a proxy (\"a test exists\") rather than the outcome (\"the contract is pinned\").\n3. Do nothing: the contracts stay implemented but unpinned; the pain is real because the plan itself says the contracts matter enough to document to the cent and millisecond.\n\n### 0B. Existing Code Leverage\n| Sub-problem | Existing code (per PLAN.md, unverified) | Reuse |\n|---|---|---|\n| Arrange a successful charge | factory + Stripe mock returning an id | reuse as-is |\n| Arrange consecutive 502s | Stripe mock (adapter suite already does 502→success) | reuse the same arrangement pattern |\n| Observe attempt count | factory exposes Stripe mock call history | already built; the plan chooses not to read it |\n| Observe backoff | injected virtual sleeper records backoff | already built; the plan chooses not to read it |\nNothing is being rebuilt. The only gap is that two existing observability hooks (call history, sleeper record) are left unused by the tests that exist to exercise them.\n\n### 0C. Dream State Mapping\n```\n CURRENT STATE THIS PLAN 12-MONTH IDEAL\n contracts implemented, ---> 2 tests exist; receipt shape ---> every processPayment contract\n pinned only indirectly and retry count still unpinned pinned by one explicit test each;\n via adapter suite retry/backoff regressions fail CI\n```\nThe plan moves toward the ideal only if the assertions pin the stated values. With truthy/rejection-only assertions it moves sideways: a test that cannot fail on the regression it names.\n\n### 0E. Mode\nHOLD SCOPE, explicit user choice. Planned file changes: 1 edit (processPayment suite), 0 adds, 0 deletes (estimate; suite path unverified).\n\n## Decision ledger\n| ID and owner | Contract and evidence | Current | Proposed | Status | Exact approval and scope |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| R1 (test author) | Successful-charge receipt: `{ chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }` (PLAN.md L18-21). Existing coverage: receipt-builder regressions (indirect, unverified). | Test 1 asserts only that the receipt is truthy (PLAN.md L30-32). | A) deep-equal the full receipt; B) assert `chargeId === \"ch_paid\"` only; C) keep truthy. | unresolved | — |\n| R2 (test author) | Repeated 502: exactly 2 attempts, one recorded 100 ms bacLine truncated
"calls": [
{
"sessionId": "ec00e567-b610-445b-b9e5-7de7e8d8a3e0",
"toolUseId": "toolu_011fae4xDhqZArFYfVsXvymv",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-UniFL6 on main, starting the /plan-ceo-review of PLAN.md.\nELI10: gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules, so that requests like \"review this diff\" or \"ship it\" automatically route to the right skill. This is a one-time setup prompt per project. Note: plan mode is active, so if you pick A the CLAUDE.md edit and commit will happen after this review exits plan mode, not now.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Without routing you invoke skills manually; with it, a CLAUDE.md edit and commit land in the repo. Both reversible.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules make skill use automatic and the edit is a small, reversible append.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: automatic skill routing vs. keeping CLAUDE.md untouched.",
"header": "Routing",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Add routing rules (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Requests auto-route to the matching gstack skill without you naming it\n✅ One small append to CLAUDE.md, committed once; easy to revert\n❌ Adds a CLAUDE.md edit + commit to this repo (deferred until plan mode exits)"
},
{
"label": "No thanks, manual skills",
"description": "✅ Repo stays untouched; no commit lands from this session\n✅ You keep full control over when each skill runs\n❌ You must type /skill-name for every review, QA, or ship step"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-UniFL6 on main, starting the /plan-ceo-review of PLAN.md.\nELI10: gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules, so that requests like \"review this diff\" or \"ship it\" automatically route to the right skill. This is a one-time setup prompt per project. Note: plan mode is active, so if you pick A the CLAUDE.md edit and commit will happen after this review exits plan mode, not now.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Without routing you invoke skills manually; with it, a CLAUDE.md edit and commit land in the repo. Both reversible.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules make skill use automatic and the edit is a small, reversible append.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: automatic skill routing vs. keeping CLAUDE.md untouched.": "Add routing rules (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-16T09:44:57.967Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "ec00e567-b610-445b-b9e5-7de7e8d8a3e0",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01MQt8TwzDoSUjFS7oxR7PE6",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D2 — Search learnings from your other projects on this machine?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-UniFL6 on main, /plan-ceo-review prior-learnings step.\nELI10: gstack records small lessons it learns per project (command quirks, pitfalls). It can also search lessons from your other local projects when reviewing this one. Nothing leaves your machine either way. Recommended for solo developers; skip if you work on several client codebases where mixing context would be a concern.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Enabled on a multi-client machine could surface one client's patterns while reviewing another's; disabled means each project relearns from scratch. Both are a one-line config flip.\nRecommendation: A because this is a single-developer machine with no signs of multi-client separation, and learnings compound faster across projects.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: faster compounding of lessons vs. strict per-project isolation.",
"header": "Learnings",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Enable cross-project (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Lessons from other local projects apply here from the first session\n✅ Stays local; a single config value you can flip back any time\n❌ Patterns from unrelated codebases may occasionally be surfaced"
},
{
"label": "Project-scoped only",
"description": "✅ Strict isolation: nothing from other codebases influences this review\n✅ Safe default when you work across multiple client repositories\n❌ This project starts with zero learnings and builds them up alone"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D2 — Search learnings from your other projects on this machine?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-UniFL6 on main, /plan-ceo-review prior-learnings step.\nELI10: gstack records small lessons it learns per project (command quirks, pitfalls). It can also search lessons from your other local projects when reviewing this one. Nothing leaves your machine either way. Recommended for solo developers; skip if you work on several client codebases where mixing context would be a concern.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Enabled on a multi-client machine could surface one client's patterns while reviewing another's; disabled means each project relearns from scratch. Both are a one-line config flip.\nRecommendation: A because this is a single-developer machine with no signs of multi-client separation, and learnings compound faster across projects.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: faster compounding of lessons vs. strict per-project isolation.": "Enable cross-project (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-16T09:46:04.167Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "ec00e567-b610-445b-b9e5-7de7e8d8a3e0",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01DRQdE4ZvVhDZcQJZQahqQP",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D3 (ledger R1) — How much of the receipt contract should test 1 assert?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-UniFL6 on main, HOLD SCOPE review of PLAN.md test 1 (successful charge).\nELI10: The plan documents the exact receipt a 1000-cent USD charge must return: chargeId \"ch_paid\", amountCents 1000, currency \"USD\". But test 1 only checks that *something* came back (truthy). A bug that returns the wrong id, a float amount, or the wrong currency would pass this test. The question is whether the test should pin the values the plan itself spells out.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too weak, and a receipt regression reaches users with CI green; too strict is a one-line literal edit if the receipt shape ever legitimately grows.\nRecommendation: A because the plan already states every value to the cent, the factory already produces them, and the extra assertion is one line with no new helpers.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=3/10\nNet: an exact receipt pin (one line) vs. a test that cannot fail on the regression it is named for.",
"header": "R1 receipt",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Deep-equal full receipt (recommended)",
"description": "Effort S, risk low. Assert receipt equals { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" } exactly.\n✅ Fails on wrong id, float/rounded amount, wrong currency, or stray extra keys\n✅ Same factory and mock as planned; no new helpers, one assertion line\n❌ If the receipt legitimately gains keys the plan omits, the literal needs a 1-line widening"
},
{
"label": "B) Assert chargeId only",
"description": "Effort S, risk low. Keep truthy and add receipt.chargeId === \"ch_paid\".\n✅ Catches the most visible regression (id copied from the wrong field)\n✅ Smallest change that adds any real signal\n❌ amountCents and currency stay unpinned despite being stated to the cent in the plan"
},
{
"label": "C) Keep truthy only (as planned)",
"description": "Effort S (zero work), risk medium. PLAN.md test 1 unchanged.\n✅ Matches PLAN.md verbatim; nothing to re-plan\n✅ Never brittle to receipt-shape changes\n❌ Passes on any non-null return; cannot detect a wrong id, amount, or currency"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D3 (ledger R1) — How much of the receipt contract should test 1 assert?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-UniFL6 on main, HOLD SCOPE review of PLAN.md test 1 (successful charge).\nELI10: The plan documents the exact receipt a 1000-cent USD charge must return: chargeId \"ch_paid\", amountCents 1000, currency \"USD\". But test 1 only checks that *something* came back (truthy). A bug that returns the wrong id, a float amount, or the wrong currency would pass this test. The question is whether the test should pin the values the plan itself spells out.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too weak, and a receipt regression reaches users with CI green; too strict is a one-line literal edit if the receipt shape ever legitimately grows.\nRecommendation: A because the plan already states every value to the cent, the factory already produces them, and the extra assertion is one line with no new helpers.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=3/10\nNet: an exact receipt pin (one line) vs. a test that cannot fail on the regression it is named for.": "A) Deep-equal full receipt (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-16T09:48:20.244Z"
}
]
}
],
"rejectedMissingRow": {
"name": "distinct-attempt2",
"originalOutcome": "FAIL",
"paidPassCredit": 0,
"source": "Please review this plan thoroughly in HOLD SCOPE mode. As you go, write your plan-mode plan to /tmp/g-fmjf7yah/gstack-paid-shard-RjoxNc/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-ceo-tdJPWC/gstack-test-plan-ceo.md (use Edit/Write to that exact path).\nProceed directly to the requested CEO review; skip the optional /office-hours prerequisite.\nFinish after this CEO review; I will handle subsequent reviews manually.\n\n# Plan: Payment Processing Integration\n\n## Existing contracts retained\nThe approved motivation is to move payment orchestration out of the prior\nlibrary-adapter handler into application-owned code while retaining the\nexisting payment and receipt product behavior. The shared dispatcher remains\navailable; the proposed bypass below is still an architectural choice to review.\nThe existing ingress middleware verifies the Stripe signature against the\nraw request body and rejects invalid signatures before invoking handlers.\nThe existing ingress forwards only `payment_intent.succeeded` events to\nthis handler; other Stripe event types are acknowledged without invoking it.\nThe existing payload adapter exposes `event.data.object.metadata.user_id`\nas `request.params.userId`. This params object is the parsed body-data map,\nnot URL query/path parameters; all users share one webhook URL.\nThe adapter acknowledges missing, nil, or empty user_id metadata with\nHTTP 200 and an event-correlated warning before invoking this handler.\nFor every nonempty external string it performs no SQL-format validation.\nThe adapter forwards that external string unchanged. It does not cast,\nescape, or SQL-sanitize it; a valid signature does not make it safe for SQL.\nUser IDs are opaque TEXT values, including punctuation and Unicode. The\nlookup has no integer/UUID cast or ID-format restriction; every nonempty\nstring is a valid identifier representation.\nAn existing ingress ownership guard checks the PaymentIntent ID against\nits stored opaque user-ID binding before invoking the handler. A mismatch\nis acknowledged with HTTP 200 and an event-correlated warning. This is an\nidentity comparison, not SQL-format validation; the adapter still forwards\nthe original string unchanged.\nThe existing webhook event guard deduplicates deliveries by Stripe event ID,\nand an existing per-user lock serializes payment updates.\nThe event guard acquires the existing per-user lock before checking the\ncommitted completion marker, and rechecks after any lock wait. It holds\nthat lock through the handler and completion bookkeeping; an overlapping\ncompleted duplicate does not invoke the handler.\nThe new handler runs inside those unchanged guards; this plan does not\nreplace signature verification, event deduplication, or update locking.\nThe existing user update assigns payment_status=paid and the payment intent\nID; it does not increment a balance or counter. Repeating the same payment\nintent assigns the same values, independently of the event-ID guard.\nThe existing lookup-result guard acknowledges unknown/deleted users with\nHTTP 200, logs the event, and stops before user updates or email fan-out.\nThe retained recipient-policy helper treats a nil or empty email address as\nskipped_missing_address: payment processing continues normally, and no mail\nclient call is attempted. It persists an event/user/PaymentIntent-correlated\nskip record, emits a structured warning, and increments the existing counter.\nThe existing notification runbook already covers that skip result: correct\nthe account address, then retry only its recorded notification using the\nsame PaymentIntent idempotency key. It never replays the payment for this case.\nThat recipient policy does not catch failures from sends to nonempty addresses;\nthe shared mail client still rethrows those exceptions to this handler.\nAccount deletion uses the same per-user lock. The handler holds it from\nlookup through update and inline email, so deletion either precedes lookup\n(the existing unknown/deleted-user path) or follows the handler; it cannot\nremove the user between lookup and update.\nThe ingress wrapper already logs event IDs, outcomes, and durations, with\nalerts for failed webhook processing. Those controls remain in place.\nThe existing DB and mail clients attach the adapter user ID and event ID\nto outcome traces, including update success and email delivery success or\nfailure. These shared clients rethrow exceptions unchanged; tracing does\nnot rescue email errors or change the inline email call below.\nThe shared mail client also publishes its delivery failure rate to the\nexisting dashboard and tested on-call alert, including caught exceptions.\nThe existing incident runbook uses the correlated DB and mail outcomes to\ndistinguish committed payments from failed notifications. It directs on-call\nto check provider status and retry only the failed notification through the\nexisting notification retry procedure, never replay the payment blindly.\nDB lookup/update excepLine truncated
"sourceSha256": "9e39d0f224490bfe9636210385b3c264513f8f3cb8a785ed61ac5b2c2d37a6f2",
"calls": [
{
"sessionId": "013febcd-f6fc-4d76-a99d-b60c3430bc52",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01YRwwrMcdFck9FdQmvrQJAi",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count fixture on `main`, about to run /plan-ceo-review in HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: gstack has a dozen skills (review, ship, investigate, etc.). A short routing section in CLAUDE.md tells Claude which skill to reach for when you say things like \"ship this\" or \"why is this failing\", so you don't have to type slash commands. Without it, skills only run when you invoke them by name.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Low either way. Adding it means one extra section in CLAUDE.md and a commit; skipping it means you invoke skills manually. This is a one-time prompt per project.\nRecommendation: A because it is a two-way door and the routing makes the rest of gstack more useful. Note: plan mode is active, so the CLAUDE.md write and commit would happen after this review exits plan mode, not now.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: convenience of auto-routing vs. keeping CLAUDE.md untouched.",
"header": "Routing",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Add routing rules (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Requests like \"review this diff\" or \"ship it\" auto-route to the matching gstack skill without slash commands.\n✅ Two-way door: one appended section in CLAUDE.md, trivially removable later.\n❌ Adds ~20 lines to CLAUDE.md and a chore commit; deferred until plan mode exits."
},
{
"label": "No thanks, invoke manually",
"description": "✅ CLAUDE.md stays exactly as-is; no commit on this fixture repo.\n✅ Re-enable any time via gstack-config set routing_declined false.\n❌ You must type /skill-name for every gstack workflow; nothing routes automatically."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count fixture on `main`, about to run /plan-ceo-review in HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: gstack has a dozen skills (review, ship, investigate, etc.). A short routing section in CLAUDE.md tells Claude which skill to reach for when you say things like \"ship this\" or \"why is this failing\", so you don't have to type slash commands. Without it, skills only run when you invoke them by name.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Low either way. Adding it means one extra section in CLAUDE.md and a commit; skipping it means you invoke skills manually. This is a one-time prompt per project.\nRecommendation: A because it is a two-way door and the routing makes the rest of gstack more useful. Note: plan mode is active, so the CLAUDE.md write and commit would happen after this review exits plan mode, not now.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: convenience of auto-routing vs. keeping CLAUDE.md untouched.": "Add routing rules (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-16T09:45:39.567Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "013febcd-f6fc-4d76-a99d-b60c3430bc52",
"toolUseId": "toolu_0133Sr6Nsc1J33LVir66X6PE",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D2 — How should the new handler be wired into webhook ingress? (ledger row D2)\nProject/branch/task: Payment Processing Integration plan on `main`, HOLD SCOPE CEO review.\nELI10: Your app already has a front door for Stripe webhooks, the `WebhookDispatcher`, which routes each event type to its handler and logs the trip. The plan proposes a new handler class but wants to skip that front door and wire it straight from ingress \"for clean namespace separation\". The namespace win is already banked by the approved class name `Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler` (PLAN.md:100-103), so the open question is purely routing: one path or two.\nStakes if we pick wrong: two routing paths means every retained guard (signature, dedup, lock, ownership; PLAN.md:38-39) has to be re-proven on the second path and kept in sync forever; the alternative risk is a dispatcher registration API that doesn't fit and needs a small change.\nRecommendation: A because it reuses proven routing (Engineering preference: DRY, smallest clear change) and the feature flag then toggles a registration rather than a route.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: hard entry-point boundary vs. one routing path that everything else already trusts.",
"header": "Routing",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Register with dispatcher (recommended)",
"description": "New Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler registered for payment_intent.succeeded through the existing WebhookDispatcher. Effort S, risk low.\n✅ Reuses the dispatcher's routing, logging and handler-identity trace; guards (PLAN.md:38-39) stay on the one proven path.\n✅ Feature flag toggles a registration, not a route; rollback is the existing tested path unchanged.\n❌ Namespace separation is by module name only; dispatcher registration API may need a small accommodation."
},
{
"label": "B) Separate class, bypass dispatcher",
"description": "Handler wired directly from ingress, as the plan is written. Effort M, risk medium.\n✅ Hard boundary from the Stripe library namespace at the entry point, not just the class name.\n✅ No changes to WebhookDispatcher at all.\n❌ Two routing paths to keep in sync; every retained guard must be re-verified on the new path with new routing tests."
},
{
"label": "C) No new class, orchestrate in dispatcher",
"description": "Skip the handler class; put orchestration inside WebhookDispatcher. Effort S, risk medium.\n✅ Smallest possible diff, one file touched.\n✅ Nothing new to register or flag-route.\n❌ Contradicts the settled class-name decision (PLAN.md:100-103) and grows the dispatcher into business logic; rollout attribution loses the class boundary."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D2 — How should the new handler be wired into webhook ingress? (ledger row D2)\nProject/branch/task: Payment Processing Integration plan on `main`, HOLD SCOPE CEO review.\nELI10: Your app already has a front door for Stripe webhooks, the `WebhookDispatcher`, which routes each event type to its handler and logs the trip. The plan proposes a new handler class but wants to skip that front door and wire it straight from ingress \"for clean namespace separation\". The namespace win is already banked by the approved class name `Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler` (PLAN.md:100-103), so the open question is purely routing: one path or two.\nStakes if we pick wrong: two routing paths means every retained guard (signature, dedup, lock, ownership; PLAN.md:38-39) has to be re-proven on the second path and kept in sync forever; the alternative risk is a dispatcher registration API that doesn't fit and needs a small change.\nRecommendation: A because it reuses proven routing (Engineering preference: DRY, smallest clear change) and the feature flag then toggles a registration rather than a route.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: hard entry-point boundary vs. one routing path that everything else already trusts.": "A) Register with dispatcher (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-16T09:49:05.890Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "013febcd-f6fc-4d76-a99d-b60c3430bc52",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01DqqtLvb5uV9JMMMzYXAiGo",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D3 — What should the handler do when the email send raises after the payment update has committed? (ledger row D3, Section 2)\nProject/branch/task: Payment Processing Integration plan on `main`, HOLD SCOPE CEO review.\nELI10: The handler marks the user paid (committed to the DB), then sends the receipt inline. The plan says \"no error handling on the email leg\" (PLAN.md:116). The shared mail client raises MailTimeout after 1 second or rethrows provider errors, and it has ALREADY written a durable retry record before raising (PLAN.md:88-89). With no rescue, that exception reaches the ingress wrapper, which logs \"webhook processing failed\" and returns 500 to Stripe for a payment that actually succeeded. Stripe then retries for up to 72 hours. Whether those retries re-run your handler depends on whether the dedup guard records completion after a post-commit raise, which the plan never states (PLAN.md:70-73 only covers rolled-back DB attempts).\nStakes if we pick wrong: the failed-webhook pager fires during every mail-provider blip even though no payment is at risk, and a mail outage becomes a 72-hour Stripe retry storm holding per-user locks and DB connections; or, with a catch-all, real bugs in the email leg get swallowed.\nRecommendation: A because it names the two exception classes, keeps DB errors loud, and makes the HTTP status tell the truth (Engineering preference: every error has a name; zero silent failures).\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=5/10, C=3/10\nNet: an honest 200 plus one named rescue block vs. a misleading 500 whose downstream behavior nobody has verified.",
"header": "Email leg",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Rescue named mail errors, 200 (recommended)",
"description": "Rescue only MailTimeout + the client's provider error class, only around the send call, only after commit. Emit one structured warning (event id, user id, PaymentIntent id, exception class, 'payment committed, receipt queued for retry'), increment payment_receipt_send_failed, let the handler finish so dedup records completion and Stripe gets 200. DB errors stay unrescued. Tests: mail timeout -> user paid, 200, warning, counter; DB error -> still raises. Effort S / risk low. (human: ~2h / CC: ~10min)\n✅ Status code matches reality; failed-webhook alert reserved for real payment failures.\n✅ Receipt still flows through the existing retry record, backlog alert and runbook; no retry amplification.\n❌ Adds one rescue block and one counter; depends on the client writing the retry record before rethrow, so that must be asserted in the test."
},
{
"label": "B) Keep rethrow as written (500)",
"description": "No rescue; the mail exception propagates and Stripe receives 500. Zero code. Effort S / risk medium.\n✅ No new handler code; if the dedup guard re-invokes on retry, Stripe's retry may deliver the receipt for free.\n✅ Every failure is maximally loud, including the pager.\n❌ 500 for a committed payment; pager fires on notification issues; behavior hinges on unverified dedup-marker semantics; up to 72h of retries holding locks during a mail outage."
},
{
"label": "C) Catch-all rescue around email",
"description": "rescue StandardError around the send, log generically, continue. Effort S / risk medium.\n✅ Never returns 500 because of email; simplest possible code.\n✅ No dependency on knowing the client's exception classes.\n❌ Swallows programming errors and unexpected classes; a mail client contract change goes unnoticed; violates 'every error has a name'."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D3 — What should the handler do when the email send raises after the payment update has committed? (ledger row D3, Section 2)\nProject/branch/task: Payment Processing Integration plan on `main`, HOLD SCOPE CEO review.\nELI10: The handler marks the user paid (committed to the DB), then sends the receipt inline. The plan says \"no error handling on the email leg\" (PLAN.md:116). The shared mail client raises MailTimeout after 1 second or rethrows provider errors, and it has ALREADY written a durable retry record before raising (PLAN.md:88-89). With no rescue, that exception reaches the ingress wrapper, which logs \"webhook processing failed\" and returns 500 to Stripe for a payment that actually succeeded. Stripe then retries for up to 72 hours. Whether those retries re-run your handler depends on whether the dedup guard records completion after a post-commit raise, which the plan never states (PLAN.md:70-73 only covers rolled-back DB attempts).\nStakes if we pick wrong: the failed-webhook pager fires during every mail-provider blip even though no payment is at risk, and a mail outage becomes a 72-hour Stripe retry storm holding per-user locks and DB connections; or, with a catch-all, real bugs in the email leg get swallowed.\nRecommendation: A because it names the two exception classes, keeps DB errors loud, and makes the HTTP status tell the truth (Engineering preference: every error has a name; zero silent failures).\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=5/10, C=3/10\nNet: an honest 200 plus one named rescue block vs. a misleading 500 whose downstream behavior nobody has verified.": "A) Rescue named mail errors, 200 (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-16T09:51:27.187Z"
}
],
"plans": [
"# Plan: Payment Processing Integration — CEO Review (HOLD SCOPE)\n\nReviewed plan: `PLAN.md` (commit f30cc17, branch `main`). Mode: HOLD SCOPE (explicit user instruction).\nReview depth: scope and feasibility decisions plus the repairs needed to meet the plan's own stated invariants. No expansions.\n\n## Context\n\nThe approved motivation (PLAN.md:8-11) is to move payment orchestration out of the prior library-adapter handler into application-owned code while keeping payment and receipt behavior identical. The plan sits inside a large set of retained contracts (signature verification, event dedup, per-user lock, ownership guard, recipient policy, idempotent mail sends, feature flag + rollback). The four short proposal sections (Architecture, Database access, Webhook fan-out, Tests, Performance; PLAN.md:105-123) are where the risk lives. This review holds scope and traces every failure path of those four sections against the retained contracts.\n\nRepo audit: fixture repo with one commit (`f30cc17 Seed review plan`), files `PLAN.md` and `CLAUDE.md` only. No remote, no TODOS.md, no design doc, no handoff note, no stashes, no FIXME/TODO markers, no prior learnings. Base branch: `main`. Handler source is not in this repo; every claim about existing code is taken from PLAN.md's \"Existing contracts retained\" and marked as such.\n\n## Step 0 evidence\n\n### 0A. Premise Challenge\n1. Right problem? Yes, narrowly. Moving orchestration into app-owned code is a sound ownership move. But the plan's proposals re-litigate solved problems: the shared `WebhookDispatcher` already exists (PLAN.md:10), the ORM/lookup layer already treats user IDs as opaque TEXT (PLAN.md:24-26), the mail client already has idempotency and retry records (PLAN.md:85-91). The new class should be thin orchestration, not a second infrastructure.\n2. Outcome: identical paid-status update and one receipt per PaymentIntent, now in code the team owns. The plan reaches it directly except where it weakens guarantees (raw SQL, unnamed email exceptions, no tests).\n3. Do nothing: the prior library-adapter handler keeps working. Pain is ownership/maintainability, not a live outage. That argues for a small, safe diff, not a shortcut-laden one.\n\nLandscape (WebSearch, Aside unavailable): the 2026 consensus Stripe pattern is verify → dedup on event.id → transactional state change → side effects via job → 200 within 10s. This plan already has verify/dedup/lock from retained contracts; the inline email is bounded (1s mail deadline, 2s DB/ingress budget, 10s webhook deadline). First-principles delta: the danger is not latency, it is semantics: an email exception after a committed payment surfaces as a generic HTTP 500.\n\n### 0B. Existing Code Leverage (from PLAN.md contracts; code not in repo)\n| Sub-problem | Existing code | Plan reuses? |\n|---|---|---|\n| Signature verification | ingress middleware (:12-13) | Yes (unchanged) |\n| Event filtering to `payment_intent.succeeded` | ingress (:14-15) | Yes |\n| user_id extraction, nil/empty guard | payload adapter (:16-20) | Yes |\n| PaymentIntent↔user ownership check | ingress ownership guard (:27-31) | Yes |\n| Dedup + per-user lock | event guard (:32-39) | Yes |\n| Unknown/deleted user | lookup-result guard (:43-44) | Yes |\n| Missing email address | recipient-policy helper (:45-51) | Yes |\n| Idempotent send, retry record, failure metrics | shared mail client (:85-91) | Yes, but handler adds no rescue (:116) |\n| Correlated tracing, alerts, runbooks | DB/mail clients, ingress wrapper (:58-69) | Yes |\n| Handler routing / namespace | `WebhookDispatcher` (:10, :107) | **No — bypassed. Open decision D2** |\n| User lookup by opaque TEXT id | existing lookup (:24-26) | **No — raw SQL fragment proposed (:111-112)** |\n| Feature flag + rollback + staging replay | deployment (:74-80) | Yes |\n\nRebuilding: the raw SQL lookup rebuilds a lookup that already exists and drops its safety. The dispatcher bypass rebuilds routing. Neither has a stated reason beyond \"clean namespace separation\", which the approved name `Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler` (:100-103) already delivers regardless of routing.\n\n### 0C. Dream State Mapping\n```\n CURRENT STATE THIS PLAN 12-MONTH IDEAL\n Library-adapter handler owns ---> App-owned handler class, ---> All webhook handlers app-owned,\n payment orchestration; shared routed (D2 pending), thin registered through one dispatcher,\n guards/clients around it orchestration over existing each with unit tests for the four\n clients; email failure named data paths; email fan-out async\n and observable; tests TBD behind the same idempotency key\n```\nThe plan moves toward the ideal only if the handler stays thin and routed through the shared dispatcher; a bypass plus raw SQL moves awLine truncated
"# Plan: Payment Processing Integration — CEO Review (HOLD SCOPE)\n\nReviewed plan: `PLAN.md` (commit f30cc17, branch `main`). Mode: HOLD SCOPE (explicit user instruction).\nReview depth: scope and feasibility decisions plus the repairs needed to meet the plan's own stated invariants. No expansions.\n\n## Context\n\nThe approved motivation (PLAN.md:8-11) is to move payment orchestration out of the prior library-adapter handler into application-owned code while keeping payment and receipt behavior identical. The plan sits inside a large set of retained contracts (signature verification, event dedup, per-user lock, ownership guard, recipient policy, idempotent mail sends, feature flag + rollback). The four short proposal sections (Architecture, Database access, Webhook fan-out, Tests, Performance; PLAN.md:105-123) are where the risk lives. This review holds scope and traces every failure path of those four sections against the retained contracts.\n\nRepo audit: fixture repo with one commit (`f30cc17 Seed review plan`), files `PLAN.md` and `CLAUDE.md` only. No remote, no TODOS.md, no design doc, no handoff note, no stashes, no FIXME/TODO markers, no prior learnings. Base branch: `main`. Handler source is not in this repo; every claim about existing code is taken from PLAN.md's \"Existing contracts retained\" and marked as such.\n\n## Step 0 evidence\n\n### 0A. Premise Challenge\n1. Right problem? Yes, narrowly. Moving orchestration into app-owned code is a sound ownership move. But the plan's proposals re-litigate solved problems: the shared `WebhookDispatcher` already exists (PLAN.md:10), the ORM/lookup layer already treats user IDs as opaque TEXT (PLAN.md:24-26), the mail client already has idempotency and retry records (PLAN.md:85-91). The new class should be thin orchestration, not a second infrastructure.\n2. Outcome: identical paid-status update and one receipt per PaymentIntent, now in code the team owns. The plan reaches it directly except where it weakens guarantees (raw SQL, unnamed email exceptions, no tests).\n3. Do nothing: the prior library-adapter handler keeps working. Pain is ownership/maintainability, not a live outage. That argues for a small, safe diff, not a shortcut-laden one.\n\nLandscape (WebSearch, Aside unavailable): the 2026 consensus Stripe pattern is verify → dedup on event.id → transactional state change → side effects via job → 200 within 10s. This plan already has verify/dedup/lock from retained contracts; the inline email is bounded (1s mail deadline, 2s DB/ingress budget, 10s webhook deadline). First-principles delta: the danger is not latency, it is semantics: an email exception after a committed payment surfaces as a generic HTTP 500.\n\n### 0B. Existing Code Leverage (from PLAN.md contracts; code not in repo)\n| Sub-problem | Existing code | Plan reuses? |\n|---|---|---|\n| Signature verification | ingress middleware (:12-13) | Yes (unchanged) |\n| Event filtering to `payment_intent.succeeded` | ingress (:14-15) | Yes |\n| user_id extraction, nil/empty guard | payload adapter (:16-20) | Yes |\n| PaymentIntent↔user ownership check | ingress ownership guard (:27-31) | Yes |\n| Dedup + per-user lock | event guard (:32-39) | Yes |\n| Unknown/deleted user | lookup-result guard (:43-44) | Yes |\n| Missing email address | recipient-policy helper (:45-51) | Yes |\n| Idempotent send, retry record, failure metrics | shared mail client (:85-91) | Yes, but handler adds no rescue (:116) |\n| Correlated tracing, alerts, runbooks | DB/mail clients, ingress wrapper (:58-69) | Yes |\n| Handler routing / namespace | `WebhookDispatcher` (:10, :107) | **No — bypassed. Open decision D2** |\n| User lookup by opaque TEXT id | existing lookup (:24-26) | **No — raw SQL fragment proposed (:111-112)** |\n| Feature flag + rollback + staging replay | deployment (:74-80) | Yes |\n\nRebuilding: the raw SQL lookup rebuilds a lookup that already exists and drops its safety. The dispatcher bypass rebuilds routing. Neither has a stated reason beyond \"clean namespace separation\", which the approved name `Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler` (:100-103) already delivers regardless of routing.\n\n### 0C. Dream State Mapping\n```\n CURRENT STATE THIS PLAN 12-MONTH IDEAL\n Library-adapter handler owns ---> App-owned handler class, ---> All webhook handlers app-owned,\n payment orchestration; shared routed (D2 pending), thin registered through one dispatcher,\n guards/clients around it orchestration over existing each with unit tests for the four\n clients; email failure named data paths; email fan-out async\n and observable; tests TBD behind the same idempotency key\n```\nThe plan moves toward the ideal only if the handler stays thin and routed through the shared dispatcher; a bypass plus raw SQL moves awLine truncated
],
"planSha256": [
"e6b5665d4aee98e68043058d0ab6185ac2ff34a72944dbc62dee2e7950dc24a8",
"e200937493c70f7df208ceb2e07ddc2dc10c72088c0699cdd5259b202a16d783"
],
"snapshotTimes": [
"2026-09-16T09:48:44.492Z",
"2026-09-16T09:51:05.706Z"
],
"questionTimes": [
"2026-09-16T09:49:04.785Z",
"2026-09-16T09:51:26.587Z"
]
}
}
test/fixtures/ceo-current-omission-ap.json
Vendored
-361
View File
@@ -1,361 +0,0 @@
{
"description": "Exact seven completed public native AskUserQuestion fingerprints from the failed source AP distinct CEO retry. All questions, answers and completion timestamps are retained; no private reasoning or native journal content. The actual retry remains no_review_questions with zero review credit.",
"sourceObservation": {
"path": ".context/ship-source-ap-delta-paid-20260910-v1/ceo-distinct-retry-terminal-native-v1/observation.json",
"sha256": "d4806bda0027b3b8d2b56fef7ab4f83fd102e3de8a0c0a4a6c06c565bc57dc1a"
},
"actualCounts": {
"setup": 7,
"review": 0
},
"fingerprints": [
{
"signature": "a1b230eb-bddd-4267-bcf9-7ca11b6096b1:toolu_01EFwGWZaFVGJ48pir5PcVwd",
"promptSnippet": "Routing gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules. Add them? (Plan mode is active, so the CLAUDE.md edit and commit would happen after this review exits plan mode.)",
"options": [
{
"index": 1,
"label": "Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "No thanks, I'll invoke skills manually"
}
],
"observedAtMs": 44254,
"preReview": true,
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "a1b230eb-bddd-4267-bcf9-7ca11b6096b1",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01EFwGWZaFVGJ48pir5PcVwd",
"questions": [
{
"question": "gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules. Add them? (Plan mode is active, so the CLAUDE.md edit and commit would happen after this review exits plan mode.)",
"header": "Routing",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (recommended)",
"description": "Appends a '## Skill routing' section mapping request types to gstack skills, then commits it. One-time per project."
},
{
"label": "No thanks, I'll invoke skills manually",
"description": "Sets routing_declined=true in gstack config. Re-enable later with gstack-config set routing_declined false."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules. Add them? (Plan mode is active, so the CLAUDE.md edit and commit would happen after this review exits plan mode.)": "Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T13:15:41.414Z"
}
},
{
"signature": "a1b230eb-bddd-4267-bcf9-7ca11b6096b1:toolu_01BXwt9PsejEdExTPCR6nddT",
"promptSnippet": "Learnings gstack can search learnings from your other projects on this machine to find patterns that might apply here. This stays local (no data leaves your machine). Recommended for solo developers. Skip if you work on multiple client code",
"options": [
{
"index": 1,
"label": "Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "Keep learnings project-scoped only"
}
],
"observedAtMs": 171138,
"preReview": true,
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "a1b230eb-bddd-4267-bcf9-7ca11b6096b1",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01BXwt9PsejEdExTPCR6nddT",
"questions": [
{
"question": "gstack can search learnings from your other projects on this machine to find patterns that might apply here. This stays local (no data leaves your machine). Recommended for solo developers. Skip if you work on multiple client codebases where cross-contamination would be a concern. Enable cross-project learnings?",
"header": "Learnings",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)",
"description": "Sets cross_project_learnings=true in ~/.gstack config. Future reviews can apply pitfalls and patterns logged in your other local projects."
},
{
"label": "Keep learnings project-scoped only",
"description": "Sets cross_project_learnings=false. Only learnings from this repo are ever surfaced here."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"gstack can search learnings from your other projects on this machine to find patterns that might apply here. This stays local (no data leaves your machine). Recommended for solo developers. Skip if you work on multiple client codebases where cross-contamination would be a concern. Enable cross-project learnings?": "Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T13:17:48.289Z"
}
},
{
"signature": "a1b230eb-bddd-4267-bcf9-7ca11b6096b1:toolu_01PnMJ9W3S2aAh7JubJSU9bT",
"promptSnippet": "Approach D1 — How should the new payment handler be wired in? Project/branch/task: main, Stripe payment_intent.succeeded handler per PLAN.md. ELI10: Your ingress already checks the Stripe signature, dedups events, locks per user, and flips ",
"options": [
{
"index": 1,
"label": "A) Dispatcher-registered class (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "B) Parallel bypass (plan as written)"
},
{
"index": 3,
"label": "C) Method inside WebhookDispatcher"
}
],
"observedAtMs": 261880,
"preReview": true,
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "a1b230eb-bddd-4267-bcf9-7ca11b6096b1",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01PnMJ9W3S2aAh7JubJSU9bT",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 — How should the new payment handler be wired in?\nProject/branch/task: main, Stripe payment_intent.succeeded handler per PLAN.md.\nELI10: Your ingress already checks the Stripe signature, dedups events, locks per user, and flips a feature flag between handlers. The plan says the new class \"bypasses WebhookDispatcher\" for namespace separation, but also says it \"runs inside those unchanged guards\". Both cannot be true if the dispatcher owns the guards. The stakes: a bypassed dispatcher means re-implementing (or silently losing) signature checks, dedup, and the rollback flag.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a parallel path with no dedup double-processes payments or ships without the tested rollback flag.\nRecommendation: A because it keeps the approved name and namespace while inheriting every retained guard for free (explicit over clever, smallest correct diff).\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=3/10, C=7/10\nA) New Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler class, registered with the existing WebhookDispatcher behind the existing flag (recommended)\n ✅ Inherits signature check, dedup, per-user lock, ownership guard, tracing, flag rollback with zero new code\n ✅ Handler is a small unit-testable class in the application-owned namespace, as already approved\n ❌ Requires reading the dispatcher's registration contract; namespace separation is by class, not by module (human: ~2h / CC: ~10min)\nB) Parallel StripePaymentWebhookHandler that bypasses WebhookDispatcher (plan as written)\n ✅ Complete isolation from the dispatcher module's code\n ✅ Nothing in the existing dispatcher changes\n ❌ Contradicts the retained-guards contract; must duplicate signature, dedup, lock, flag, and tracing or lose them (human: ~2d / CC: ~1h)\nC) No new class: add payment-success handling as a method inside WebhookDispatcher\n ✅ Fewest files touched, guards inherited\n ✅ No registration wiring to learn\n ❌ Grows the dispatcher module; the approved class name goes unused and the handler is harder to unit-test in isolation (human: ~1h / CC: ~5min)\nNet: A gets the namespace separation the plan wants without paying for a second guard stack. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-approach>",
"header": "Approach",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Dispatcher-registered class (recommended)",
"description": "Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler, invoked by the existing WebhookDispatcher behind the existing handler flag. Completeness 9/10."
},
{
"label": "B) Parallel bypass (plan as written)",
"description": "Separate path outside WebhookDispatcher; must re-implement or lose the retained guards. Completeness 3/10."
},
{
"label": "C) Method inside WebhookDispatcher",
"description": "No new class; handling lives in the dispatcher module. Completeness 7/10."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 — How should the new payment handler be wired in?\nProject/branch/task: main, Stripe payment_intent.succeeded handler per PLAN.md.\nELI10: Your ingress already checks the Stripe signature, dedups events, locks per user, and flips a feature flag between handlers. The plan says the new class \"bypasses WebhookDispatcher\" for namespace separation, but also says it \"runs inside those unchanged guards\". Both cannot be true if the dispatcher owns the guards. The stakes: a bypassed dispatcher means re-implementing (or silently losing) signature checks, dedup, and the rollback flag.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a parallel path with no dedup double-processes payments or ships without the tested rollback flag.\nRecommendation: A because it keeps the approved name and namespace while inheriting every retained guard for free (explicit over clever, smallest correct diff).\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=3/10, C=7/10\nA) New Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler class, registered with the existing WebhookDispatcher behind the existing flag (recommended)\n ✅ Inherits signature check, dedup, per-user lock, ownership guard, tracing, flag rollback with zero new code\n ✅ Handler is a small unit-testable class in the application-owned namespace, as already approved\n ❌ Requires reading the dispatcher's registration contract; namespace separation is by class, not by module (human: ~2h / CC: ~10min)\nB) Parallel StripePaymentWebhookHandler that bypasses WebhookDispatcher (plan as written)\n ✅ Complete isolation from the dispatcher module's code\n ✅ Nothing in the existing dispatcher changes\n ❌ Contradicts the retained-guards contract; must duplicate signature, dedup, lock, flag, and tracing or lose them (human: ~2d / CC: ~1h)\nC) No new class: add payment-success handling as a method inside WebhookDispatcher\n ✅ Fewest files touched, guards inherited\n ✅ No registration wiring to learn\n ❌ Grows the dispatcher module; the approved class name goes unused and the handler is harder to unit-test in isolation (human: ~1h / CC: ~5min)\nNet: A gets the namespace separation the plan wants without paying for a second guard stack. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-approach>": "A) Dispatcher-registered class (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T13:19:18.537Z"
}
},
{
"signature": "a1b230eb-bddd-4267-bcf9-7ca11b6096b1:toolu_016Eg2aB7vyX7RL4y57cbadq",
"promptSnippet": "Email leg D2 — Email leg: what happens when the receipt send fails after the payment is committed? Project/branch/task: main, Stripe payment handler, Webhook fan-out section of PLAN.md. ELI10: The handler updates the user, then sends the re",
"options": [
{
"index": 1,
"label": "A) Commit, then send; rescue named mail errors; 200 (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "B) Plan as written: no rescue, 500 on mail failure"
},
{
"index": 3,
"label": "C) Commit first, rescue, re-raise handler error (500)"
}
],
"observedAtMs": 346639,
"preReview": true,
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "a1b230eb-bddd-4267-bcf9-7ca11b6096b1",
"toolUseId": "toolu_016Eg2aB7vyX7RL4y57cbadq",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D2 — Email leg: what happens when the receipt send fails after the payment is committed?\nProject/branch/task: main, Stripe payment handler, Webhook fan-out section of PLAN.md.\nELI10: The handler updates the user, then sends the receipt inline with \"no error handling\". The mail client rethrows MailTimeout and provider errors after durably recording a retry record. Unrescued, that exception reaches the ingress wrapper, which returns HTTP 500 and Stripe re-delivers the whole payment event for up to three days. The payment is already committed, so every retry re-runs the handler and re-fires the failed-webhook alert. Your runbook explicitly says: retry only the notification, never replay the payment. The plan also does not say whether the email runs inside or after the DB transaction. If inside, a one-second mail timeout rolls back a real payment.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a mail-provider outage turns into a flood of payment-webhook 500s, Stripe retry storms, false payment-failure alerts, and possibly a disabled webhook endpoint.\nRecommendation: A because it matches the runbook contract (notification-only retry), names the exact exceptions, and keeps the payment commit independent of the mail provider (zero silent failures; every error has a name).\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=4/10, C=6/10\nA) Commit first, then send; rescue only the mail client's named errors (MailTimeout + its provider error classes) after commit; log at warn with event ID, user ID, PaymentIntent ID, handler identity; return normally so ingress replies 200 and dedup records completion; the client's durable retry record + existing failed-notification alert own the resend (recommended)\n ✅ Payment state never depends on the mail provider; a mail outage produces zero webhook 500s and zero Stripe replays\n ✅ Rescue is specific, logged with full correlation, and the resend path is the already-tested retry procedure\n ✅ Verified by tests: MailTimeout stub → user row paid, handler returns success, warn trace emitted, no re-raise; DB error → still propagates (human: ~3h / CC: ~15min)\n ❌ Receipt can lag the payment until the retry procedure runs; on-call sees it on the failed-notification dashboard rather than as a webhook failure\nB) Keep plan as written: no rescue, email may run inside the transaction, exception propagates to ingress (500, Stripe retries)\n ✅ Zero new code on the email leg\n ✅ Stripe's own retry eventually re-attempts the send while the provider is down\n ❌ Every mail failure becomes a payment-webhook failure alert; if the send is inside the transaction a 1s timeout rolls back a committed-worthy payment; violates the runbook's notification-only retry rule\nC) Commit first, rescue named mail errors, but re-raise a distinct handler error so ingress still returns 500\n ✅ Payment commit protected from the mail leg\n ✅ Stripe retry gives a second inline send attempt\n ❌ Still replays the payment path on every retry and still fires failed-webhook alerts for a notification-only problem; contradicts the runbook\nNet: A separates \"payment committed\" from \"receipt delivered\" the way the runbook already assumes; B and C keep them fused. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-email-rescue>",
"header": "Email leg",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Commit, then send; rescue named mail errors; 200 (recommended)",
"description": "Update commits before the send. Rescue MailTimeout + provider error classes only, log warn with event/user/PI/handler ids, return success. Retry record + alert own the resend. Completeness 10/10."
},
{
"label": "B) Plan as written: no rescue, 500 on mail failure",
"description": "Exception propagates to ingress; Stripe retries the whole payment event. Completeness 4/10."
},
{
"label": "C) Commit first, rescue, re-raise handler error (500)",
"description": "Payment protected but webhook still fails and Stripe still replays. Completeness 6/10."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D2 — Email leg: what happens when the receipt send fails after the payment is committed?\nProject/branch/task: main, Stripe payment handler, Webhook fan-out section of PLAN.md.\nELI10: The handler updates the user, then sends the receipt inline with \"no error handling\". The mail client rethrows MailTimeout and provider errors after durably recording a retry record. Unrescued, that exception reaches the ingress wrapper, which returns HTTP 500 and Stripe re-delivers the whole payment event for up to three days. The payment is already committed, so every retry re-runs the handler and re-fires the failed-webhook alert. Your runbook explicitly says: retry only the notification, never replay the payment. The plan also does not say whether the email runs inside or after the DB transaction. If inside, a one-second mail timeout rolls back a real payment.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a mail-provider outage turns into a flood of payment-webhook 500s, Stripe retry storms, false payment-failure alerts, and possibly a disabled webhook endpoint.\nRecommendation: A because it matches the runbook contract (notification-only retry), names the exact exceptions, and keeps the payment commit independent of the mail provider (zero silent failures; every error has a name).\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=4/10, C=6/10\nA) Commit first, then send; rescue only the mail client's named errors (MailTimeout + its provider error classes) after commit; log at warn with event ID, user ID, PaymentIntent ID, handler identity; return normally so ingress replies 200 and dedup records completion; the client's durable retry record + existing failed-notification alert own the resend (recommended)\n ✅ Payment state never depends on the mail provider; a mail outage produces zero webhook 500s and zero Stripe replays\n ✅ Rescue is specific, logged with full correlation, and the resend path is the already-tested retry procedure\n ✅ Verified by tests: MailTimeout stub → user row paid, handler returns success, warn trace emitted, no re-raise; DB error → still propagates (human: ~3h / CC: ~15min)\n ❌ Receipt can lag the payment until the retry procedure runs; on-call sees it on the failed-notification dashboard rather than as a webhook failure\nB) Keep plan as written: no rescue, email may run inside the transaction, exception propagates to ingress (500, Stripe retries)\n ✅ Zero new code on the email leg\n ✅ Stripe's own retry eventually re-attempts the send while the provider is down\n ❌ Every mail failure becomes a payment-webhook failure alert; if the send is inside the transaction a 1s timeout rolls back a committed-worthy payment; violates the runbook's notification-only retry rule\nC) Commit first, rescue named mail errors, but re-raise a distinct handler error so ingress still returns 500\n ✅ Payment commit protected from the mail leg\n ✅ Stripe retry gives a second inline send attempt\n ❌ Still replays the payment path on every retry and still fires failed-webhook alerts for a notification-only problem; contradicts the runbook\nNet: A separates \"payment committed\" from \"receipt delivered\" the way the runbook already assumes; B and C keep them fused. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-email-rescue>": "A) Commit, then send; rescue named mail errors; 200 (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T13:20:43.788Z"
}
},
{
"signature": "a1b230eb-bddd-4267-bcf9-7ca11b6096b1:toolu_01HzZWbd7dFFDT8eyb5SGZYV",
"promptSnippet": "SQL binding D3 — Lookup query: raw SQL fragment built from the external user_id string. Project/branch/task: main, Stripe payment handler, Database access section of PLAN.md. ELI10: The plan reads request.params.userId straight into a raw S",
"options": [
{
"index": 1,
"label": "A) Bound parameters everywhere + punctuation/Unicode tests (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "B) Adapter quote-escape into the fragment"
},
{
"index": 3,
"label": "C) Keep raw fragment (plan as written)"
}
],
"observedAtMs": 426829,
"preReview": true,
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "a1b230eb-bddd-4267-bcf9-7ca11b6096b1",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01HzZWbd7dFFDT8eyb5SGZYV",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D3 — Lookup query: raw SQL fragment built from the external user_id string.\nProject/branch/task: main, Stripe payment handler, Database access section of PLAN.md.\nELI10: The plan reads request.params.userId straight into a raw SQL fragment. By your own contracts that string is Stripe metadata forwarded unchanged: no cast, no escaping, opaque TEXT that legitimately includes punctuation and Unicode. Two things go wrong. First, any real user whose ID contains an apostrophe or semicolon makes the query a syntax error, the ingress returns 500, Stripe retries for three days, and that user is never marked paid. Second, anyone who influences user_id at signup or in the Stripe dashboard controls part of a SQL statement against your users table; the ownership guard compares identity, it does not sanitize.\nStakes if we pick wrong: real paying users stuck unpaid in a retry loop, and a SQL injection surface on the payments path.\nRecommendation: A because parameter binding is the existing DB client's normal path, removes both failure modes at once, and costs a few lines (security is not optional; explicit over clever).\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=5/10, C=2/10\nA) Bind user_id as a query parameter through the existing DB client for the user lookup, the orders load, and the update; never interpolate it into SQL text; add unit tests that run the lookup with IDs containing ' ; -- \" \\ and multi-byte Unicode and assert the correct row is returned and no exception is raised; a failing bind surfaces as the retained DB error → 500 + alert (recommended)\n ✅ Legitimate punctuation and Unicode IDs look up correctly; no 500 retry loop for real users\n ✅ Injection is structurally impossible; no allowlist or escaping logic to maintain\n ✅ Verified by the punctuation/Unicode test matrix and by a query-shape assertion in the handler spec (human: ~1h / CC: ~5min)\n ❌ None of substance; the fragment approach has no advantage the bound parameter lacks\nB) Escape the string with the DB adapter's quote function before interpolating into the fragment\n ✅ Small change to the fragment as written\n ✅ Handles apostrophes for the common case\n ❌ Escaping is per-adapter and easy to forget on the next query; still string-building SQL on the payments path\nC) Keep the raw fragment (plan as written)\n ✅ Zero change\n ❌ Syntax errors on legitimate IDs and an injection surface, both on a path that marks payments\nNet: A deletes the problem; B manages it; C ships it. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-sql-binding>",
"header": "SQL binding",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Bound parameters everywhere + punctuation/Unicode tests (recommended)",
"description": "user_id bound via the DB client for lookup, orders, update. Tests cover ' ; -- \" \\ and Unicode IDs. Completeness 10/10."
},
{
"label": "B) Adapter quote-escape into the fragment",
"description": "Escape then interpolate. Per-adapter, easy to regress. Completeness 5/10."
},
{
"label": "C) Keep raw fragment (plan as written)",
"description": "No change; syntax errors on real IDs and an injection surface. Completeness 2/10."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D3 — Lookup query: raw SQL fragment built from the external user_id string.\nProject/branch/task: main, Stripe payment handler, Database access section of PLAN.md.\nELI10: The plan reads request.params.userId straight into a raw SQL fragment. By your own contracts that string is Stripe metadata forwarded unchanged: no cast, no escaping, opaque TEXT that legitimately includes punctuation and Unicode. Two things go wrong. First, any real user whose ID contains an apostrophe or semicolon makes the query a syntax error, the ingress returns 500, Stripe retries for three days, and that user is never marked paid. Second, anyone who influences user_id at signup or in the Stripe dashboard controls part of a SQL statement against your users table; the ownership guard compares identity, it does not sanitize.\nStakes if we pick wrong: real paying users stuck unpaid in a retry loop, and a SQL injection surface on the payments path.\nRecommendation: A because parameter binding is the existing DB client's normal path, removes both failure modes at once, and costs a few lines (security is not optional; explicit over clever).\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=5/10, C=2/10\nA) Bind user_id as a query parameter through the existing DB client for the user lookup, the orders load, and the update; never interpolate it into SQL text; add unit tests that run the lookup with IDs containing ' ; -- \" \\ and multi-byte Unicode and assert the correct row is returned and no exception is raised; a failing bind surfaces as the retained DB error → 500 + alert (recommended)\n ✅ Legitimate punctuation and Unicode IDs look up correctly; no 500 retry loop for real users\n ✅ Injection is structurally impossible; no allowlist or escaping logic to maintain\n ✅ Verified by the punctuation/Unicode test matrix and by a query-shape assertion in the handler spec (human: ~1h / CC: ~5min)\n ❌ None of substance; the fragment approach has no advantage the bound parameter lacks\nB) Escape the string with the DB adapter's quote function before interpolating into the fragment\n ✅ Small change to the fragment as written\n ✅ Handles apostrophes for the common case\n ❌ Escaping is per-adapter and easy to forget on the next query; still string-building SQL on the payments path\nC) Keep the raw fragment (plan as written)\n ✅ Zero change\n ❌ Syntax errors on legitimate IDs and an injection surface, both on a path that marks payments\nNet: A deletes the problem; B manages it; C ships it. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-sql-binding>": "A) Bound parameters everywhere + punctuation/Unicode tests (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T13:22:03.979Z"
}
},
{
"signature": "a1b230eb-bddd-4267-bcf9-7ca11b6096b1:toolu_01T8GGjNjbemHJA4MT4q7jKM",
"promptSnippet": "Tests D4 — Tests: the plan ships a payments handler with zero automated tests. Project/branch/task: main, Stripe payment handler, Tests section of PLAN.md. ELI10: The plan says \"none planned, rely on the existing integration suite\". But the",
"options": [
{
"index": 1,
"label": "A) Full unit + registration + integration suite (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "B) Integration test only"
},
{
"index": 3,
"label": "C) None (plan as written)"
}
],
"observedAtMs": 492924,
"preReview": true,
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "a1b230eb-bddd-4267-bcf9-7ca11b6096b1",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01T8GGjNjbemHJA4MT4q7jKM",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D4 — Tests: the plan ships a payments handler with zero automated tests.\nProject/branch/task: main, Stripe payment handler, Tests section of PLAN.md.\nELI10: The plan says \"none planned, rely on the existing integration suite\". But the existing suite predates this handler, so it cannot exercise the new lookup, the commit-then-send ordering, the mail rescue, or the order load. The only verification is a manual staging replay on the rollout checklist. Decisions D2 and D3 each named the tests that prove them; without a test file those assertions do not exist. Well-tested code is your stated non-negotiable.\nStakes if we pick wrong: the SQL binding, the mail rescue, and the single-query order load can each regress silently; the first signal would be a production payment stuck in a retry loop.\nRecommendation: A because it is the complete coverage of every new codepath, most of it is unit-level and cheap, and it turns the D2/D3 verification promises into executable checks.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=1/10\nA) Full suite: unit specs for the handler (happy path asserts payment_status=paid + PI id set + exactly one send with the PI idempotency key; unknown user → no update, no send; zero orders → one receipt with empty summary; N orders → exactly one orders query; IDs with ' ; -- \" \\ and Unicode → correct row, no error; MailTimeout and each provider error class → row still paid, warn trace with event/user/PI/handler ids, handler returns normally; DB error on lookup/update → propagates unrescued, no send), a dispatcher registration spec (flag on → new handler; flag off → prior handler), and one integration test replaying a signed fixture through ingress asserting 200, row updated, one send, one completion marker, plus the duplicate-delivery replay asserting no second handler invocation (recommended)\n ✅ Every new branch in Sections 1-2 has a named assertion and a wrong result it rejects\n ✅ Unit-heavy pyramid; the one integration test doubles as the automated version of the staging checklist\n ✅ Flakiness controlled: mail client and clock stubbed, no external calls (human: ~1 day / CC: ~30min)\n ❌ Adds a test file per component and a signed-event fixture to maintain\nB) Integration test only: signed fixture through ingress, happy path + duplicate delivery\n ✅ Proves the wiring end to end with one file\n ✅ Cheap to write (human: ~2h / CC: ~10min)\n ❌ Does not exercise the mail rescue, the punctuation IDs, or the query count; regressions in D2/D3/D5 go unseen\nC) None (plan as written): rely on existing suite + manual staging replay\n ✅ Zero test code\n ❌ The existing suite cannot reach code that does not exist yet; manual replay runs once per rollout, not per commit\nNet: A makes the approved remedies enforceable; B proves only that the pipe connects; C is hope. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-tests>",
"header": "Tests",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Full unit + registration + integration suite (recommended)",
"description": "Handler unit specs (happy, unknown user, zero/N orders, punctuation/Unicode ids, mail rescue, DB propagate), dispatcher flag spec, signed-fixture integration + duplicate replay. Completeness 10/10."
},
{
"label": "B) Integration test only",
"description": "Signed fixture through ingress, happy + duplicate. Misses D2/D3/D5 assertions. Completeness 6/10."
},
{
"label": "C) None (plan as written)",
"description": "Existing suite + manual staging replay only. Completeness 1/10."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D4 — Tests: the plan ships a payments handler with zero automated tests.\nProject/branch/task: main, Stripe payment handler, Tests section of PLAN.md.\nELI10: The plan says \"none planned, rely on the existing integration suite\". But the existing suite predates this handler, so it cannot exercise the new lookup, the commit-then-send ordering, the mail rescue, or the order load. The only verification is a manual staging replay on the rollout checklist. Decisions D2 and D3 each named the tests that prove them; without a test file those assertions do not exist. Well-tested code is your stated non-negotiable.\nStakes if we pick wrong: the SQL binding, the mail rescue, and the single-query order load can each regress silently; the first signal would be a production payment stuck in a retry loop.\nRecommendation: A because it is the complete coverage of every new codepath, most of it is unit-level and cheap, and it turns the D2/D3 verification promises into executable checks.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=1/10\nA) Full suite: unit specs for the handler (happy path asserts payment_status=paid + PI id set + exactly one send with the PI idempotency key; unknown user → no update, no send; zero orders → one receipt with empty summary; N orders → exactly one orders query; IDs with ' ; -- \" \\ and Unicode → correct row, no error; MailTimeout and each provider error class → row still paid, warn trace with event/user/PI/handler ids, handler returns normally; DB error on lookup/update → propagates unrescued, no send), a dispatcher registration spec (flag on → new handler; flag off → prior handler), and one integration test replaying a signed fixture through ingress asserting 200, row updated, one send, one completion marker, plus the duplicate-delivery replay asserting no second handler invocation (recommended)\n ✅ Every new branch in Sections 1-2 has a named assertion and a wrong result it rejects\n ✅ Unit-heavy pyramid; the one integration test doubles as the automated version of the staging checklist\n ✅ Flakiness controlled: mail client and clock stubbed, no external calls (human: ~1 day / CC: ~30min)\n ❌ Adds a test file per component and a signed-event fixture to maintain\nB) Integration test only: signed fixture through ingress, happy path + duplicate delivery\n ✅ Proves the wiring end to end with one file\n ✅ Cheap to write (human: ~2h / CC: ~10min)\n ❌ Does not exercise the mail rescue, the punctuation IDs, or the query count; regressions in D2/D3/D5 go unseen\nC) None (plan as written): rely on existing suite + manual staging replay\n ✅ Zero test code\n ❌ The existing suite cannot reach code that does not exist yet; manual replay runs once per rollout, not per commit\nNet: A makes the approved remedies enforceable; B proves only that the pipe connects; C is hope. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-tests>": "A) Full unit + registration + integration suite (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T13:23:10.074Z"
}
},
{
"signature": "a1b230eb-bddd-4267-bcf9-7ca11b6096b1:toolu_013oAbYMMkuHauF21QLvUwbg",
"promptSnippet": "Order load D5 — Order load: one query per order inside a two-second DB deadline. Project/branch/task: main, Stripe payment handler, Performance section of PLAN.md. ELI10: After finding the user, the plan fetches each order in a loop to buil",
"options": [
{
"index": 1,
"label": "A) Single bound query + query-count test + 500-order staging check (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "B) Chunked IN(...) batches"
},
{
"index": 3,
"label": "C) Keep per-order loop (plan as written)"
}
],
"observedAtMs": 532776,
"preReview": true,
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "a1b230eb-bddd-4267-bcf9-7ca11b6096b1",
"toolUseId": "toolu_013oAbYMMkuHauF21QLvUwbg",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D5 — Order load: one query per order inside a two-second DB deadline.\nProject/branch/task: main, Stripe payment handler, Performance section of PLAN.md.\nELI10: After finding the user, the plan fetches each order in a loop to build the receipt summary. That is N round trips. Your retained DB deadline gives the whole handler two seconds. A repeat customer with a few hundred orders blows that budget, the DB client raises its timeout, the ingress returns 500, and Stripe retries the same user forever with the same result. So the customers who have paid you the most are the ones whose latest payment never gets marked paid. This is a correctness bug wearing a performance costume.\nStakes if we pick wrong: your highest-value users are stuck unpaid in a retry loop, and each retry burns N queries.\nRecommendation: A because it is one bound query, it keeps the receipt semantics unchanged, and the test from D4 pins the query count.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=2/10\nA) Load the user's orders in a single bound query (WHERE user_id = ?) using the existing DB client, using the existing user_id index (verify it exists; if not, adding it is part of this task); the D4 unit test asserts exactly one orders query for N orders; a load check in staging replays a fixture user with 500 orders and asserts the handler finishes well inside the 2s DB deadline; a DB timeout still propagates as the retained 500 + alert (recommended)\n ✅ Constant round trips regardless of order count; the 2s deadline is no longer a function of customer loyalty\n ✅ Receipt semantics unchanged: one email, full summary, zero orders still yields an empty summary\n ✅ Enforced by the query-count assertion and the 500-order staging replay (human: ~1h / CC: ~5min)\n ❌ Very large order histories still build a large in-memory summary; bounded by the retained receipt contract, not by this change\nB) Keep the loop but batch order IDs into chunked IN (...) queries\n ✅ Reduces round trips by the chunk factor\n ✅ Small edit to the loop as written\n ❌ Still N/chunk queries and chunk-size tuning; more code than the single query for a worse result\nC) Keep the per-order loop (plan as written)\n ✅ Zero change\n ❌ Deadline failures scale with order count; heavy customers land in the retry loop\nNet: A removes the N; B shrinks it; C ships it. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-order-query>",
"header": "Order load",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Single bound query + query-count test + 500-order staging check (recommended)",
"description": "One WHERE user_id = ? query via the existing DB client on the existing index. D4 test asserts one query. Staging replay with 500 orders inside 2s. Completeness 10/10."
},
{
"label": "B) Chunked IN(...) batches",
"description": "Fewer round trips, still N/chunk queries, chunk tuning. Completeness 7/10."
},
{
"label": "C) Keep per-order loop (plan as written)",
"description": "Deadline failures scale with order count. Completeness 2/10."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D5 — Order load: one query per order inside a two-second DB deadline.\nProject/branch/task: main, Stripe payment handler, Performance section of PLAN.md.\nELI10: After finding the user, the plan fetches each order in a loop to build the receipt summary. That is N round trips. Your retained DB deadline gives the whole handler two seconds. A repeat customer with a few hundred orders blows that budget, the DB client raises its timeout, the ingress returns 500, and Stripe retries the same user forever with the same result. So the customers who have paid you the most are the ones whose latest payment never gets marked paid. This is a correctness bug wearing a performance costume.\nStakes if we pick wrong: your highest-value users are stuck unpaid in a retry loop, and each retry burns N queries.\nRecommendation: A because it is one bound query, it keeps the receipt semantics unchanged, and the test from D4 pins the query count.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=2/10\nA) Load the user's orders in a single bound query (WHERE user_id = ?) using the existing DB client, using the existing user_id index (verify it exists; if not, adding it is part of this task); the D4 unit test asserts exactly one orders query for N orders; a load check in staging replays a fixture user with 500 orders and asserts the handler finishes well inside the 2s DB deadline; a DB timeout still propagates as the retained 500 + alert (recommended)\n ✅ Constant round trips regardless of order count; the 2s deadline is no longer a function of customer loyalty\n ✅ Receipt semantics unchanged: one email, full summary, zero orders still yields an empty summary\n ✅ Enforced by the query-count assertion and the 500-order staging replay (human: ~1h / CC: ~5min)\n ❌ Very large order histories still build a large in-memory summary; bounded by the retained receipt contract, not by this change\nB) Keep the loop but batch order IDs into chunked IN (...) queries\n ✅ Reduces round trips by the chunk factor\n ✅ Small edit to the loop as written\n ❌ Still N/chunk queries and chunk-size tuning; more code than the single query for a worse result\nC) Keep the per-order loop (plan as written)\n ✅ Zero change\n ❌ Deadline failures scale with order count; heavy customers land in the retry loop\nNet: A removes the N; B shrinks it; C ships it. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-order-query>": "A) Single bound query + query-count test + 500-order staging check (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T13:23:49.923Z"
}
}
]
}
test/fixtures/ceo-current-record-6aef.json
Vendored
-97
View File
@@ -1,97 +0,0 @@
{
"sourceRevision": "6aef8d74a7835a0986694d57d4fa5748ac960379",
"runId": "ship-all-6aef8d74-c596dc24-a45d-4b9f-83bd-b1b676000695",
"qualification": "Literal source/ledger/coverage/currentDecision projection of original failed retry. Original native question/header/options stay unchanged. Diagnostic exact-field synchronization is counterfactual and grants no behavioral credit.",
"originals": [
{
"source": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/.context/nouakchott-c6fc-impact/runtime-eng-readability-next/executions/6aef8d74a7835a0986694d57d4fa5748ac960379/all/run/phases/periodic-independent/shards/skill-e2e-plan-ceo-finding-count/pty-count/ship-all-6aef8d74-c596dc24-a45d-4b9f-83bd-b1b676000695/plan-ceo-review-1789600402051-JFbR2A/observation.json",
"retained": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/.context/ceo-source-attribution-6aef-repair/.context/retry-original/observation.json",
"sha256": "5f02002b588529be23930b5c81c8050c560d3b994489110a2806c380281c3127"
},
{
"source": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/.context/nouakchott-c6fc-impact/runtime-eng-readability-next/executions/6aef8d74a7835a0986694d57d4fa5748ac960379/all/run/public-retention/skill-e2e-plan-ceo-finding-count/plan-ceo-review-1789600402051-JFbR2A/ownership.json",
"retained": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/.context/ceo-source-attribution-6aef-repair/.context/retry-original/ownership.json",
"sha256": "6d13d0e44d6bd00ff420ccb4adc052327646e02cff4cf137373298dd3bd50e34"
},
{
"source": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/.context/nouakchott-c6fc-impact/runtime-eng-readability-next/executions/6aef8d74a7835a0986694d57d4fa5748ac960379/all/run/public-retention/skill-e2e-plan-ceo-finding-count/plan-ceo-review-1789600402051-JFbR2A/public-events.ndjson",
"retained": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/.context/ceo-source-attribution-6aef-repair/.context/retry-original/public-events.ndjson",
"sha256": "e0eaa0deecf23fe2728fb792ea0dab85e344e8cc5b380c7b222e549b33dff1ca"
},
{
"source": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/.context/nouakchott-c6fc-impact/runtime-eng-readability-next/executions/6aef8d74a7835a0986694d57d4fa5748ac960379/all/run/public-retention/skill-e2e-plan-ceo-finding-count/plan-ceo-review-1789600402051-JFbR2A/retained-files.ndjson",
"retained": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/.context/ceo-source-attribution-6aef-repair/.context/retry-original/retained-files.ndjson",
"sha256": "ad38d315b051a58d67aca68be9f6fce6840fd6223d7eca0826d3478fa385f5a0"
},
{
"source": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/.context/nouakchott-c6fc-impact/runtime-eng-readability-next/executions/6aef8d74a7835a0986694d57d4fa5748ac960379/all/run/public-retention/skill-e2e-plan-ceo-finding-count/plan-ceo-review-1789600402051-JFbR2A/objects/1749f69f2f2fcaf5abd1d0b574a280520b42b9c2d6bf3564fa33fc283995a828.md",
"retained": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/.context/ceo-source-attribution-6aef-repair/.context/retry-original/saved-plan.md",
"sha256": "1749f69f2f2fcaf5abd1d0b574a280520b42b9c2d6bf3564fa33fc283995a828"
},
{
"source": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/.context/nouakchott-c6fc-impact/runtime-eng-readability-next/executions/6aef8d74a7835a0986694d57d4fa5748ac960379/all/run/public-retention/skill-e2e-plan-ceo-finding-count/plan-ceo-review-1789600402051-JFbR2A/objects/7393b46c3ca1ec0a254ee685832e3e04674cc6d8d7b6d38c8a600c33ea823c92.md",
"retained": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/.context/ceo-source-attribution-6aef-repair/.context/retry-original/seed.md",
"sha256": "7393b46c3ca1ec0a254ee685832e3e04674cc6d8d7b6d38c8a600c33ea823c92"
}
],
"segments": [
{
"startLine": 1,
"endLine": 5,
"text": "# CEO Review (HOLD SCOPE): Payment Processing Integration\n\nSource plan: `PLAN.md` (repo root, commit 7595150). Branch: `main`. Base branch: `main` (no remote; git-native fallback).\nMode: HOLD SCOPE (explicit user instruction). /office-hours skipped per user instruction.\nReview only. No code changes. Scope is preserved; repairs needed to keep the stated invariants are in scope.\n",
"sha256": "70820bf0dcf2b75c0eec75cac47e0bb643098bc563542a911363b8397a2e96b5"
},
{
"startLine": 51,
"endLine": 60,
"text": "## Decision ledger\n\n| ID and owner | Contract and evidence | Current | Proposed | Status | Exact approval and scope |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| R1 (owner: payments/webhooks maintainer) | PLAN.md:8-11, 102-103: dispatcher remains available, bypass is \"an architectural choice to review\", class name settled as `Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler`, separate-vs-reuse open | Prior library-adapter handler, routed via existing ingress/dispatcher | A) new class registered with `WebhookDispatcher`; B) new class bypassing dispatcher (as drafted); C) reuse dispatcher, no separate class | approved | D1 answer: A. Scope: add `Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler`, register with `WebhookDispatcher` for `payment_intent.succeeded`; Architecture section's \"bypasses WebhookDispatcher\" is replaced. Decision id 452fcb99. |\n| R2 (owner: same) | PLAN.md:21-26, 110-112: adapter forwards unvalidated TEXT; plan splices `request.params.userId` into raw SQL | Existing lookup, TEXT id, no format restriction | A) reuse existing lookup, id bound as parameter; B) new raw SQL with bound parameter; C) interpolated fragment (as drafted) | approved | D3 answer: A. Scope: handler calls the existing user lookup with `params.userId` bound as a parameter; no raw SQL fragment, no format validation, no escaping; lookup-result guard unchanged. Decision id 6c45fbd0. |\n| R3 (owner: same) | PLAN.md:52-53, 60-69, 85-97, 114-116: mail client rethrows; durable attempt record + retry runbook exist; plan has no handling on email leg | Prior handler behavior on mail failure: unknown | A) rescue named mail exceptions after commit, return 200; B) propagate 500 (as drafted) | approved | D2 answer: A. Scope: rescue only `MailTimeout` + mail client's delivery-error class after the update commits; structured log (event/user/PI/class); outcome trace `paid, notification_failed`; return 200; all other exceptions propagate. Recovery via existing attempt record + notification retry procedure. Decision id 0239e18e. |\n| R4 (owner: same) | PLAN.md:76-80, 118-119: manual staging replay only; no automated tests planned | Existing integration suite (coverage of this handler: unknown) | pending (review section) | unresolved | not yet asked |\n| R5 (owner: same) | PLAN.md:81-84, 92-95, 121-123: per-order fetch loop; DB budget 2s inside 10s webhook deadline | Existing order loop (query shape: unknown) | pending (review section) | unresolved | not yet asked |\n\n",
"sha256": "d4fbb9331cf217cf91e6ea165b0b214dc39b9d5ef37917c4a4af0313cd6465c2"
},
{
"startLine": 469,
"endLine": 498,
"text": "### Per-item coverage (pending R4)\n| Item | Test type | In plan? | Happy | Failure | Edge |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| F1/C7 dispatcher routing + flag | Integration | No | flag=new routes to new class | flag=prior routes to prior | unknown event type never reaches handler |\n| F2/D3 lookup binding | Unit | No | plain id resolves | unknown id → guard, no update | ids `O'Brien`, `a;b`, `x--y`, `李_1`, 1k-char id resolve; assert single bound-parameter query |\n| F3 orders/receipt | Unit | No | 3 orders → summary of 3 | order load raises → propagates, no send | zero orders → one receipt, empty summary |\n| C3 recipient policy | Unit | No | address present → send | — | nil and \"\" → skip record, counter, no client call, return ok |\n| E1/E2 mail rescue (D2) | Unit | No | send ok → outcome paid | MailTimeout / delivery error → 200 path, update committed exactly once, outcome `paid, notification_failed`, log has event/user/PI/class | any other exception class from send → propagates |\n| C6 DB propagation | Unit | No | — | lookup timeout / update rollback → raises, no send attempted | orders timeout after commit → raises (R5 changes the shape) |\n| Ordering guard | Unit | No | — | send invoked only after update commit (spy on call order) | — |\n| Async: dup delivery, deletion race | Integration (pause points) | No | one update, one send | dup under lock → no second handler run | delete-first → guard path; delete-waiting → runs after handler |\n\n### Assertion check (requirement → observable assertion → wrong result rejected)\n1. D3: \"handler passes `params.userId` as a bound parameter\" → assert the DB client receives the id as a parameter, not in the SQL text, and that `O'Brien` resolves; rejects an interpolated query (which would raise or bind nothing).\n2. D2: \"rescue only MailTimeout and the delivery-error class after commit, return 200, outcome paid,notification_failed\" → assert exactly one update call, return value ok, outcome trace value, log fields; rejects a swallowed DB error (a stub raising `<DB::QueryTimeout>` from send must propagate) and rejects a second update.\n3. Retained: \"one receipt per PaymentIntent, empty summary at zero orders\" → assert one send with empty summary; rejects zero sends or one-per-order.\n4. Retained: \"nil/empty email → skip record, no client call\" → assert client not called and skip record persisted; rejects a send to \"\".\n5. Retained: \"unknown user → 200, no update, no send\" → assert both absent.\n6. D1: \"dispatcher routes `payment_intent.succeeded` to the new class when flag=new\" → assert handler invoked; rejects prior handler invocation.\n\n### Test ambition\n- 2am Friday test: the E1 rescue test with a spy proving the update committed once and the send was attempted once, plus the `O'Brien` id test.\n- Hostile QA: an id of 10k Unicode characters with embedded `'); DROP TABLE users;--`; a send stub that raises `<DB::QueryTimeout>` (must propagate, must not be rescued as mail failure); a duplicate delivery released exactly after commit.\n- Chaos: mail provider stub that sleeps 1.5s (MailTimeout path) under 50 concurrent webhooks for 50 users; assert all 50 users paid, 50 attempt records, zero 500s.\n- Pyramid: many unit, 2-3 integration (dispatcher/flag, dup/delete race), 0 E2E (staging replay is the manual E2E). Correct shape.\n- Flakiness: the race tests need controlled pause/release points, not sleeps. The chaos test depends on timing; mark it non-gating.\n- Load: covered by R5's DB-budget test (Section 7).\n- LLM/prompt changes: none.\n\n**Decision gate (Section 6).** Analyze: R4 unresolved. The plan's \"existing integration suite\" claim is unsupported (coverage unknown, flag value under test unknown). D2 and D3 each named their verification as conditional on R4. Resolve: 0D for R4 below.\n",
"sha256": "6e91e72d843689ee470d35f2574b0950b69284f4eecf926d66d26bef53cd7a6e"
},
{
"startLine": 500,
"endLine": 541,
"text": "## currentDecision (R4)\nCommitment comparison:\n\n```text\nCommitment | Source/approval or pending | Current (drafted) | A | B | C\nAutomated handler tests | PLAN.md:118-119 pending | none | full: unit + integration + race tests | unit tests for D2/D3 + happy path only | none (as drafted)\nD3 verification (bound id, punctuation ids) | D3 answer: conditional on R4 | manual replay only | automated | automated | manual staging replay only\nD2 verification (rescue, single update, trace)| D2 answer: conditional on R4 | manual replay only | automated | automated | manual staging replay only\nDispatcher/flag routing test (D1) | pending | none | automated integration | none | none\nDup-delivery / deletion race tests | pending | none | automated with pause points | none | none\nRetained-behavior tests (zero orders, nil email, unknown user) | pending | none | automated | zero orders + nil email only | none\nManual staging replay checklist | PLAN.md:76-78 retained | required | still required | still required | still required\nExisting integration suite | PLAN.md:119 claim; coverage unknown | relied on | kept; not counted as handler coverage | kept; not counted | relied on (unverified)\n```\n\nQuestion: D4 — R4: What automated test coverage should ship with the new handler?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-K995IF on `main`, HOLD SCOPE CEO review of the Stripe payment handler plan.\nELI10: The plan ships a new class that marks people paid and emails receipts with no automated tests, trusting an existing suite that was written for the old handler and may never even run the new one depending on a feature flag. Every fix we just approved (bound id, mail rescue) was verified \"if tests are approved\". Without tests, the only proof is a manual staging replay done once before rollout, which cannot catch a regression six months from now.\nStakes if we pick wrong: with C, a future change can reintroduce the interpolated id or a swallowed DB error and nobody finds out until a customer's payment is silently unrecognized; with B, the concurrency and routing paths stay unproven and only the manual checklist stands between a dedup regression and double processing.\nRecommendation: A because \"tests are non-negotiable; prefer too many to too few\", the whole suite is ~15 focused tests (human: ~1 day / CC: ~20 min), and it is the only way the D2/D3 guarantees survive the next refactor.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=2/10\nNet: A buys durable proof of every approved guarantee for a day of human work or twenty minutes with CC; B covers the two repairs but leaves routing and races to the manual checklist; C keeps the plan text unchanged and the guarantees unproven.\n\nHeader: Test coverage\nA) Full handler test suite (recommended)\nUnit tests for C1-C6 and E1-E3 (happy path, lookup miss, punctuation/Unicode/1k-char ids with a bound-parameter assertion, zero orders, nil/empty email, MailTimeout and delivery-error rescued with single-update and outcome-trace assertions, non-mail exception from send propagates, DB errors propagate, update-before-send ordering), integration tests for dispatcher routing under both flag values, and two race tests with controlled pause points (duplicate delivery after commit; deletion competing for the lock). Manual staging replay stays as the E2E gate. Effort: M (human: ~1 day / CC: ~20 min). Risk: low. Reuse: existing test harness, DB/mail client test doubles if present. Verification coverage: 10/10 of the paths listed above.\n✅ Every approved guarantee (D1 routing, D2 rescue scope, D3 binding) has a failing test if it regresses\n✅ The race tests are the only automated proof that the retained lock/dedup contract still holds around the new inline send\n✅ Roughly 15 small tests; CC writes them in minutes and they run in seconds\n❌ Race tests need pause/release hooks in the harness; if none exist, adding them is the bulk of the effort\nB) Unit tests for the repairs and happy path only\nTests for C1 (happy), D3 (bound parameter + punctuatioLine truncated
"sha256": "f957b8f9dc496d532932f8e024d77fe767092d0cf346161cd9c4ca30bd5d8af9"
}
],
"seed": "Please review this plan thoroughly in HOLD SCOPE mode. As you go, write your plan-mode plan to /tmp/g-cwnk0pmy/gstack-paid-shard-kd7Yyw/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-ceo-64SAMS/gstack-test-plan-ceo.md (use Edit/Write to that exact path).\nProceed directly to the requested CEO review; skip the optional /office-hours prerequisite.\nFinish after this CEO review; I will handle subsequent reviews manually.\n\n# Plan: Payment Processing Integration\n\n## Existing contracts retained\nThe approved motivation is to move payment orchestration out of the prior\nlibrary-adapter handler into application-owned code while retaining the\nexisting payment and receipt product behavior. The shared dispatcher remains\navailable; the proposed bypass below is still an architectural choice to review.\nThe existing ingress middleware verifies the Stripe signature against the\nraw request body and rejects invalid signatures before invoking handlers.\nThe existing ingress forwards only `payment_intent.succeeded` events to\nthis handler; other Stripe event types are acknowledged without invoking it.\nThe existing payload adapter exposes `event.data.object.metadata.user_id`\nas `request.params.userId`. This params object is the parsed body-data map,\nnot URL query/path parameters; all users share one webhook URL.\nThe adapter acknowledges missing, nil, or empty user_id metadata with\nHTTP 200 and an event-correlated warning before invoking this handler.\nFor every nonempty external string it performs no SQL-format validation.\nThe adapter forwards that external string unchanged. It does not cast,\nescape, or SQL-sanitize it; a valid signature does not make it safe for SQL.\nUser IDs are opaque TEXT values, including punctuation and Unicode. The\nlookup has no integer/UUID cast or ID-format restriction; every nonempty\nstring is a valid identifier representation.\nAn existing ingress ownership guard checks the PaymentIntent ID against\nits stored opaque user-ID binding before invoking the handler. A mismatch\nis acknowledged with HTTP 200 and an event-correlated warning. This is an\nidentity comparison, not SQL-format validation; the adapter still forwards\nthe original string unchanged.\nThe existing webhook event guard deduplicates deliveries by Stripe event ID,\nand an existing per-user lock serializes payment updates.\nThe event guard acquires the existing per-user lock before checking the\ncommitted completion marker, and rechecks after any lock wait. It holds\nthat lock through the handler and completion bookkeeping; an overlapping\ncompleted duplicate does not invoke the handler.\nThe new handler runs inside those unchanged guards; this plan does not\nreplace signature verification, event deduplication, or update locking.\nThe existing user update assigns payment_status=paid and the payment intent\nID; it does not increment a balance or counter. Repeating the same payment\nintent assigns the same values, independently of the event-ID guard.\nThe existing lookup-result guard acknowledges unknown/deleted users with\nHTTP 200, logs the event, and stops before user updates or email fan-out.\nThe retained recipient-policy helper treats a nil or empty email address as\nskipped_missing_address: payment processing continues normally, and no mail\nclient call is attempted. It persists an event/user/PaymentIntent-correlated\nskip record, emits a structured warning, and increments the existing counter.\nThe existing notification runbook already covers that skip result: correct\nthe account address, then retry only its recorded notification using the\nsame PaymentIntent idempotency key. It never replays the payment for this case.\nThat recipient policy does not catch failures from sends to nonempty addresses;\nthe shared mail client still rethrows those exceptions to this handler.\nAccount deletion uses the same per-user lock. The handler holds it from\nlookup through update and inline email, so deletion either precedes lookup\n(the existing unknown/deleted-user path) or follows the handler; it cannot\nremove the user between lookup and update.\nThe ingress wrapper already logs event IDs, outcomes, and durations, with\nalerts for failed webhook processing. Those controls remain in place.\nThe existing DB and mail clients attach the adapter user ID and event ID\nto outcome traces, including update success and email delivery success or\nfailure. These shared clients rethrow exceptions unchanged; tracing does\nnot rescue email errors or change the inline email call below.\nThe shared mail client also publishes its delivery failure rate to the\nexisting dashboard and tested on-call alert, including caught exceptions.\nThe existing incident runbook uses the correlated DB and mail outcomes to\ndistinguish committed payments from failed notifications. It directs on-call\nto check provider status and retry only the failed notification through the\nexisting notification retry procedure, never replay the payment blindly.\nDB lookup/update exceptionLine truncated
"call": {
"sessionId": "e0114c7f-b59e-4e06-b04e-130f0668fa1d",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01XSkxgBaWetAPz6CNVSxHLY",
"questions": [
{
"header": "Test coverage",
"question": "D4 — R4: What automated test coverage should ship with the new handler?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-K995IF on `main`, HOLD SCOPE CEO review of the Stripe payment handler plan.\nELI10: The plan ships a new class that marks people paid and emails receipts with no automated tests, trusting an existing suite that was written for the old handler and may never even run the new one depending on a feature flag. Every fix we just approved (bound id, mail rescue) was verified \"if tests are approved\". Without tests, the only proof is a manual staging replay done once before rollout, which cannot catch a regression six months from now.\nStakes if we pick wrong: with C, a future change can reintroduce the interpolated id or a swallowed DB error and nobody finds out until a customer's payment is silently unrecognized; with B, the concurrency and routing paths stay unproven and only the manual checklist stands between a dedup regression and double processing.\nRecommendation: A because tests are non-negotiable, the whole suite is ~15 focused tests (human: ~1 day / CC: ~20 min), and it is the only way the D2/D3 guarantees survive the next refactor.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=2/10\nNet: A buys durable proof of every approved guarantee for a day of human work or twenty minutes with CC; B covers the two repairs but leaves routing and races to the manual checklist; C keeps the plan text unchanged and the guarantees unproven.",
"options": [
{
"label": "Full handler test suite (recommended)",
"description": "Unit tests for every codepath (happy, lookup miss, punctuation/Unicode/1k-char ids with bound-parameter assertion, zero orders, nil email, both mail rescues with single-update + outcome-trace assertions, non-mail exception propagates, DB errors propagate, update-before-send ordering), dispatcher routing under both flag values, two race tests with pause points. Effort: M (human: ~1 day / CC: ~20 min). Risk: low.\n✅ Every approved guarantee (D1 routing, D2 rescue scope, D3 binding) has a failing test if it regresses\n✅ Race tests are the only automated proof the retained lock/dedup contract holds around the inline send\n❌ Race tests need pause/release hooks in the harness; if none exist, adding them is most of the effort"
},
{
"label": "Unit tests for repairs + happy path",
"description": "Tests for happy path, D3 (bound parameter + punctuation ids), D2 (both rescues, single update, outcome trace, non-mail exception propagates), zero orders, nil email. No dispatcher/flag test, no race tests. Effort: S (human: ~3h / CC: ~10 min). Risk: medium.\n✅ Locks in the two security/safety repairs with direct, fast assertions\n✅ Small and quick to write; no test-harness changes needed\n❌ Dispatcher routing and the flag switch stay unproven; a mis-registration only surfaces in staging\n❌ Duplicate-delivery and deletion races covered only by reading ingress code, not by a test"
},
{
"label": "No automated tests (as drafted)",
"description": "Keep PLAN.md:118-119. Rely on the existing integration suite (coverage of the new class unknown) and the manual staging replay checklist. Effort: S (zero work). Risk: high.\n✅ No test code to write or maintain for this change\n✅ Manual staging replay still exercises one happy path before broad rollout\n❌ D2 and D3 guarantees have no regression protection; the next edit can reintroduce interpolation silently\n❌ The existing integration suite may never execute the new handler if the flag defaults to prior under test"
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D4 — R4: What automated test coverage should ship with the new handler?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-K995IF on `main`, HOLD SCOPE CEO review of the Stripe payment handler plan.\nELI10: The plan ships a new class that marks people paid and emails receipts with no automated tests, trusting an existing suite that was written for the old handler and may never even run the new one depending on a feature flag. Every fix we just approved (bound id, mail rescue) was verified \"if tests are approved\". Without tests, the only proof is a manual staging replay done once before rollout, which cannot catch a regression six months from now.\nStakes if we pick wrong: with C, a future change can reintroduce the interpolated id or a swallowed DB error and nobody finds out until a customer's payment is silently unrecognized; with B, the concurrency and routing paths stay unproven and only the manual checklist stands between a dedup regression and double processing.\nRecommendation: A because tests are non-negotiable, the whole suite is ~15 focused tests (human: ~1 day / CC: ~20 min), and it is the only way the D2/D3 guarantees survive the next refactor.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=2/10\nNet: A buys durable proof of every approved guarantee for a day of human work or twenty minutes with CC; B covers the two repairs but leaves routing and races to the manual checklist; C keeps the plan text unchanged and the guarantees unproven.": "Full handler test suite (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-16T23:26:38.646Z"
},
"questionRetainedAt": "2026-09-16T23:26:39.850Z"
}
test/fixtures/ceo-decision-prefix-al.json
Vendored
-70
View File
@@ -1,70 +0,0 @@
{
"sourceHead": "c73102357cbc3466d6a3c8d3ad0ac7e3177ce62c",
"sourceObservationSHA256": "2a1a437e68cee9fbef60bb5cb619deb0eb51faabfdd2fa822822b212d576a554",
"calls": [
{
"sessionId": "49908e50-9673-4962-82b2-7beb6ab6550e",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01C2v9YKfPda2mqfNeMDGfq8",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D4 (Finding 2) — What happens when the confirmation email fails after the payment update has committed?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-wGAjut on main, Section 2 of the CEO review of PLAN.md.\nELI10: The plan sends the email inline with 'no error handling on the email leg'. The shared mail client rethrows, so a mail outage becomes an HTTP 500 after the user is already marked paid. Stripe then retries the whole payment event for up to three days, the webhook-failure alert pages on-call for a mail problem, and if the email was actually sent but the client timed out, the retry sends it again. Your own runbook says: retry only the failed notification, never replay the payment. As written, the code forces the replay the runbook forbids. Stripe also gives you 10 seconds per delivery, so a slow mail call inside the request can fail the webhook even when everything worked.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a mail provider incident turns into a payment-webhook incident, with duplicate emails and a failing endpoint in the Stripe dashboard.\nRecommendation: A because it keeps the runbook's contract (payment committed, notification retried on its own), names each mail exception instead of a catch-all, and stays visible through the mail client's existing failure metric and on-call alert.\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=10/10 only if a job queue already exists, C=2/10\nNet: rescue the mail leg narrowly and return 200 (A), move the send off the request path entirely (B, needs queue infra), or leave the 500 and let Stripe replay the payment (C).",
"header": "Email leg",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "4A: Commit, then send with a narrow rescue (recommended)",
"description": "Order: lookup, update, COMMIT, then notify. Rescue only the mail client's named classes (DeliveryError, Timeout, RateLimited, InvalidRecipient; real names per the client). On rescue: log at warn with event ID, user ID, exception class; the shared client's tracing and failure-rate metric plus the existing on-call alert make it visible; handler returns success so Stripe gets 200 and the runbook's notification-retry path owns the redelivery. Bound the mail call timeout so total handler time stays under Stripe's 10 s deadline. Recipient is the looked-up user's stored email, never a value from the Stripe payload. Tests: email raises each class → 200, payment committed, warn line present. Effort S (human ~2h / CC ~10 min).\n✅ Mail outage no longer produces payment-webhook 500s or duplicate payment processing\n✅ Matches the runbook: committed payment, failed notification retried alone\n❌ Timeout-after-send can still yield one duplicate email when the runbook retries; bounded and visible"
},
{
"label": "4B: Commit, then enqueue the email to a background job",
"description": "Same ordering, but the handler enqueues a notification job after commit and never calls the mail provider inline. The job retries with backoff and its failures surface via the existing mail metrics. Only viable if the repo already has a job queue; adding one is out of HOLD SCOPE. Effort M (human ~1 day / CC ~30 min).\n✅ Request path never waits on the mail provider; Stripe deadline is never at risk\n✅ Retries with backoff are automatic instead of runbook-driven\n❌ Requires queue infrastructure the plan does not mention; if absent this becomes an expansion"
},
{
"label": "4C: Keep as written (inline, unrescued)",
"description": "Email exception propagates to the ingress wrapper, HTTP 500, Stripe retries the event. Effort none.\n✅ Zero new code on the email leg\n✅ Stripe's retry eventually delivers the email if the provider recovers within three days\n❌ Contradicts the runbook, pages on-call for mail incidents as webhook failures, and duplicates emails on timeout-after-send"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D4 (Finding 2) — What happens when the confirmation email fails after the payment update has committed?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-wGAjut on main, Section 2 of the CEO review of PLAN.md.\nELI10: The plan sends the email inline with 'no error handling on the email leg'. The shared mail client rethrows, so a mail outage becomes an HTTP 500 after the user is already marked paid. Stripe then retries the whole payment event for up to three days, the webhook-failure alert pages on-call for a mail problem, and if the email was actually sent but the client timed out, the retry sends it again. Your own runbook says: retry only the failed notification, never replay the payment. As written, the code forces the replay the runbook forbids. Stripe also gives you 10 seconds per delivery, so a slow mail call inside the request can fail the webhook even when everything worked.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a mail provider incident turns into a payment-webhook incident, with duplicate emails and a failing endpoint in the Stripe dashboard.\nRecommendation: A because it keeps the runbook's contract (payment committed, notification retried on its own), names each mail exception instead of a catch-all, and stays visible through the mail client's existing failure metric and on-call alert.\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=10/10 only if a job queue already exists, C=2/10\nNet: rescue the mail leg narrowly and return 200 (A), move the send off the request path entirely (B, needs queue infra), or leave the 500 and let Stripe replay the payment (C).": "4A: Commit, then send with a narrow rescue (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T08:01:09.223Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "49908e50-9673-4962-82b2-7beb6ab6550e",
"toolUseId": "toolu_013ZWhw6pGLUNzGpSrdLhi19",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D5 (Finding 3) — How does the lookup query receive `request.params.userId`?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-wGAjut on main, Section 3 of the CEO review of PLAN.md.\nELI10: The plan pastes the user ID string straight into a raw SQL fragment. Your contracts say the adapter forwards that string unchanged, the signature and ownership checks do not make it SQL-safe, and user IDs are opaque text that can contain quotes and Unicode. So a legitimate ID like O'Brien breaks the query and returns HTTP 500 on every Stripe retry for three days, and a hostile ID that matches its stored binding can read or change other rows. The fix is the standard one: pass the ID as a bound parameter through the existing DB client, so the database never parses it as SQL.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a poison event that can never succeed, or a database read/write outside the intended user row.\nRecommendation: A because a bound parameter is the only mechanism that is correct for every nonempty string the contracts allow, and it uses the DB client you already have.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=5/10, C=1/10\nNet: bind (A), hand-escape (B, fragile and still not a defense against all encodings), or leave the fragment (C).",
"header": "SQL lookup",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "5A: Bound query parameter via the existing DB client (recommended)",
"description": "Lookup is `WHERE id = ?` (or the client's named-bind form) with userId passed as a parameter; no interpolation anywhere in the handler or service. Same for the payment_intent_id write. Tests: IDs `O'Brien`, `'; DROP TABLE users; --`, `用户-☃`, and a 1000-char string each return the correct row or nil with no statement error; a static grep in CI or review for string-built SQL in `Payments::`. Failure visibility: any DbClient error still propagates to the ingress 500 path per contract. Effort S (human ~1h / CC ~5 min).\n✅ Correct for every opaque TEXT ID the contracts allow, including punctuation and Unicode\n✅ Reuses the DB client's existing binding; zero new code paths or dependencies\n❌ None beyond writing the tests; this is the default form of the query"
},
{
"label": "5B: Escape or quote the string before interpolating",
"description": "Keep the raw fragment but run userId through the DB client's quote/escape helper first. Effort S (human ~1h / CC ~5 min).\n✅ Small textual change to the plan's current sketch\n✅ Stops the simple quote-in-name breakage\n❌ Depends on the helper matching the connection's charset and driver; one wrong encoding path and injection is back. Fragile where a bind is free"
},
{
"label": "5C: Keep the raw SQL fragment as written",
"description": "No change. Effort none.\n✅ Nothing to implement\n✅ Works for IDs that happen to contain no special characters\n❌ Any quote in a legitimate ID yields a permanent 500; a hostile ID with a valid binding can reach other users' rows"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D5 (Finding 3) — How does the lookup query receive `request.params.userId`?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-wGAjut on main, Section 3 of the CEO review of PLAN.md.\nELI10: The plan pastes the user ID string straight into a raw SQL fragment. Your contracts say the adapter forwards that string unchanged, the signature and ownership checks do not make it SQL-safe, and user IDs are opaque text that can contain quotes and Unicode. So a legitimate ID like O'Brien breaks the query and returns HTTP 500 on every Stripe retry for three days, and a hostile ID that matches its stored binding can read or change other rows. The fix is the standard one: pass the ID as a bound parameter through the existing DB client, so the database never parses it as SQL.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a poison event that can never succeed, or a database read/write outside the intended user row.\nRecommendation: A because a bound parameter is the only mechanism that is correct for every nonempty string the contracts allow, and it uses the DB client you already have.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=5/10, C=1/10\nNet: bind (A), hand-escape (B, fragile and still not a defense against all encodings), or leave the fragment (C).": "5A: Bound query parameter via the existing DB client (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T08:01:49.453Z"
}
]
}
test/fixtures/ceo-declarative-premise-ap.json
Vendored
-341
View File
@@ -1,341 +0,0 @@
{
"description": "Exact six completed public native AskUserQuestion fingerprints from source AP distinct CEO snapshot; no private reasoning or native journal content. Actual snapshot recorded six setup calls and zero review calls; prospective classification does not change the paid failure.",
"sourceObservation": {
"path": ".context/ship-source-ap-delta-paid-20260910-v1/ceo-current-public-native-v1/plan-ceo-review-1789045534677-q9ju9a.json",
"sha256": "9a7586276ddac5dbe9b71be683786585bc1007dd3d943c64cedb6e2c081a4462"
},
"actualCounts": {
"setup": 6,
"review": 0
},
"fingerprints": [
{
"signature": "1cd12f69-4325-46e7-b900-3855862bd239:toolu_01MP57FboqQzbW4dKUhAUzaW",
"promptSnippet": "Routing D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md? Project/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-YPKqxN on main, CEO review of PLAN.md. ELI10: gstack wants a short \"when the user asks X, run skill Y\" section in CLAUDE.md so f",
"options": [
{
"index": 1,
"label": "Add routing rules (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "No thanks, invoke manually"
},
{
"index": 1,
"label": "Enable cross-project (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "Project-scoped only"
}
],
"observedAtMs": 199852,
"preReview": true,
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "1cd12f69-4325-46e7-b900-3855862bd239",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01MP57FboqQzbW4dKUhAUzaW",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-YPKqxN on main, CEO review of PLAN.md.\nELI10: gstack wants a short \"when the user asks X, run skill Y\" section in CLAUDE.md so future sessions pick the right review skill automatically. This is a one-time onboarding prompt. Stakes: without it you type skill names by hand; with it Claude routes for you. Note: plan mode forbids editing CLAUDE.md or committing right now, so choosing A records your intent and I will apply it once plan mode ends (or you can run it after this review).\nStakes if we pick wrong: low either way; the setting is reversible with one config command.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules make later /plan-eng-review and /ship invocations automatic.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: convenience now vs one fewer file touched in this fixture repo. <gstack-qid:gstack-routing-injection>",
"header": "Routing",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Add routing rules (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Future sessions auto-route strategy/arch/ship requests to the right gstack skill. ✅ Standard gstack onboarding; matches other projects on this machine. ❌ Touches CLAUDE.md and needs a commit, which must wait until plan mode exits."
},
{
"label": "No thanks, invoke manually",
"description": "✅ CLAUDE.md stays exactly as seeded; nothing to commit in this fixture repo. ✅ Sets routing_declined=true so this prompt never repeats for this project. ❌ You type /plan-eng-review, /ship, etc. by hand every time."
}
]
},
{
"question": "D2 — Enable cross-project learnings search on this machine?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-YPKqxN on main, CEO review of PLAN.md.\nELI10: gstack keeps a local log of lessons learned per project. Cross-project mode lets this review also read lessons from your other repos on this machine. Nothing leaves the machine. Stakes: more prior context for reviews vs possible mixing of unrelated client codebases.\nStakes if we pick wrong: mild; a one-line config flips it back.\nRecommendation: A because a solo developer gets compounding review context at zero privacy cost.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: broader recall vs strict per-project isolation. <gstack-qid:gstack-cross-project-learnings>",
"header": "Learnings",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Enable cross-project (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Reviews can apply pitfalls and patterns learned in your other local projects. ✅ Fully local; no data leaves this machine, and it is reversible via gstack-config. ❌ If you work on multiple client codebases, lessons could cross-contaminate."
},
{
"label": "Project-scoped only",
"description": "✅ Strict isolation between codebases; nothing from other repos influences this review. ✅ Simplest privacy posture for consultants juggling several clients. ❌ This fresh fixture has zero learnings, so reviews start cold every time."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-YPKqxN on main, CEO review of PLAN.md.\nELI10: gstack wants a short \"when the user asks X, run skill Y\" section in CLAUDE.md so future sessions pick the right review skill automatically. This is a one-time onboarding prompt. Stakes: without it you type skill names by hand; with it Claude routes for you. Note: plan mode forbids editing CLAUDE.md or committing right now, so choosing A records your intent and I will apply it once plan mode ends (or you can run it after this review).\nStakes if we pick wrong: low either way; the setting is reversible with one config command.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules make later /plan-eng-review and /ship invocations automatic.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: convenience now vs one fewer file touched in this fixture repo. <gstack-qid:gstack-routing-injection>": "Add routing rules (recommended)",
"D2 — Enable cross-project learnings search on this machine?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-YPKqxN on main, CEO review of PLAN.md.\nELI10: gstack keeps a local log of lessons learned per project. Cross-project mode lets this review also read lessons from your other repos on this machine. Nothing leaves the machine. Stakes: more prior context for reviews vs possible mixing of unrelated client codebases.\nStakes if we pick wrong: mild; a one-line config flips it back.\nRecommendation: A because a solo developer gets compounding review context at zero privacy cost.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: broader recall vs strict per-project isolation. <gstack-qid:gstack-cross-project-learnings>": "Enable cross-project (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T13:08:20.808Z"
}
},
{
"signature": "1cd12f69-4325-46e7-b900-3855862bd239:toolu_017ZpZ8txuJ2gTEAKL1MB5kP",
"promptSnippet": "Approach D3 — How should the new Stripe handler be wired: through WebhookDispatcher or bypassing it? Project/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-YPKqxN on main, PLAN.md Architecture section. ELI10: The plan says the new class \"bypasses the exist",
"options": [
{
"index": 1,
"label": "A) Register with WebhookDispatcher (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "B) Separate class inside ingress guards, own routing"
},
{
"index": 3,
"label": "C) Full bypass as written in PLAN.md"
}
],
"observedAtMs": 225961,
"preReview": true,
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "1cd12f69-4325-46e7-b900-3855862bd239",
"toolUseId": "toolu_017ZpZ8txuJ2gTEAKL1MB5kP",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D3 — How should the new Stripe handler be wired: through WebhookDispatcher or bypassing it?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-YPKqxN on main, PLAN.md Architecture section.\nELI10: The plan says the new class \"bypasses the existing WebhookDispatcher module\" for clean namespaces, yet the retained contracts say the handler \"runs inside those unchanged guards\" (signature check, event dedup, per-user lock, ownership and unknown-user guards). Those guards are what the dispatcher-side ingress applies before calling a handler. Bypassing the dispatcher means either duplicating every guard in a second webhook path or silently losing them. The class name Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler is already settled; only the wiring is open.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a second webhook path with copied guards drifts from the first, and a missed guard means replayed or unauthenticated payment events reach the DB.\nRecommendation: A because it keeps one webhook path, reuses every retained guard without copying, and satisfies the DRY and right-sized-diff preferences.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=3/10\nNet: one dispatch path with a namespaced handler class versus a parallel path that must re-earn every guard. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-approach>",
"header": "Approach",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Register with WebhookDispatcher (recommended)",
"description": "Add Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler and register it with the existing WebhookDispatcher for payment_intent.succeeded, behind the existing feature flag. Effort S (human ~half day / CC ~10 min). Risk Low. ✅ Every retained guard applies unchanged; nothing is copied, so nothing drifts. ✅ Smallest diff: one class plus one registration line, and the settled namespace is honored. ❌ The handler stays coupled to the dispatcher's calling convention, so a later dispatcher refactor touches it."
},
{
"label": "B) Separate class inside ingress guards, own routing",
"description": "New handler class mounted by the ingress guard chain directly, with its own event-type routing next to WebhookDispatcher. Effort M (human ~1-2 days / CC ~30 min). Risk Med. ✅ Clean namespace boundary; the handler does not depend on WebhookDispatcher internals. ✅ Guards still apply because ingress applies them before either route. ❌ Two routing tables for Stripe events must stay in sync; a DRY violation the reviewer would flag."
},
{
"label": "C) Full bypass as written in PLAN.md",
"description": "Standalone StripePaymentWebhookHandler with its own endpoint path, outside WebhookDispatcher and its guard chain. Effort L (human ~1 week / CC ~1-2 h) because every guard must be reimplemented. Risk High. ✅ Maximum namespace separation, zero dependency on the dispatcher. ✅ Could be evolved independently of legacy webhook code. ❌ Contradicts the retained-contracts section; signature, dedup, lock, ownership and unknown-user guards would need duplicating or would be lost."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D3 — How should the new Stripe handler be wired: through WebhookDispatcher or bypassing it?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-YPKqxN on main, PLAN.md Architecture section.\nELI10: The plan says the new class \"bypasses the existing WebhookDispatcher module\" for clean namespaces, yet the retained contracts say the handler \"runs inside those unchanged guards\" (signature check, event dedup, per-user lock, ownership and unknown-user guards). Those guards are what the dispatcher-side ingress applies before calling a handler. Bypassing the dispatcher means either duplicating every guard in a second webhook path or silently losing them. The class name Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler is already settled; only the wiring is open.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a second webhook path with copied guards drifts from the first, and a missed guard means replayed or unauthenticated payment events reach the DB.\nRecommendation: A because it keeps one webhook path, reuses every retained guard without copying, and satisfies the DRY and right-sized-diff preferences.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=3/10\nNet: one dispatch path with a namespaced handler class versus a parallel path that must re-earn every guard. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-approach>": "A) Register with WebhookDispatcher (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T13:08:46.414Z"
}
},
{
"signature": "1cd12f69-4325-46e7-b900-3855862bd239:toolu_01L1BDsPzrPrXjc79Yq3bCkv",
"promptSnippet": "Email leg D4 (Issue 2) — The inline email leg has no error handling and the transaction boundary is unspecified. How should the handler treat a mail failure? Project/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-YPKqxN on main, PLAN.md \"Webhook fan-out\" s",
"options": [
{
"index": 1,
"label": "2A) Commit first, rescue named mail errors (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "2B) Commit first, let the mail exception propagate"
},
{
"index": 3,
"label": "2C) Keep as written (inline, no handling, boundary unspecified)"
}
],
"observedAtMs": 284256,
"preReview": true,
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "1cd12f69-4325-46e7-b900-3855862bd239",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01L1BDsPzrPrXjc79Yq3bCkv",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D4 (Issue 2) — The inline email leg has no error handling and the transaction boundary is unspecified. How should the handler treat a mail failure?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-YPKqxN on main, PLAN.md \"Webhook fan-out\" section.\nELI10: After marking the user paid, the handler calls the shared mail client, which rethrows MailTimeout (1 s deadline) or its delivery error. Today the plan lets that exception fly. If the email runs inside the DB transaction, a mail outage rolls back the payment update and the user stays unpaid until the outage ends. If it runs after commit, the ingress returns 500 for a payment that already committed, Stripe replays it for up to 72 hours, the \"failed webhook\" alert fires for a mail problem, and the runbook's \"never replay the payment blindly\" rule is violated automatically. The mail client already writes a durable retry record and the on-call alert already watches that backlog, so the handler does not need to retry itself.\nStakes if we pick wrong: paid users shown as unpaid during any mail outage, or a flood of misattributed webhook-failure alerts and a Stripe endpoint at risk of being disabled.\nRecommendation: 2A because it makes every failure visible in the right place (mail dashboard, not webhook alert), keeps DB failures retryable, and rescues only named exceptions per the \"every error has a name\" rule.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=2/10\nNet: name the exceptions and commit first, or let Stripe's replay do double duty as a mail retry. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-error-map>",
"header": "Email leg",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "2A) Commit first, rescue named mail errors (recommended)",
"description": "Commit the user update transaction, then call the mail client outside it. Rescue only MailTimeout and the client's delivery error class (confirm exact name at its raise site); never rescue StandardError. On rescue: structured log with event ID, user ID, PaymentIntent ID, exception class; increment a handler-level payment_receipt_send_failed metric; return success so the dedup guard records completion and Stripe stops. DB exceptions stay unrescued (500, retry). Tests: mail timeout → 200, update committed, completion marker set, retry record present. Effort S (human ~2 h / CC ~10 min). ✅ A mail outage never blocks or rolls back a committed payment. ✅ Failure shows up on the mail dashboard and retry backlog where the runbook already looks. ❌ The receipt arrives only when the existing retry procedure sends it, not on Stripe's schedule."
},
{
"label": "2B) Commit first, let the mail exception propagate",
"description": "Move the email after commit but keep no rescue: mail failure → 500 → Stripe retries the whole event; update is idempotent and the mail idempotency key prevents duplicate sends. Effort S (human ~1 h / CC ~5 min). ✅ No new rescue code; Stripe's backoff acts as the retry schedule. ✅ Idempotency key and idempotent update keep a replay harmless for the payment. ❌ Webhook-failure alert fires for mail problems, completion marker is never recorded, two retry paths race, and a long outage risks Stripe disabling the endpoint."
},
{
"label": "2C) Keep as written (inline, no handling, boundary unspecified)",
"description": "Ship the fan-out exactly as PLAN.md describes. Effort none. ✅ Zero additional code. ✅ Matches the sketch literally. ❌ If the email runs inside the transaction, a mail outage rolls back the payment update and the user stays unpaid; the failure is only visible via a 500 that the runbook tells on-call not to replay."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D4 (Issue 2) — The inline email leg has no error handling and the transaction boundary is unspecified. How should the handler treat a mail failure?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-YPKqxN on main, PLAN.md \"Webhook fan-out\" section.\nELI10: After marking the user paid, the handler calls the shared mail client, which rethrows MailTimeout (1 s deadline) or its delivery error. Today the plan lets that exception fly. If the email runs inside the DB transaction, a mail outage rolls back the payment update and the user stays unpaid until the outage ends. If it runs after commit, the ingress returns 500 for a payment that already committed, Stripe replays it for up to 72 hours, the \"failed webhook\" alert fires for a mail problem, and the runbook's \"never replay the payment blindly\" rule is violated automatically. The mail client already writes a durable retry record and the on-call alert already watches that backlog, so the handler does not need to retry itself.\nStakes if we pick wrong: paid users shown as unpaid during any mail outage, or a flood of misattributed webhook-failure alerts and a Stripe endpoint at risk of being disabled.\nRecommendation: 2A because it makes every failure visible in the right place (mail dashboard, not webhook alert), keeps DB failures retryable, and rescues only named exceptions per the \"every error has a name\" rule.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=2/10\nNet: name the exceptions and commit first, or let Stripe's replay do double duty as a mail retry. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-error-map>": "2A) Commit first, rescue named mail errors (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T13:09:44.206Z"
}
},
{
"signature": "1cd12f69-4325-46e7-b900-3855862bd239:toolu_01CXGZMjp9T5jBjspXVUf8wT",
"promptSnippet": "SQL lookup D5 (Issue 3) — The lookup interpolates request.params.userId into a raw SQL fragment. How should the lookup be built? Project/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-YPKqxN on main, PLAN.md \"Database access\" section. ELI10: The retained c",
"options": [
{
"index": 1,
"label": "3A) Bound-parameter lookup via existing DB client (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "3B) Escape the string, keep the raw fragment"
},
{
"index": 3,
"label": "3C) Keep raw interpolation as written"
}
],
"observedAtMs": 332009,
"preReview": true,
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "1cd12f69-4325-46e7-b900-3855862bd239",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01CXGZMjp9T5jBjspXVUf8wT",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D5 (Issue 3) — The lookup interpolates request.params.userId into a raw SQL fragment. How should the lookup be built?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-YPKqxN on main, PLAN.md \"Database access\" section.\nELI10: The retained contracts spell it out: user_id arrives as an opaque TEXT string with punctuation and Unicode, the adapter does not escape or validate it, and a valid Stripe signature does not make it safe for SQL. Putting that string straight into a SQL fragment is classic SQL injection. Anyone who can influence PaymentIntent metadata (a compromised dashboard user, a misconfigured client, a future feature that lets customers set metadata) can read or change other rows. The ownership guard compares identity; it does not sanitize.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a single crafted metadata value dumps or rewrites the users table through a webhook that is, by design, reachable from the internet.\nRecommendation: 3A because a bound parameter is the standard-library-tier fix, matches \"explicit over clever\", and needs no ID-format rule that the contracts forbid.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=5/10, C=0/10\nNet: bind the value and test with hostile strings, or keep string-building and hope metadata stays honest. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-security>",
"header": "SQL lookup",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "3A) Bound-parameter lookup via existing DB client (recommended)",
"description": "Use the existing DB client's parameterized query (or the existing user lookup helper if one takes an id) with userId as a bind value, never string-built. No format cast or length rule, honoring the opaque TEXT contract. Tests: userId of `' OR 1=1 --`, `'; DROP TABLE users; --`, a Unicode string, and a 4 KB string each return not-found (200 via retained guard) and touch no other row; a normal id returns exactly one row. Effort S (human ~1 h / CC ~5 min). ✅ Removes the injection class entirely; the value is data, never SQL. ✅ Reuses the shared client, so tracing and deadlines apply unchanged. ❌ Requires locating the client's bind API; if the codebase has only string SQL, the helper must be added first."
},
{
"label": "3B) Escape the string, keep the raw fragment",
"description": "Keep the SQL fragment but pass userId through a quoting/escape helper before interpolation. Effort S (human ~30 min / CC ~3 min). ✅ Minimal change to the sketch's shape. ✅ Blocks the common quote-based payloads. ❌ Escape-then-interpolate is fragile across encodings and dialects; one missed call site or a Unicode edge case reopens the hole, and reviewers keep having to re-verify it."
},
{
"label": "3C) Keep raw interpolation as written",
"description": "Trust that only the app writes PaymentIntent metadata and ship the raw fragment. Effort none. ✅ Zero code change. ✅ No new tests to write. ❌ Contradicts the retained contract that says the string is not SQL-safe; any path that lets a non-app actor set metadata becomes a full SQL injection against payment data."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D5 (Issue 3) — The lookup interpolates request.params.userId into a raw SQL fragment. How should the lookup be built?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-YPKqxN on main, PLAN.md \"Database access\" section.\nELI10: The retained contracts spell it out: user_id arrives as an opaque TEXT string with punctuation and Unicode, the adapter does not escape or validate it, and a valid Stripe signature does not make it safe for SQL. Putting that string straight into a SQL fragment is classic SQL injection. Anyone who can influence PaymentIntent metadata (a compromised dashboard user, a misconfigured client, a future feature that lets customers set metadata) can read or change other rows. The ownership guard compares identity; it does not sanitize.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a single crafted metadata value dumps or rewrites the users table through a webhook that is, by design, reachable from the internet.\nRecommendation: 3A because a bound parameter is the standard-library-tier fix, matches \"explicit over clever\", and needs no ID-format rule that the contracts forbid.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=5/10, C=0/10\nNet: bind the value and test with hostile strings, or keep string-building and hope metadata stays honest. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-security>": "3A) Bound-parameter lookup via existing DB client (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T13:10:32.461Z"
}
},
{
"signature": "1cd12f69-4325-46e7-b900-3855862bd239:toolu_01CPxY3gKbX1Zbg7Lv3f8mL4",
"promptSnippet": "Tests D6 (Issue 4) — PLAN.md plans no automated tests and relies on the existing integration suite plus a manual staging replay. What test coverage should the plan require? Project/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-YPKqxN on main, PLAN.md \"Tes",
"options": [
{
"index": 1,
"label": "4A) Unit + integration tests for every approved remedy (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "4B) Integration happy-path test only"
},
{
"index": 3,
"label": "4C) Keep as written: no automated tests, manual staging replay"
}
],
"observedAtMs": 382289,
"preReview": true,
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "1cd12f69-4325-46e7-b900-3855862bd239",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01CPxY3gKbX1Zbg7Lv3f8mL4",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D6 (Issue 4) — PLAN.md plans no automated tests and relies on the existing integration suite plus a manual staging replay. What test coverage should the plan require?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-YPKqxN on main, PLAN.md \"Tests\" section.\nELI10: The existing suite predates this handler, so nothing in it asserts the new behaviors: bound lookup with hostile strings, commit-before-send, the named mail rescue, one receipt with zero orders, and a 500 with no completion marker on DB failure. The staging checklist is a one-time manual check, not regression coverage. The retained contracts explicitly say no automated tests are planned, which leaves the three approved remedies unprotected against the next refactor.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a future change reintroduces raw SQL or moves the email back inside the transaction and nothing fails until production.\nRecommendation: 4A because \"well-tested code is non-negotiable\" and every approved remedy already names its assertion; writing them is minutes with CC.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=1/10\nNet: encode the approved remedies as tests now, or keep them as review prose that nothing enforces. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-tests>",
"header": "Tests",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "4A) Unit + integration tests for every approved remedy (recommended)",
"description": "Unit: hostile userId strings (`' OR 1=1 --`, `'; DROP TABLE users; --`, Unicode, 4 KB) each return not-found and touch no other row; MailTimeout and the delivery error each yield update committed, marker recorded, log + metric emitted, 200 returned; DB update error yields 500 and no marker; zero orders yields exactly one receipt with empty summary; N orders yields exactly one receipt and exactly one orders query (query-count assertion). Integration: signed fixture event through WebhookDispatcher with the flag on reaches the new handler; duplicate event skips it. Effort M (human ~1 day / CC ~20 min). ✅ Every approved remedy has a failing test if regressed. ✅ Query-count and exact-one-receipt assertions catch the two silent classes (N+1, duplicate send). ❌ Needs test doubles for the mail client and a DB failure injection point."
},
{
"label": "4B) Integration happy-path test only",
"description": "One signed fixture event through the dispatcher asserting user paid and one receipt sent. Effort S (human ~2 h / CC ~5 min). ✅ Proves the wiring (D3) and flag routing work end to end. ✅ Cheap and stable. ❌ Does not cover injection strings, mail failure, DB failure, zero orders or query count, so three of the four approved remedies stay unenforced."
},
{
"label": "4C) Keep as written: no automated tests, manual staging replay",
"description": "Rely on the existing suite and the rollout checklist. Effort none. ✅ No test code to maintain. ✅ Staging replay still catches a fully broken happy path before broad enable. ❌ Conflicts with the stated testing preference and leaves the injection, rescue and N+1 fixes regressable without any signal."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D6 (Issue 4) — PLAN.md plans no automated tests and relies on the existing integration suite plus a manual staging replay. What test coverage should the plan require?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-YPKqxN on main, PLAN.md \"Tests\" section.\nELI10: The existing suite predates this handler, so nothing in it asserts the new behaviors: bound lookup with hostile strings, commit-before-send, the named mail rescue, one receipt with zero orders, and a 500 with no completion marker on DB failure. The staging checklist is a one-time manual check, not regression coverage. The retained contracts explicitly say no automated tests are planned, which leaves the three approved remedies unprotected against the next refactor.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a future change reintroduces raw SQL or moves the email back inside the transaction and nothing fails until production.\nRecommendation: 4A because \"well-tested code is non-negotiable\" and every approved remedy already names its assertion; writing them is minutes with CC.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=1/10\nNet: encode the approved remedies as tests now, or keep them as review prose that nothing enforces. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-tests>": "4A) Unit + integration tests for every approved remedy (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T13:11:22.241Z"
}
},
{
"signature": "1cd12f69-4325-46e7-b900-3855862bd239:toolu_018cp9mTysA8s1htqVK1VzaS",
"promptSnippet": "Order load D7 (Issue 5) — The handler fetches each order in a loop after the user lookup. How should orders be loaded? Project/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-YPKqxN on main, PLAN.md \"Performance\" section. ELI10: One query per order is the c",
"options": [
{
"index": 1,
"label": "5A) Single bound query for the receipt summary (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "5B) Keep the loop, cap it and preload in batches"
},
{
"index": 3,
"label": "5C) Keep the per-order loop as written"
}
],
"observedAtMs": 417995,
"preReview": true,
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "1cd12f69-4325-46e7-b900-3855862bd239",
"toolUseId": "toolu_018cp9mTysA8s1htqVK1VzaS",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D7 (Issue 5) — The handler fetches each order in a loop after the user lookup. How should orders be loaded?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-YPKqxN on main, PLAN.md \"Performance\" section.\nELI10: One query per order is the classic N+1 pattern. The retained DB and ingress deadlines bound all DB work to 2 seconds. A user with a few hundred orders makes the loop blow that deadline, the DB client raises, the ingress returns 500, and Stripe retries into the same loop for up to 72 hours. That user never gets marked paid, and the failure looks like a DB outage rather than a data-shape problem. The receipt only needs a summary, so one query selecting the summary columns for the user is sufficient.\nStakes if we pick wrong: heavy customers, the ones most worth keeping, are exactly the ones whose payments never complete.\nRecommendation: 5A because one bound query is smaller code than a loop, fits inside the deadline at any order count that fits in memory, and the query-count test from D6 locks it in.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=2/10\nNet: one query with the columns the receipt needs, or a loop whose runtime scales with customer loyalty. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-performance>",
"header": "Order load",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "5A) Single bound query for the receipt summary (recommended)",
"description": "Replace the loop with one query: orders WHERE user_id = ? selecting only the columns the receipt summary renders, via the existing DB client. Confirm an index on orders.user_id exists (add a migration only if missing). Assert exactly one orders query in the unit test (D6). Log order count on the outcome trace for debuggability. Effort S (human ~1 h / CC ~5 min). ✅ Latency is one round trip regardless of order count; deadline headroom stays intact. ✅ Less code than the loop and covered by an exact query-count assertion. ❌ If orders.user_id is unindexed, a migration is needed before enabling the flag."
},
{
"label": "5B) Keep the loop, cap it and preload in batches",
"description": "Iterate but batch-load orders in pages of 100 and stop at a fixed cap, noting truncation in the receipt. Effort M (human ~3 h / CC ~15 min). ✅ Bounds worst-case time without changing receipt semantics for small users. ✅ Reuses the loop shape from the sketch. ❌ Adds paging and truncation logic that a single query makes unnecessary, and truncating the summary changes the notification contract."
},
{
"label": "5C) Keep the per-order loop as written",
"description": "Ship the loop and rely on the 2 s deadline to fail loudly. Effort none. ✅ No change from the sketch. ✅ Small users are unaffected. ❌ Large users hit the deadline on every Stripe retry and never get marked paid; the failure is misread as a DB outage."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D7 (Issue 5) — The handler fetches each order in a loop after the user lookup. How should orders be loaded?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-YPKqxN on main, PLAN.md \"Performance\" section.\nELI10: One query per order is the classic N+1 pattern. The retained DB and ingress deadlines bound all DB work to 2 seconds. A user with a few hundred orders makes the loop blow that deadline, the DB client raises, the ingress returns 500, and Stripe retries into the same loop for up to 72 hours. That user never gets marked paid, and the failure looks like a DB outage rather than a data-shape problem. The receipt only needs a summary, so one query selecting the summary columns for the user is sufficient.\nStakes if we pick wrong: heavy customers, the ones most worth keeping, are exactly the ones whose payments never complete.\nRecommendation: 5A because one bound query is smaller code than a loop, fits inside the deadline at any order count that fits in memory, and the query-count test from D6 locks it in.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=2/10\nNet: one query with the columns the receipt needs, or a loop whose runtime scales with customer loyalty. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-performance>": "5A) Single bound query for the receipt summary (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T13:11:58.448Z"
}
}
]
}
test/fixtures/ceo-finding-alias-af.json
Vendored
-105
View File
@@ -1,105 +0,0 @@
{
"provenance": {
"sourceHead": "ca16058341c2e073051340d9653bbbc900f3ca36",
"sourceProjection": ".context/ship-source-af-delta-paid-20260909-v1/ceo-dx-checkpoint-native-v1/plan-ceo-review-1788996831922-hVvVFP.json",
"sourceProjectionSHA256": "243899f9bee2988da8219ffa3f335f89bd3afa788a6371319126c79a04b9b974",
"sourceObservation": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/.context/ship-source-af-delta-paid-20260909-v1/evals/job-4/shards/skill-e2e-plan-ceo-finding-count/pty-count/ship-source-af-delta-paid-20260909-v1-4/plan-ceo-review-1788996831922-hVvVFP/observation.json",
"retainedObservationSHA256": "d76c4728ef0d81260c3f357fd91791466af19a3d8acdd59f8b8d027ff0e2fc2a",
"capture": {
"skill": "plan-ceo-review",
"runId": "ship-source-af-delta-paid-20260909-v1-4",
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-dwNU1D/tmp/gstack-plan-count-wK9VSJ",
"claudeConfigDir": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-dwNU1D/tmp/gstack-hermetic-3453136-s0UCHD/with-skills/.claude",
"at": "2026-09-09T23:39:33.013Z"
},
"actualState": "in_progress",
"actualCounts": {
"step0": 4,
"review": 0,
"administrative": 0
},
"partial": true,
"paidCoverageCredit": false,
"content": "Exact two completed public native question/answer projections. No private model content or raw hook envelopes; title/header variants in tests are synthetic."
},
"rows": [
{
"call": {
"sessionId": "8a4dd191-a7d0-48fb-b547-b2abe4255d0a",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01MStyaf6aHrVkHDGqwd32u2",
"questions": [
{
"header": "Finding 1",
"question": "D4 \u2014 Issue 1: the success test asserts only that the receipt is truthy. How should it assert the receipt? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-success-receipt-assertion>\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-wK9VSJ on main; PLAN.md test 1 (successful charge), lines 30-32.\nELI10: The plan says a 1000-cent USD charge with Stripe id ch_paid must return exactly { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }. But the planned test only checks that something non-empty came back. A receipt with amountCents 100000, currency \"usd\", a missing chargeId, or even an empty object {} would pass. The test cannot fail for the regression it exists to catch.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a receipt-shape regression ships green, and the first person to notice is a customer reading a wrong amount on their receipt.\nRecommendation: 1A because the plan already states the exact expected value, so the test should assert exactly that and nothing weaker (well-tested code is non-negotiable; explicit over clever).\nCompleteness: 1A=10/10, 1B=6/10, 1C=1/10\nNet: exact contract enforcement vs a test that documents intent without enforcing it.",
"options": [
{
"label": "1A) Deep-equal the full receipt (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Assert the receipt deep-equals { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" } (toEqual / deepStrictEqual). Rejects wrong id, wrong amount, wrong currency, extra or missing keys. Failure output names the mismatched field (human ~10 min / CC ~1 min).\n\u2705 Verification: temporarily change the expected amount and confirm the test goes red, then restore.\n\u274c If the receipt legitimately gains a field later, this test must be updated; that is the point of a contract test."
},
{
"label": "1B) Assert the three named fields individually",
"description": "\u2705 Three toBe checks on chargeId, amountCents, currency; readable and still catches wrong values (human ~10 min / CC ~1 min).\n\u2705 Tolerates extra receipt fields without a test change.\n\u274c Silently passes if an unexpected extra field appears, so the exact shape stated in the plan is not enforced."
},
{
"label": "1C) Keep truthy-only as planned",
"description": "\u2705 Zero additional work; the test exists and runs.\n\u2705 Never needs updating when the receipt shape changes.\n\u274c Passes for {} or any wrong amount/currency; the stated contract is unprotected and the test gives false confidence."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D4 \u2014 Issue 1: the success test asserts only that the receipt is truthy. How should it assert the receipt? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-success-receipt-assertion>\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-wK9VSJ on main; PLAN.md test 1 (successful charge), lines 30-32.\nELI10: The plan says a 1000-cent USD charge with Stripe id ch_paid must return exactly { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }. But the planned test only checks that something non-empty came back. A receipt with amountCents 100000, currency \"usd\", a missing chargeId, or even an empty object {} would pass. The test cannot fail for the regression it exists to catch.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a receipt-shape regression ships green, and the first person to notice is a customer reading a wrong amount on their receipt.\nRecommendation: 1A because the plan already states the exact expected value, so the test should assert exactly that and nothing weaker (well-tested code is non-negotiable; explicit over clever).\nCompleteness: 1A=10/10, 1B=6/10, 1C=1/10\nNet: exact contract enforcement vs a test that documents intent without enforcing it.": "1A) Deep-equal the full receipt (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T23:37:26.793Z"
},
"fingerprintMetadata": {
"signature": "8a4dd191-a7d0-48fb-b547-b2abe4255d0a:toolu_01MStyaf6aHrVkHDGqwd32u2",
"observedAtMs": 249014,
"preReview": true
}
},
{
"call": {
"sessionId": "8a4dd191-a7d0-48fb-b547-b2abe4255d0a",
"toolUseId": "toolu_017gPGmZxaFBxGjYSmanZUko",
"questions": [
{
"header": "Finding 2",
"question": "D5 \u2014 Issue 2: the repeated-502 test asserts only the rejection type; attempt count and backoff go unchecked. What should it assert? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-502-retry-assertions>\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-wK9VSJ on main; PLAN.md test 2 (repeated 502), lines 33-36.\nELI10: The plan states the contract: with max_retries=1, two 502s mean exactly two charge attempts, one recorded 100 ms backoff, then PaymentUnavailable. The planned test checks only the final rejection. A regression that stops retrying (one attempt), retries forever until the mock runs dry, or skips the backoff would still reject with PaymentUnavailable and pass. The factory already exposes the Stripe mock call history and the virtual sleeper record, so the missing checks are two extra assertions, not new fixtures.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a retry regression ships green; customers either get double-charged attempts under a Stripe blip or no retry at all, and the test says everything is fine.\nRecommendation: 2A because the plan names exact values (two attempts, one 100 ms sleep) and the probes already exist; never weaken an exact count to a lower bound (edge cases over speed; observability is scope).\nCompleteness: 2A=10/10, 2B=5/10, 2C=2/10\nNet: enforcing the whole retry contract vs only its last symptom.",
"options": [
{
"label": "2A) Rejection class + exact 2 calls + sleeper [100] (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Assert rejects with an instance of PaymentUnavailable (class match, not message text), Stripe mock call history length is exactly 2, and the sleeper record equals [100]. Each is one line against existing factory probes (human ~15 min / CC ~2 min).\n\u2705 Verification: bump max_retries to 2 locally and confirm the call-count assertion goes red; restore. A failing assertion names which of the three invariants broke.\n\u274c Test must change if the retry policy is intentionally changed; that is the contract test doing its job."
},
{
"label": "2B) Rejection class + call count, skip the sleeper check",
"description": "\u2705 Catches no-retry and over-retry regressions with one extra assertion (human ~10 min / CC ~1 min).\n\u2705 Slightly less coupling to the backoff constant.\n\u274c A dropped or wrong backoff (0 ms hot loop against Stripe) passes; the plan explicitly states the 100 ms backoff as part of the contract."
},
{
"label": "2C) Keep rejection-only as planned",
"description": "\u2705 No extra work; the test exists and exercises the exhausted path.\n\u2705 Insensitive to retry-policy tuning.\n\u274c Passes with 1, 2, or 5 attempts and with no backoff; the two stated invariants have no coverage."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D5 \u2014 Issue 2: the repeated-502 test asserts only the rejection type; attempt count and backoff go unchecked. What should it assert? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-502-retry-assertions>\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-wK9VSJ on main; PLAN.md test 2 (repeated 502), lines 33-36.\nELI10: The plan states the contract: with max_retries=1, two 502s mean exactly two charge attempts, one recorded 100 ms backoff, then PaymentUnavailable. The planned test checks only the final rejection. A regression that stops retrying (one attempt), retries forever until the mock runs dry, or skips the backoff would still reject with PaymentUnavailable and pass. The factory already exposes the Stripe mock call history and the virtual sleeper record, so the missing checks are two extra assertions, not new fixtures.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a retry regression ships green; customers either get double-charged attempts under a Stripe blip or no retry at all, and the test says everything is fine.\nRecommendation: 2A because the plan names exact values (two attempts, one 100 ms sleep) and the probes already exist; never weaken an exact count to a lower bound (edge cases over speed; observability is scope).\nCompleteness: 2A=10/10, 2B=5/10, 2C=2/10\nNet: enforcing the whole retry contract vs only its last symptom.": "2A) Rejection class + exact 2 calls + sleeper [100] (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T23:37:52.442Z"
},
"fingerprintMetadata": {
"signature": "8a4dd191-a7d0-48fb-b547-b2abe4255d0a:toolu_017gPGmZxaFBxGjYSmanZUko",
"observedAtMs": 274654,
"preReview": true
}
}
]
}
test/fixtures/ceo-finding-brief-ak.json
Vendored
-317
View File
@@ -1,317 +0,0 @@
{
"provenance": {
"rootSourceHead": "04c62ac678bb7bc1a22090f72f7ed51c451c22b9",
"publicCallsSha256": "994eaaf948b694066785c3b5a2e7396acdff490a8339756e34aed5ca85497c82",
"scope": "Exact ten completed owned native calls from the naturally failed CEO distinct retry; no retrospective paid credit."
},
"calls": [
{
"sessionId": "1f7fabc1-f286-440b-9904-2d37428020dd",
"toolUseId": "toolu_012qz23sgxBENoM5xLQYcrH6",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 \u2014 Add gstack skill routing rules to CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, plan-review fixture repo; one-time gstack onboarding prompt fired by skill-start.\nELI10: gstack wants a short \"Skill routing\" section appended to your project's CLAUDE.md so future requests like \"review this diff\" auto-route to the right skill. Note: we're in plan mode, so if you pick A the CLAUDE.md edit and commit are deferred until plan mode exits; I'll record the choice now.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Nothing breaks either way. Skipping means you invoke skills by name manually; adding means one extra section in CLAUDE.md.\nRecommendation: B because this repo is a review fixture with a purpose-built CLAUDE.md, and plan mode blocks the edit right now anyway.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: convenience routing vs keeping a fixture CLAUDE.md untouched.",
"header": "Routing",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "B) No thanks, invoke manually (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Keeps the fixture CLAUDE.md exactly as seeded for this review run. \u2705 Nothing to defer past plan mode; records routing_declined in gstack config only. \u274c Future sessions won't auto-route requests to gstack skills without naming them."
},
{
"label": "A) Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md",
"description": "\u2705 Future \"review this\" / \"ship it\" requests auto-route to the matching gstack skill. \u2705 Standard gstack setup, one 15-line section. \u274c Cannot be applied in plan mode; the CLAUDE.md edit and commit would wait until after this review exits plan mode."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 \u2014 Add gstack skill routing rules to CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, plan-review fixture repo; one-time gstack onboarding prompt fired by skill-start.\nELI10: gstack wants a short \"Skill routing\" section appended to your project's CLAUDE.md so future requests like \"review this diff\" auto-route to the right skill. Note: we're in plan mode, so if you pick A the CLAUDE.md edit and commit are deferred until plan mode exits; I'll record the choice now.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Nothing breaks either way. Skipping means you invoke skills by name manually; adding means one extra section in CLAUDE.md.\nRecommendation: B because this repo is a review fixture with a purpose-built CLAUDE.md, and plan mode blocks the edit right now anyway.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: convenience routing vs keeping a fixture CLAUDE.md untouched.": "B) No thanks, invoke manually (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T06:52:22.522Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "1f7fabc1-f286-440b-9904-2d37428020dd",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01RxSxiz2k6HAvuASxyDVgfA",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D2 \u2014 Enable cross-project learnings search?\nProject/branch/task: main branch; first-run gstack config prompt (cross_project_learnings is unset).\nELI10: gstack keeps a local log of lessons learned per project. It can also search lessons from your other projects on this machine to spot patterns that apply here. Everything stays on disk locally; nothing is uploaded.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Enabling on a machine with multiple client codebases could surface one client's patterns while working on another. Disabling just means fewer prior-learning hits.\nRecommendation: A because this is a local-only lookup and a solo review session; more prior context makes findings sharper.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: richer prior-learning recall vs strict per-project isolation.",
"header": "Learnings",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Prior learnings from other local projects surface as \"Prior learning applied\" hints during review. \u2705 Local-only search over ~/.gstack; nothing leaves the machine. \u274c On a multi-client machine, patterns from one codebase could bleed into another's review."
},
{
"label": "B) Keep learnings project-scoped only",
"description": "\u2705 Strict isolation: only this project's learnings are ever consulted. \u2705 Safe default for consultants working across unrelated client repos. \u274c This fresh project has zero learnings, so the search returns nothing useful today."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D2 \u2014 Enable cross-project learnings search?\nProject/branch/task: main branch; first-run gstack config prompt (cross_project_learnings is unset).\nELI10: gstack keeps a local log of lessons learned per project. It can also search lessons from your other projects on this machine to spot patterns that apply here. Everything stays on disk locally; nothing is uploaded.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Enabling on a machine with multiple client codebases could surface one client's patterns while working on another. Disabling just means fewer prior-learning hits.\nRecommendation: A because this is a local-only lookup and a solo review session; more prior context makes findings sharper.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: richer prior-learning recall vs strict per-project isolation.": "A) Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T06:52:40.654Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "1f7fabc1-f286-440b-9904-2d37428020dd",
"toolUseId": "toolu_019FbetNiYLD2JbFo9gSmD4Q",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D3 \u2014 How should StripePaymentWebhookHandler be wired into the ingress?\nProject/branch/task: main; PLAN.md \"Architecture\" says the new handler bypasses WebhookDispatcher for namespace separation.\nELI10: The plan promises the new handler \"runs inside the unchanged guards\" (signature, dedup, per-user lock, ownership, unknown-user). It also says it bypasses the existing dispatcher. Those two claims only both hold if every guard lives outside the dispatcher, and the repo has no code to confirm that. If any guard lives in the dispatcher, bypassing it silently drops that guard.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A dropped dedup or lock guard means a Stripe retry double-processes a payment or races account deletion; a dropped ownership guard lets one PaymentIntent mark a different user paid.\nRecommendation: B because it makes \"runs inside unchanged guards\" true by construction instead of by assertion, and namespace separation is achieved with a module, not a bypass. Maps to \"explicit over clever\" and \"right-sized diff.\"\nCompleteness: A=4/10, B=9/10, C=10/10\nNet: B gets guard-safety for free with the same diff size as A; C buys a cleaner future at the cost of touching shared code this plan did not intend to touch.",
"header": "Approach",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "B) Dispatcher-registered handler in own namespace (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Handler class lives in its own Stripe namespace but is registered with WebhookDispatcher for payment_intent.succeeded, so every guard applies by construction. \u2705 Same diff size as A; nothing in the dispatcher changes (human: ~1 day / CC: ~20 min). \u274c Handler must conform to the dispatcher's handler interface, which the plan has not yet documented."
},
{
"label": "A) Standalone handler bypassing WebhookDispatcher (as written)",
"description": "\u2705 Smallest possible change: one new class, one ingress hook, no dispatcher contact. \u2705 Namespace isolation is total; no coupling to dispatcher conventions. \u274c Guard coverage depends on an unverified claim that no guard lives in the dispatcher; a wrong guess is a silent security or double-processing hole (human: ~1 day / CC: ~20 min)."
},
{
"label": "C) Extract guard chain into shared middleware, then register",
"description": "\u2705 Guards become an explicit, reusable stack that both the dispatcher and any future handler consume; the contract is visible in code. \u2705 Best 12-month trajectory for adding more Stripe event types. \u274c Touches shared ingress code and every existing handler's path in a payment-critical system; larger blast radius and rollback surface (human: ~4 days / CC: ~2 hours)."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D3 \u2014 How should StripePaymentWebhookHandler be wired into the ingress?\nProject/branch/task: main; PLAN.md \"Architecture\" says the new handler bypasses WebhookDispatcher for namespace separation.\nELI10: The plan promises the new handler \"runs inside the unchanged guards\" (signature, dedup, per-user lock, ownership, unknown-user). It also says it bypasses the existing dispatcher. Those two claims only both hold if every guard lives outside the dispatcher, and the repo has no code to confirm that. If any guard lives in the dispatcher, bypassing it silently drops that guard.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A dropped dedup or lock guard means a Stripe retry double-processes a payment or races account deletion; a dropped ownership guard lets one PaymentIntent mark a different user paid.\nRecommendation: B because it makes \"runs inside unchanged guards\" true by construction instead of by assertion, and namespace separation is achieved with a module, not a bypass. Maps to \"explicit over clever\" and \"right-sized diff.\"\nCompleteness: A=4/10, B=9/10, C=10/10\nNet: B gets guard-safety for free with the same diff size as A; C buys a cleaner future at the cost of touching shared code this plan did not intend to touch.": "B) Dispatcher-registered handler in own namespace (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T06:54:02.834Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "1f7fabc1-f286-440b-9904-2d37428020dd",
"toolUseId": "toolu_0175vCKiJ4dTuCn72zmE1pcV",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D4 \u2014 What is the per-user order fetch loop for?\nProject/branch/task: main; PLAN.md \"Performance\" says each webhook looks up the user, then fetches each order in a loop. Nothing else in the plan consumes orders.\nELI10: The handler's job is to mark the user paid and send an email. The plan also loads every order for that user, one query per order. An implementer hits this at hour 2-3 and has to guess whether orders feed the email body or are leftover from an earlier sketch. Guessing wrong either drops content the email needs or ships a dead N+1 loop into a payment-critical path.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Either the notification email is missing the order summary users expect, or every Stripe webhook does N extra queries for nothing and slows under load.\nRecommendation: A because the only plausible consumer is the notification email, and one batched query covers it; this keeps stated scope while removing the N+1. Maps to \"engineered enough\" and \"handle more edge cases.\"\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=7/10, C=5/10\nNet: A keeps the orders and fixes the query shape; B removes orders entirely; C leaves the guess to the implementer.",
"header": "Orders",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Orders feed the email; fetch in one query (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 One indexed query by user ID (with a bounded limit) replaces N per-order queries; email gets the order summary it needs. \u2705 Empty order list is an explicit email variant, not a crash (human: ~2h / CC: ~10min). \u274c Assumes the notification template wants order details; implementer must confirm the template contract at hour 1."
},
{
"label": "B) Orders are not needed; drop the loop",
"description": "\u2705 Smallest handler: lookup, update, email. No order query at all. \u2705 Removes the N+1 and any order-related failure mode outright. \u274c If the existing email template references orders, the email breaks or ships blank sections; a hidden requirement gets cut silently."
},
{
"label": "C) Leave it to the implementer to decide at build time",
"description": "\u2705 No decision needed now; matches the plan text as written. \u2705 Zero review time spent on it. \u274c The ambiguity the temporal check exists to catch stays in the plan, and the N+1 remains unresolved until someone notices in production."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D4 \u2014 What is the per-user order fetch loop for?\nProject/branch/task: main; PLAN.md \"Performance\" says each webhook looks up the user, then fetches each order in a loop. Nothing else in the plan consumes orders.\nELI10: The handler's job is to mark the user paid and send an email. The plan also loads every order for that user, one query per order. An implementer hits this at hour 2-3 and has to guess whether orders feed the email body or are leftover from an earlier sketch. Guessing wrong either drops content the email needs or ships a dead N+1 loop into a payment-critical path.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Either the notification email is missing the order summary users expect, or every Stripe webhook does N extra queries for nothing and slows under load.\nRecommendation: A because the only plausible consumer is the notification email, and one batched query covers it; this keeps stated scope while removing the N+1. Maps to \"engineered enough\" and \"handle more edge cases.\"\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=7/10, C=5/10\nNet: A keeps the orders and fixes the query shape; B removes orders entirely; C leaves the guess to the implementer.": "A) Orders feed the email; fetch in one query (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T06:55:12.980Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "1f7fabc1-f286-440b-9904-2d37428020dd",
"toolUseId": "toolu_015MMLm3wfu9P4KCoKnpPFfW",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D5 (Finding 1.1) \u2014 How should the inline notification email behave when the mail client throws?\nProject/branch/task: main; PLAN.md \"Webhook fan-out\": update user AND fire email, both inline, no error handling on the email leg.\nELI10: Today the plan lets any mail failure (timeout, connection refused, provider 5xx) escape the handler. The ingress wrapper turns that into HTTP 500, so Stripe re-sends a payment event whose database write already committed. That is exactly what the plan's own runbook says never to do. If the email call sits inside the DB transaction, a mail outage also rolls back the paid state, and after Stripe's 3-day retry window the user stays unpaid forever.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Lost or delayed access for paying users during any mail outage, duplicate receipt emails on every Stripe retry, and a webhook-failure alert that misreports notification problems as payment problems.\nRecommendation: A because it makes the DB commit the only thing that can fail the webhook, names the exceptions instead of a catch-all, and hands notification failures to the alert and runbook the plan already retains. Maps to \"zero silent failures\" and \"every error has a name.\"\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=10/10, C=2/10\nNet: A isolates the email with what exists today; B adds automatic re-delivery but depends on a retry mechanism the plan has not shown to be programmatic.",
"header": "Email leg",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Commit first, rescue named mail exceptions, log, return 200 (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Order: DB update commits, dedup marker records, then email sends with a bounded timeout; rescue ONLY the mail client's named exception classes (timeout, connection, delivery-rejected), never a bare catch-all, and never around the DB calls. \u2705 On rescue: structured warning with event ID, user ID, PI ID, exception class; the mail client's failure-rate metric and existing on-call alert fire; on-call retries via the existing notification retry procedure; handler returns success so Stripe does not replay. Verified by unit tests per named exception and an integration test with the provider stubbed down (human: ~3h / CC: ~15min). \u274c Delivery of the failed email depends on the runbook's manual retry step until someone acts on the alert."
},
{
"label": "B) Same as A, plus auto-enqueue the failed notification for retry",
"description": "\u2705 Everything in A, and the rescue block also hands the notification to the existing notification retry procedure automatically, so no human step is needed for transient outages. \u2705 Users get their email within the retry window without on-call involvement. \u274c Assumes the retained \"notification retry procedure\" is callable from code; if it is a manual runbook only, this option needs a new retry job, which is new scope (human: ~1 day / CC: ~30min)."
},
{
"label": "C) Keep as written: no error handling on the email leg",
"description": "\u2705 Smallest code; matches the current plan text exactly. \u2705 Every mail failure is loud (HTTP 500 and the webhook-failure alert). \u274c Stripe replays committed payments on mail failures, duplicate emails on retry, possible rollback of paid state if the email sits inside the transaction, and the alert misclassifies notification failures as payment failures."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D5 (Finding 1.1) \u2014 How should the inline notification email behave when the mail client throws?\nProject/branch/task: main; PLAN.md \"Webhook fan-out\": update user AND fire email, both inline, no error handling on the email leg.\nELI10: Today the plan lets any mail failure (timeout, connection refused, provider 5xx) escape the handler. The ingress wrapper turns that into HTTP 500, so Stripe re-sends a payment event whose database write already committed. That is exactly what the plan's own runbook says never to do. If the email call sits inside the DB transaction, a mail outage also rolls back the paid state, and after Stripe's 3-day retry window the user stays unpaid forever.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Lost or delayed access for paying users during any mail outage, duplicate receipt emails on every Stripe retry, and a webhook-failure alert that misreports notification problems as payment problems.\nRecommendation: A because it makes the DB commit the only thing that can fail the webhook, names the exceptions instead of a catch-all, and hands notification failures to the alert and runbook the plan already retains. Maps to \"zero silent failures\" and \"every error has a name.\"\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=10/10, C=2/10\nNet: A isolates the email with what exists today; B adds automatic re-delivery but depends on a retry mechanism the plan has not shown to be programmatic.": "A) Commit first, rescue named mail exceptions, log, return 200 (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T06:56:43.363Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "1f7fabc1-f286-440b-9904-2d37428020dd",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01AbDgVzg2Hjp7EpUgUvDFGm",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D6 (Finding 3.1) \u2014 How should the user lookup use request.params.userId?\nProject/branch/task: main; PLAN.md \"Database access\": the handler reads request.params.userId directly into a raw SQL fragment.\nELI10: The user ID comes from Stripe metadata that the plan says is forwarded unchanged, may contain any punctuation or Unicode, and is never SQL-sanitized. Pasting it into SQL text lets whoever controls that metadata write part of your query. A valid Stripe signature only proves Stripe relayed it, not that it is safe. Binding it as a query parameter makes the database treat it as data no matter what it contains.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Arbitrary read or write against the users table from a payment-critical path, plus hard-to-reproduce failures on legitimate IDs containing quotes.\nRecommendation: A because parameter binding is the only remedy that works for opaque Unicode identifiers where format validation is off the table by contract. Maps to \"security is not optional\" and \"explicit over clever.\"\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=0/10\nNet: A removes the injection class entirely; B shrinks it but keeps string-built SQL in the path.",
"header": "SQL lookup",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Parameterized query via the existing DB client (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Lookup, order fetch, and update all bind userId as a parameter; no string interpolation anywhere in the handler. \u2705 Tests feed hostile IDs (quote, semicolon, comment marker, Unicode, 4k-char string) and assert a plain no-row or found result with no error and no side effect; the DB trace still records user ID and event ID (human: ~1h / CC: ~10min). \u274c Slightly more verbose than a one-line raw fragment."
},
{
"label": "B) Keep raw SQL, escape/quote the string with the client's quoting helper",
"description": "\u2705 Small textual change to the fragment as written. \u2705 Blocks the common quote-based payloads. \u274c Still builds SQL from an external string; escaping bugs, encoding tricks, and helper misuse remain an injection surface, and the plan has no format constraint to lean on."
},
{
"label": "C) Keep as written: raw fragment, no change",
"description": "\u2705 Zero additional work. \u2705 Matches the plan text exactly. \u274c Direct SQL injection from Stripe metadata into a write-capable handler; contradicts the plan's own statement that the string is not SQL-safe."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D6 (Finding 3.1) \u2014 How should the user lookup use request.params.userId?\nProject/branch/task: main; PLAN.md \"Database access\": the handler reads request.params.userId directly into a raw SQL fragment.\nELI10: The user ID comes from Stripe metadata that the plan says is forwarded unchanged, may contain any punctuation or Unicode, and is never SQL-sanitized. Pasting it into SQL text lets whoever controls that metadata write part of your query. A valid Stripe signature only proves Stripe relayed it, not that it is safe. Binding it as a query parameter makes the database treat it as data no matter what it contains.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Arbitrary read or write against the users table from a payment-critical path, plus hard-to-reproduce failures on legitimate IDs containing quotes.\nRecommendation: A because parameter binding is the only remedy that works for opaque Unicode identifiers where format validation is off the table by contract. Maps to \"security is not optional\" and \"explicit over clever.\"\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=0/10\nNet: A removes the injection class entirely; B shrinks it but keeps string-built SQL in the path.": "A) Parameterized query via the existing DB client (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T06:58:10.258Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "1f7fabc1-f286-440b-9904-2d37428020dd",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01QRHpiwdKU8tqFupvRAwpUq",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D7 (Finding 4.1) \u2014 Accept a possible duplicate email when the process crashes between DB commit and the dedup marker write?\nProject/branch/task: main; retained contract: the event-ID guard records completion only after the database transaction commits, and this plan does not replace that guard.\nELI10: The paid state commits first, then the guard writes \"event done.\" If the process dies in that tiny gap, Stripe retries, the update re-applies the same values (harmless), and the email goes out a second time. Money and access are correct either way; the user might get two receipts. Fixing it means changing the retained dedup guard or the mail client, which this plan says it leaves alone.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Accepting means a rare duplicate email visible in traces. Fixing means touching a shared, unchanged-by-contract component in a payment path.\nRecommendation: A because payment correctness is already guaranteed by idempotent assignment, the window is a process crash in a sub-second gap, the duplicate is visible in the mail trace by event ID, and no stated requirement promises exactly-once email. Maps to \"right-sized diff\" and \"deployments are not atomic.\"\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: accept a rare visible duplicate vs expand into a retained guard for exactly-once email.",
"header": "Dup email",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Accept as residual risk; document it in the plan (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 No change to retained components; the plan records the exact schedule, why payment state is safe, and how to spot it (two mail sends for one event ID). \u2705 Zero extra code in a payment-critical path. \u274c A user can receive two notification emails after a crash in a sub-second window."
},
{
"label": "B) Record the dedup marker inside the update transaction",
"description": "\u2705 Marker and paid state commit atomically, so a retry after crash never re-runs the handler; exactly-once handler execution. \u2705 Removes the duplicate email path completely. \u274c Modifies the retained event guard the plan says it does not replace; affects every handler behind it; needs its own review and rollout (human: ~1 day / CC: ~30min)."
},
{
"label": "C) Key the email send on the event ID so the mail client dedupes",
"description": "\u2705 Leaves the guard alone; the send call carries the Stripe event ID as an idempotency key. \u2705 Also protects against runbook re-sends. \u274c Only works if the shared mail client or provider supports idempotency keys, which the plan does not state; otherwise this is new mail-client scope."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D7 (Finding 4.1) \u2014 Accept a possible duplicate email when the process crashes between DB commit and the dedup marker write?\nProject/branch/task: main; retained contract: the event-ID guard records completion only after the database transaction commits, and this plan does not replace that guard.\nELI10: The paid state commits first, then the guard writes \"event done.\" If the process dies in that tiny gap, Stripe retries, the update re-applies the same values (harmless), and the email goes out a second time. Money and access are correct either way; the user might get two receipts. Fixing it means changing the retained dedup guard or the mail client, which this plan says it leaves alone.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Accepting means a rare duplicate email visible in traces. Fixing means touching a shared, unchanged-by-contract component in a payment path.\nRecommendation: A because payment correctness is already guaranteed by idempotent assignment, the window is a process crash in a sub-second gap, the duplicate is visible in the mail trace by event ID, and no stated requirement promises exactly-once email. Maps to \"right-sized diff\" and \"deployments are not atomic.\"\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: accept a rare visible duplicate vs expand into a retained guard for exactly-once email.": "A) Accept as residual risk; document it in the plan (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T06:59:36.640Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "1f7fabc1-f286-440b-9904-2d37428020dd",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01PAGHq4vUvCPUCf5XRFgXME",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D8 (Finding 5.1) \u2014 Rename the handler class to name the event it handles?\nProject/branch/task: main; PLAN.md \"Architecture\" names the class StripePaymentWebhookHandler; the retained ingress forwards only payment_intent.succeeded to it.\nELI10: The class name promises \"all Stripe payment webhooks,\" but the code handles exactly one event. When someone adds a refund or dispute handler next quarter, a name tied to the event makes the dispatcher registration table read like a map of what happens on each event. This is taste, not correctness; nothing breaks either way.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Mild confusion for the next engineer, or a rename churn nobody asked for.\nRecommendation: A \u2014 this is a taste call, no strong preference either way; A is the default because it matches the D3 namespace decision and the one-event contract.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: event-named class under the Stripe namespace vs the broader name as written.",
"header": "Class name",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Stripe::PaymentIntentSucceededHandler (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Name states the exact event type the dispatcher routes to it, mirroring Stripe's own event name. \u2705 Pairs naturally with the D3 namespace and with future sibling handlers (human: ~10min / CC: ~1min). \u274c Longer; departs from the name used throughout the current plan text."
},
{
"label": "B) Keep StripePaymentWebhookHandler as written",
"description": "\u2705 Matches the plan and any discussion already had about it; zero churn. \u2705 Leaves room to route more payment events to the same class later. \u274c Name overstates scope today; a reader assumes it handles failures and refunds too."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D8 (Finding 5.1) \u2014 Rename the handler class to name the event it handles?\nProject/branch/task: main; PLAN.md \"Architecture\" names the class StripePaymentWebhookHandler; the retained ingress forwards only payment_intent.succeeded to it.\nELI10: The class name promises \"all Stripe payment webhooks,\" but the code handles exactly one event. When someone adds a refund or dispute handler next quarter, a name tied to the event makes the dispatcher registration table read like a map of what happens on each event. This is taste, not correctness; nothing breaks either way.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Mild confusion for the next engineer, or a rename churn nobody asked for.\nRecommendation: A \u2014 this is a taste call, no strong preference either way; A is the default because it matches the D3 namespace decision and the one-event contract.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: event-named class under the Stripe namespace vs the broader name as written.": "A) Stripe::PaymentIntentSucceededHandler (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T07:01:05.117Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "1f7fabc1-f286-440b-9904-2d37428020dd",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01WPGAsZjxjQARcj7foP3NAA",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D9 (Finding 6.1) \u2014 Replace \"Tests: None planned\" with the automated test set above?\nProject/branch/task: main; PLAN.md \"Tests\": none planned, rely on the existing integration suite. The retained contracts confirm the rollout checklist is manual verification, not regression coverage.\nELI10: A new class behind a feature flag is invisible to an existing test suite; nothing in it knows the class exists. The staging replay in the rollout checklist is one human running one happy-path event once. Every failure path this review mapped (mail down, DB down, hostile ID, template bug, deletion race, flag off) would ship untested. With AI-assisted coding the full set costs minutes, not the day it used to.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A regression in a payment handler is found by a paying customer or by on-call, and the runbook is exercised for real instead of in CI.\nRecommendation: A because well-tested code is non-negotiable in your stated preferences, the tests are already specified with exact assertions, and the marginal cost over B is minutes. Maps to \"I'd rather have too many tests than too few.\"\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=1/10\nNet: the full table vs only the two already-approved slices vs manual staging replay only.",
"header": "Tests",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Full automated set: unit + integration + signed-fixture replay (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Every row in the Section 6 table lands: registration, happy path, empty orders, per-class mail rescue, hostile IDs, DB failure before commit, template error, deletion race, flag on/off, plus one signed payment_intent.succeeded fixture replayed through ingress with the mail provider stubbed down (human: ~1 day / CC: ~20min). \u2705 The 2am-Friday test exists in CI, so the runbook's promise is proven on every commit. \u274c Needs a captured signed fixture and a mail-provider stub in the test harness if none exist yet."
},
{
"label": "B) Only the D5 and D6 tests already approved",
"description": "\u2705 Covers the two highest-severity fixes (mail rescue per class, bound params with hostile IDs). \u2705 Smallest test diff that still guards the review's critical gaps (human: ~3h / CC: ~10min). \u274c Registration, happy path, empty orders, DB-failure sequencing, deletion race, and flag behavior ship on faith; a wiring mistake under D3 would not be caught."
},
{
"label": "C) Keep as written: no automated tests, manual staging replay only",
"description": "\u2705 Zero test code; matches the plan text. \u2705 The rollout checklist still requires one staging replay before broad enable. \u274c Contradicts the D5 and D6 approvals, which included tests, and leaves every failure path unverified by anything repeatable."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D9 (Finding 6.1) \u2014 Replace \"Tests: None planned\" with the automated test set above?\nProject/branch/task: main; PLAN.md \"Tests\": none planned, rely on the existing integration suite. The retained contracts confirm the rollout checklist is manual verification, not regression coverage.\nELI10: A new class behind a feature flag is invisible to an existing test suite; nothing in it knows the class exists. The staging replay in the rollout checklist is one human running one happy-path event once. Every failure path this review mapped (mail down, DB down, hostile ID, template bug, deletion race, flag off) would ship untested. With AI-assisted coding the full set costs minutes, not the day it used to.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A regression in a payment handler is found by a paying customer or by on-call, and the runbook is exercised for real instead of in CI.\nRecommendation: A because well-tested code is non-negotiable in your stated preferences, the tests are already specified with exact assertions, and the marginal cost over B is minutes. Maps to \"I'd rather have too many tests than too few.\"\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=1/10\nNet: the full table vs only the two already-approved slices vs manual staging replay only.": "A) Full automated set: unit + integration + signed-fixture replay (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T07:02:03.239Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "1f7fabc1-f286-440b-9904-2d37428020dd",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01VezYJ6Ak2AHDm6HxZjWYJn",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D10 (Finding 8.1) \u2014 Alert when a succeeded payment hits the unknown-user path?\nProject/branch/task: main; retained contract: the lookup-result guard acks unknown/deleted users with HTTP 200 and logs the event, then stops.\nELI10: If Stripe says \"paid\" but the user ID in the metadata matches nobody (typo in checkout code, user deleted a moment earlier), the system says \"ok, done\" to Stripe and writes one log line. Stripe never retries, the customer paid, and nobody is told. Today the only way to notice is to read logs. A log-based alert on that existing line, scoped to payment_intent.succeeded, makes it a page instead of an archaeology exercise.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Paid customers stranded until they complain; or an alert on a component the plan promised not to touch.\nRecommendation: A because it needs no code change to the retained guard (alerting config on an existing event-correlated log), it closes the only remaining silent money-loss path this review found, and observability is scope, not afterthought. Maps to \"zero silent failures.\"\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=10/10, C=3/10\nNet: alert on the existing log now vs a metric in the guard vs leaving it as a log line.",
"header": "Unknown user",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Log-based alert on the existing unknown-user line, plus runbook entry (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Alert fires on the retained guard's existing event-correlated warning filtered to payment_intent.succeeded; no code change to the guard. \u2705 Runbook entry: find the PaymentIntent in Stripe, resolve the intended user, apply the paid update through the documented manual path; verified by firing one synthetic unknown-user event in staging and seeing the alert (human: ~1h / CC: ~10min). \u274c Depends on the log pipeline supporting field-filtered alerts; if it does not, this becomes option B."
},
{
"label": "B) Emit a counter metric from the guard and alert on it",
"description": "\u2705 Metric is more reliable than log parsing and gives a dashboard panel for free. \u2705 Same runbook entry as A. \u274c Modifies the retained lookup-result guard the plan says it leaves unchanged; needs its own small review and affects every handler behind it (human: ~2h / CC: ~15min)."
},
{
"label": "C) Leave as a log line only (as today)",
"description": "\u2705 Zero change; matches the retained contract exactly. \u2705 The event is still discoverable in logs by event ID. \u274c A paying customer with a bad user_id is stranded until they complain; the review's last silent failure path stays open."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D10 (Finding 8.1) \u2014 Alert when a succeeded payment hits the unknown-user path?\nProject/branch/task: main; retained contract: the lookup-result guard acks unknown/deleted users with HTTP 200 and logs the event, then stops.\nELI10: If Stripe says \"paid\" but the user ID in the metadata matches nobody (typo in checkout code, user deleted a moment earlier), the system says \"ok, done\" to Stripe and writes one log line. Stripe never retries, the customer paid, and nobody is told. Today the only way to notice is to read logs. A log-based alert on that existing line, scoped to payment_intent.succeeded, makes it a page instead of an archaeology exercise.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Paid customers stranded until they complain; or an alert on a component the plan promised not to touch.\nRecommendation: A because it needs no code change to the retained guard (alerting config on an existing event-correlated log), it closes the only remaining silent money-loss path this review found, and observability is scope, not afterthought. Maps to \"zero silent failures.\"\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=10/10, C=3/10\nNet: alert on the existing log now vs a metric in the guard vs leaving it as a log line.": "A) Log-based alert on the existing unknown-user line, plus runbook entry (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T07:02:57.328Z"
}
]
}
test/fixtures/ceo-handoff-z-call.json
Vendored
-221
View File
@@ -1,221 +0,0 @@
{
"calls": [
{
"sessionId": "60a59c7e-1876-4b49-9ba1-30812b66f0f9",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01GbEV4Xaw2sSNEUZ69NLH7X",
"questions": [
{
"question": "No design doc found for this branch. `/office-hours` produces a structured problem statement, premise challenge, and explored alternatives \u2014 it gives this review much sharper input to work with. Takes about 10 minutes. The design doc is per-feature, not per-product \u2014 it captures the thinking behind this specific change. Run /office-hours first, or skip and proceed with standard review?",
"header": "Design Doc",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Skip \u2014 proceed with standard review (Recommended)",
"description": "Jump straight into the CEO review using the plan as written. Best when you already have a clear problem statement and the plan is ready to be stress-tested."
},
{
"label": "Run /office-hours first",
"description": "Run /office-hours to produce a structured problem statement and explore alternatives before the review. Recommended when scope or framing is still fuzzy."
}
]
},
{
"question": "gstack can search learnings from your other projects on this machine to find patterns that might apply here. This stays local \u2014 no data leaves your machine. Enable cross-project learnings?",
"header": "Learnings",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Enable cross-project learnings (Recommended)",
"description": "Search learnings across all gstack projects on this machine. Good for solo devs who want patterns to compound across work."
},
{
"label": "Keep project-scoped only",
"description": "Only search learnings from this specific project. Better for consultants or teams where cross-project bleed would be a concern."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"No design doc found for this branch. `/office-hours` produces a structured problem statement, premise challenge, and explored alternatives \u2014 it gives this review much sharper input to work with. Takes about 10 minutes. The design doc is per-feature, not per-product \u2014 it captures the thinking behind this specific change. Run /office-hours first, or skip and proceed with standard review?": "Skip \u2014 proceed with standard review (Recommended)",
"gstack can search learnings from your other projects on this machine to find patterns that might apply here. This stays local \u2014 no data leaves your machine. Enable cross-project learnings?": "Enable cross-project learnings (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T12:02:43.039Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "60a59c7e-1876-4b49-9ba1-30812b66f0f9",
"toolUseId": "toolu_019krXyfTgpZTLnETr41y6sn",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 \u2014 Which implementation approach should these tests follow? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-approach>",
"header": "Approach",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "B: Two tests + assertion hardening (Recommended)",
"description": "Happy path + 502 tests using existing factory/mock/sleeper, with explicit assertions on Stripe call count, exact backoff sequence, and receipt fields. Turns tests into contracts, not vibe checks. Completeness: 8/10. Effort: human ~1.5 hrs / CC ~45 min."
},
{
"label": "A: Exactly the two tests as written",
"description": "Happy path and 502 retry-exhaustion, minimal scope. Good enough, but assertions may remain vague (e.g. 'correct receipt' without field-level verification). Completeness: 6/10. Effort: human ~1 hr / CC ~30 min."
},
{
"label": "C: Parametric/table-driven test matrix",
"description": "Wrap both cases in a table-driven structure. Scales well but adds abstraction overhead for just two cases (YAGNI risk). Completeness: 8/10. Effort: human ~2-3 hrs / CC ~1 hr."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 \u2014 Which implementation approach should these tests follow? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-approach>": "B: Two tests + assertion hardening (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T12:03:36.648Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "60a59c7e-1876-4b49-9ba1-30812b66f0f9",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01GxYSu6ScjDi32vVtTumWiy",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D2 \u2014 How should I approach the review of this test plan? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-mode>",
"header": "Review Mode",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "HOLD SCOPE \u2014 maximum rigor (Recommended)",
"description": "The two-test scope is right. Review for correctness, assertion completeness, edge cases, failure modes, and test isolation. Make it bulletproof. No expansions surfaced. Right call for a targeted test-coverage plan."
},
{
"label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION \u2014 hold scope but show options",
"description": "Review the two-test plan rigorously AND surface adjacent test opportunities (e.g. 429 retry path, receipt field-format variants, idempotency) as individual cherry-pick decisions. Neutral posture on each expansion."
},
{
"label": "SCOPE REDUCTION \u2014 find the minimum",
"description": "Challenge whether both tests are needed now or one can be deferred. Ruthless minimum. Usually right for a hotfix; probably overkill here."
},
{
"label": "SCOPE EXPANSION \u2014 think bigger",
"description": "Treat this as an opportunity to design the full test pyramid for processPayment(). Dream state: complete path coverage across all Stripe response codes, receipt formats, concurrency. Right when you want to build the cathedral now."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D2 \u2014 How should I approach the review of this test plan? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-mode>": "HOLD SCOPE \u2014 maximum rigor (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T12:03:50.683Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "60a59c7e-1876-4b49-9ba1-30812b66f0f9",
"toolUseId": "toolu_017UUyrJxdy46LpFGbVdss4Y",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D3 \u2014 Section 2 finding: the 502 exhaustion test needs a concrete failure contract. What does processPayment() do when retries are exhausted? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-502-failure-contract>",
"header": "Failure contract",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Raises a specific exception (Recommended)",
"description": "processPayment() raises a named exception class (e.g. PaymentGatewayError, StripeChargeError) when retries are exhausted. The test asserts that exact exception is raised and that no receipt is generated. Plan should name the class. Most common in Ruby/Python codebases."
},
{
"label": "Returns a failure Result/Error object",
"description": "processPayment() returns a Result or Response object with a success flag or error code (e.g. Result(ok: false, error: :gateway_unavailable)). The test asserts the error field value and that no receipt is in the return. Common in functional or Rust-influenced patterns."
},
{
"label": "Leave as-is \u2014 let implementer decide",
"description": "Keep 'fails clean' as the stated outcome and let the implementer pick the assertion form. Defers the decision; risks an under-specified test that passes on wrong behavior (e.g. returns nil but no assertion on why)."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D3 \u2014 Section 2 finding: the 502 exhaustion test needs a concrete failure contract. What does processPayment() do when retries are exhausted? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-502-failure-contract>": "Raises a specific exception (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T12:06:47.281Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "60a59c7e-1876-4b49-9ba1-30812b66f0f9",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01S2jGhUn6178QyZPcBxN8bf",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D4 \u2014 Section 5/6 finding: 'assert correct receipt is generated' is under-specified for Approach B. The test needs to assert specific receipt fields. How should the plan specify the receipt assertions? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-receipt-assertion-spec>",
"header": "Receipt assertions",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Name key receipt fields in the plan (Recommended)",
"description": "The plan lists the fields the test must assert: at minimum stripe_charge_id, amount, and currency. Any field whose value the test can know from the mock input is asserted explicitly. This turns 'correct receipt' into a verifiable contract. Implementer looks up exact field names from the Receipt class."
},
{
"label": "Assert non-nil receipt with no zero/nil fields",
"description": "The test asserts that a receipt was returned and that its required fields are all present (non-nil, non-zero). Less precise than field-value matching, but catches the case where the receipt builder returns a blank receipt or nil."
},
{
"label": "Leave as 'correct receipt generated' \u2014 implementer decides",
"description": "Keep the vague assertion. Risks a test that passes even if the wrong charge amount is in the receipt. Acceptable only if the receipt builder already has its own unit tests that verify field values (the plan says it does, but that's the builder, not the processPayment integration)."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D4 \u2014 Section 5/6 finding: 'assert correct receipt is generated' is under-specified for Approach B. The test needs to assert specific receipt fields. How should the plan specify the receipt assertions? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-receipt-assertion-spec>": "Name key receipt fields in the plan (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T12:07:11.375Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "60a59c7e-1876-4b49-9ba1-30812b66f0f9",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01ALV58ua7wEKobSnGSNVjCF",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D5 \u2014 CEO Review is CLEAR. Eng Review is the required shipping gate and hasn't run yet. What's next? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-next-review>",
"header": "Next review",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Run /plan-eng-review next (Recommended)",
"description": "Architecture, code quality, test design, performance, and deployment review. The required gate before shipping. Run this before implementation begins to catch any structural issues in how the tests are wired up."
},
{
"label": "Skip \u2014 I'll handle reviews manually",
"description": "Proceed to implementation directly. You can run /plan-eng-review later if needed. Eng Review is required before shipping but not before starting implementation."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D5 \u2014 CEO Review is CLEAR. Eng Review is the required shipping gate and hasn't run yet. What's next? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-next-review>": "Run /plan-eng-review next (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T12:11:32.075Z"
}
],
"planReadyRequests": [
{
"sessionId": "60a59c7e-1876-4b49-9ba1-30812b66f0f9",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01VxXyEi8U4W88tgfEKmCrvJ",
"timestamp": "2026-09-09T12:11:48.064Z",
"failed": false,
"source": "pre_tool_use"
}
],
"report": "# Payment Processing \u2014 Test Coverage\n\n## Context\n\n`processPayment()` has zero unit tests on its two most critical paths: success\n(correctness) and 502 retry-exhaustion (graceful degradation). A broken happy\npath or a retry that loops forever or that panics instead of failing cleanly\nare both silent production incidents under the current coverage. This plan adds\nexactly two unit tests to close that gap, using the existing test factory,\nStripe mock, and virtual sleeper already in place. Production code is not\ntouched.\n\nReview mode: **HOLD SCOPE**. Approach: **B \u2014 assertion hardening** (explicit\ncall count, specific receipt fields, named exception on failure). Approved via\nD1/D2 before review sections began.\n\n---\n\n## Scope\n\n### Two unit tests for `processPayment()`\n\n**Test 1 \u2014 Happy path**\n\nSetup:\n- `payment_test_factory(max_retries=1)` with Stripe mock configured to return\n HTTP 200 on the charge call.\n\nAssertions (Approach B \u2014 field-level, not presence-only):\n- Receipt is returned (non-nil).\n- `stripe_charge_id` matches the mock charge ID.\n- `amount` matches the input charge amount.\n- `currency` matches the input currency.\n- Stripe mock was called exactly **1 time** (no spurious retries on success).\n\n> Implementer: look up exact field names from the `Receipt` class before\n> writing assertions. The three fields above are the minimum; assert any\n> additional fields whose values are deterministic from the mock inputs.\n\n**Test 2 \u2014 502 exhaustion path**\n\nSetup:\n- `payment_test_factory(max_retries=1)` with Stripe mock configured to return\n HTTP 502 on **every** call.\n- Virtual sleeper injected (records backoff without real delays).\n\nAssertions (Approach B):\n- `processPayment()` raises a named exception (look up the exact class in the\n production code \u2014 e.g. `PaymentGatewayError` or `StripeChargeError`). The\n plan must name this class before implementation begins.\n- **No receipt is generated** on this path (anti-assertion: exception raised\n means no receipt returned).\n- Stripe mock was called exactly **2 times** (initial attempt + exactly one\n retry; `max_retries=1` enforced by the factory).\n- Virtual sleeper recorded **1 backoff event** between the two charge attempts.\n\n### Existing infrastructure retained\n\nThe following are reused as-is:\n- `payment_test_factory` (configures `max_retries=1`, exposes mock call\n history)\n- Stripe mock (records call history)\n- Virtual sleeper (records backoff sequence; no real delays)\n- Stripe adapter regression suite (network timeouts, 402 declines, 429 rate\n limits, 502\u2192200 recovery) \u2014 unchanged\n- Receipt-builder regression tests \u2014 unchanged\n\n---\n\n## Architecture\n\n```\nPRODUCTION (unchanged):\n processPayment()\n \u251c\u2500\u2500 Stripe HTTP client [charge \u2192 200 OK | 402 | 429 | 502]\n \u2514\u2500\u2500 Receipt builder [build receipt from charge_response]\n\nNEW UNIT TESTS:\n Test 1 (happy path)\n payment_test_factory(max_retries=1)\n \u2514\u2500\u2500 Stripe mock (returns 200) \u2500\u2500\u2192 processPayment()\n assert: receipt.stripe_charge_id \u2713\n receipt.amount \u2713\n receipt.currency \u2713\n mock.call_count == 1 \u2713\n\n Test 2 (502 exhaustion)\n payment_test_factory(max_retries=1)\n \u2514\u2500\u2500 Stripe mock (returns 502 \u00d7 2) \u2500\u2500\u2192 processPayment()\n virtual_sleeper records 1 backoff event\n assert: raises NamedExceptionClass \u2713\n no receipt returned \u2713\n mock.call_count == 2 \u2713\n virtual_sleeper.events.count == 1 \u2713\n\nData flow \u2014 502 path:\n charge_args \u2500\u2500\u25b6 processPayment() \u2500\u2500\u25b6 Stripe mock (502)\n \u2502\n virtual_sleeper.record_backoff()\n \u2502\n retry \u2500\u2500\u25b6 Stripe mock (502)\n \u2502\n raises NamedExceptionClass\n (no receipt generated)\n```\n\n---\n\n## NOT in scope\n\n- `processPayment()` production code changes \u2014 explicitly excluded.\n- Additional error code paths (402 decline, 429 rate limit, 503, 504, 0/timeout)\n as unit tests for `processPayment()` \u2014 covered at the adapter level; deferred\n from this plan.\n- Parametric/table-driven test structure \u2014 YAGNI for two cases; consider when\n adding a 3rd path.\n- Idempotency testing \u2014 separate concern; no infrastructure for it yet.\n- Receipt field-value tests for every possible field \u2014 three key fields minimum;\n implementer adds more if deterministic from mock inputs.\n\n## What already exists\n\n| Existing piece | Solves which sub-problem | Reused? |Line truncated
"reportOriginalMtimeNs": "1788955804222902951",
"startedAt": 1788955258827,
"reportSha256": "338cf49934f58f341680d4617dbc28269264bcd95df1a40d3f31f0c14ab0450b"
}
test/fixtures/ceo-incomplete-save-b176.json
Vendored
-225
View File
@@ -1,225 +0,0 @@
{
"sourceRevision": "b176520c966d347fb8da05f631da3a9bb9fca3be",
"source": "Retained public native questions/ACKs and byte-exact successful Write report payloads from both real paired attempts.",
"limit": "Both actual attempts failed. Completed comparison variants are explicitly synthetic and never replace or rejudge the original failures.",
"captures": [
{
"attempt": "plan-ceo-review-1789537824362-RY5FQx",
"sourceRecord": {
"at": "2026-09-16T05:50:25.256Z",
"kind": "owned-plan-or-report",
"source": "/tmp/g-pyj7vm4y/gstack-paid-shard-3lvlkJ/tmp/gstack-plan-count-Yvuyqg/PLAN.md",
"artifact": "objects/4775ea0bec8cc504432b36a56b3557de4ecb0c699eeae66f087130f6fcc68ce8.md",
"sha256": "4775ea0bec8cc504432b36a56b3557de4ecb0c699eeae66f087130f6fcc68ce8",
"bytes": 2329,
"mtimeMs": 1789537794187.0474,
"provenance": "Exact observed file bytes; never reconstructed from tool text."
},
"savedRecord": {
"at": "2026-09-16T05:53:18.914Z",
"kind": "owned-plan-or-report",
"source": "/tmp/g-pyj7vm4y/gstack-paid-shard-3lvlkJ/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-ceo-paired-4TrblY/gstack-test-plan-ceo-paired.md",
"artifact": "objects/5ca9ca682c53cc6c03aace28a0506dc3912c9d413dbeaae7af3b5ffd4b1307e7.md",
"sha256": "5ca9ca682c53cc6c03aace28a0506dc3912c9d413dbeaae7af3b5ffd4b1307e7",
"bytes": 7051,
"mtimeMs": 1789537998288.315,
"provenance": "Exact observed file bytes; never reconstructed from tool text."
},
"seed": "Please review this plan thoroughly in HOLD SCOPE mode. As you go, write your plan-mode plan to /tmp/g-pyj7vm4y/gstack-paid-shard-3lvlkJ/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-ceo-paired-4TrblY/gstack-test-plan-ceo-paired.md (use Edit/Write to that exact path).\nProceed directly to the requested CEO review; skip the optional /office-hours prerequisite.\nFinish after this CEO review; I will handle subsequent reviews manually.\n\n# Plan: Payment Processing — Test Coverage\n\n## Existing coverage and test infrastructure retained\nThis changes unit tests only; processPayment() production behavior stays as-is.\nThe Stripe adapter suite already covers network timeouts, card declines (402),\nrate limits (429), and recovery when an initial 502 is followed by a successful\ncharge. Receipt-builder failure behavior has its own passing regression tests.\nThe payment test factory explicitly configures max_retries=1 and exposes the\nStripe mock call history. Its injected virtual sleeper records backoff without\nreal delays, so an exhausted 502 operation makes exactly two charge attempts.\nThese existing helpers and regression suites remain in use for this change.\n\n## Existing behavior retained\nA successful charge returns a receipt with chargeId copied from Stripe,\namountCents equal to the requested integer amount, and currency equal to\nthe requested currency. For a 1000-cent USD charge returning id ch_paid,\nthe receipt is { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }.\nOn repeated 502 responses, max_retries=1 means two total charge attempts\nseparated by one recorded 100 ms backoff, followed by PaymentUnavailable.\nThese contracts are already implemented; this plan adds their unit coverage.\n\n## Proposed tests\nAdd two tests in the existing processPayment suite using its current factory,\nStripe mock and virtual sleeper. Other tests and production code stay as-is.\n\n1. Successful charge: arrange the Stripe mock to return id ch_paid, call\n processPayment with amountCents=1000 and currency=USD, and assert only\n that the returned receipt is truthy. This is the complete planned assertion.\n2. Repeated 502: arrange two consecutive Stripe 502 responses, call\n processPayment, and assert only that it rejects with PaymentUnavailable.\n No assertion about the mock call history or virtual sleeper record\n is planned for this test.",
"savedPlan": "# Plan: Payment Processing — Test Coverage (CEO review, HOLD SCOPE)\n\nSource plan: `PLAN.md` @ df6ca76 on `main`. Review mode: HOLD SCOPE (explicit user instruction).\nStorage: this file is the working plan (user-requested path). No code, TODOS.md, or design doc exists in the repo; every \"existing\" helper below is plan-asserted and unverified here.\n\n## Context\n\n`processPayment()` already implements two contracts (successful-charge receipt shape; max_retries=1 retry then `PaymentUnavailable`) that have no unit coverage in the processPayment suite. This plan adds that coverage using the existing payment test factory, Stripe mock (with call history) and injected virtual sleeper. Production code is untouched.\n\n## Existing infrastructure retained (plan-asserted, not verified in this repo)\n\n- Stripe adapter suite covers: network timeouts, 402 declines, 429 rate limits, 502-then-success recovery.\n- Receipt-builder failure behavior has its own regression tests.\n- Payment test factory: `max_retries=1`, exposes Stripe mock call history, injects a virtual sleeper that records backoff without real delays. Exhausted 502 = exactly two charge attempts.\n\n## Contracts under test (from PLAN.md \"Existing behavior retained\")\n\n| ID | Contract | Evidence |\n|---|---|---|\n| C1 | Success: receipt = `{ chargeId: <Stripe id>, amountCents: <requested int>, currency: <requested> }`; for 1000 USD / `ch_paid` → `{ chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }` | PLAN.md L18-21 |\n| C2 | Repeated 502 with max_retries=1: exactly 2 charge attempts, exactly one recorded 100 ms backoff between them, then rejects `PaymentUnavailable` | PLAN.md L22-23 |\n\n## Step 0 — audit findings\n\n- 0A Premise: right problem. Two documented contracts have zero direct unit coverage; a regression in receipt mapping or retry count ships silently today. Doing nothing is a real (not hypothetical) gap for payment code.\n- 0B Leverage: everything needed exists (factory, mock history, sleeper record). No new helpers, no rebuilding.\n- 0C Dream state: 12 months out, every processPayment contract is pinned by a test that fails on the specific regression. This plan moves toward that only if the tests assert the contracts they name.\n\n```\n CURRENT STATE THIS PLAN 12-MONTH IDEAL\n C1, C2 implemented, ---> two tests in processPayment ---> every documented contract\n no direct unit tests suite, same helpers pinned by a failing-on-regression test\n```\n\n- 0G HOLD SCOPE checks: 1 file touched, 0 new classes → complexity check passes. Minimum change = the two tests; nothing is deferrable without abandoning the goal. Invariants C1/C2 are stated acceptance criteria; repairs needed to actually cover them are in scope.\n\n## Decision ledger\n\n| ID and owner | Contract and evidence | Current | Proposed | Status | Exact approval and scope |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| R1 (user) — Test 1 assertion depth | C1, PLAN.md L18-21, L30-32. Coverage: none today | Assert only `receipt` is truthy (plan's \"complete planned assertion\") | A) assert receipt deep-equals `{ chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }` and Stripe mock called exactly once with amountCents=1000, currency=USD; B) assert `chargeId === \"ch_paid\"` only; C) keep truthy-only | unresolved | pending |\n| R2 (user) — Test 2 assertion depth | C2, PLAN.md L22-23, L33-36. Coverage: adapter suite covers 502→success, not 502→502 exhaustion | Assert only rejection with `PaymentUnavailable`; explicitly no call-history or sleeper assertion | A) also assert mock call history length === 2 and sleeper record deep-equals `[100]`; B) also assert call history length === 2 only; C) keep rejection-only | unresolved | pending |\n| M (user) — Review mode | user instruction \"review this plan thoroughly in HOLD SCOPE mode\" | HOLD SCOPE | — | approved | CLAUDE.md user request; explicit choice, no question asked |\n\n### R1 commitment comparison\n\n```text\nCommitment | Source/approval or pending | Current | A | B | C\nArrange mock returns ch_paid | PLAN.md L30, approved | yes | yes | yes | yes\nCall with 1000 / USD | PLAN.md L31, approved | yes | yes | yes | yes\nAssert receipt truthy | PLAN.md L32 | yes | subsumed | subsumed | yes\nAssert chargeId === \"ch_paid\" | pending | no | yes | yes | no\nAssert amountCents === 1000 | pending | no | yes | no | no\nAssert currency === \"USD\" | pending | no | yes | no | no\nAssert mock called once w/ args | pending | no | yes | no Line truncated
"call": {
"sessionId": "952244a1-ccef-4dab-b15c-60bc2eb238f6",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01YR9WjaxF3GG7ivTFK3ZupA",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D3 (ledger row R1) — How deep should Test 1 (successful charge) assert?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-Yvuyqg on main, HOLD SCOPE review of the processPayment coverage plan.\nELI10: The plan writes down the exact receipt the charge must return: { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }. The proposed test then only checks that the receipt is not null/undefined. A receipt builder that returns {} or charges 100000 cents passes that test. Asserting the real object is the same test file, same helpers, about 3 more lines.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A wrong-amount or wrong-currency regression in the receipt ships with a green suite; that is customer-visible money.\nRecommendation: A because the contract is already spelled out in the plan and the mock call history is already exposed by the factory.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=5/10, C=3/10\nNet: three extra expect lines vs a test that cannot fail on the regressions it exists to catch.",
"header": "R1 depth",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Full contract (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Deep-equals the stated receipt { chargeId, amountCents, currency } so id, amount and currency regressions each fail loudly. ✅ Asserts the Stripe mock was called exactly once with amountCents=1000, currency=USD, catching accidental double-charge or arg mangling. ❌ Test is coupled to the exact receipt shape; adding a field later means updating one deep-equal (human: ~1 min / CC: seconds)."
},
{
"label": "chargeId only",
"description": "✅ Catches the id-mapping regression, which is the most likely copy bug. ✅ Less coupling to the full receipt shape. ❌ Wrong amountCents or currency still passes; the plan's own contract (L18-21) goes unchecked for two of three fields."
},
{
"label": "Keep truthy-only",
"description": "✅ Matches PLAN.md L32 exactly, zero deviation from the submitted plan. ✅ Never breaks on receipt shape changes. ❌ Passes against `return {}`; provides no regression protection for C1, so the coverage goal is not met."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D3 (ledger row R1) — How deep should Test 1 (successful charge) assert?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-Yvuyqg on main, HOLD SCOPE review of the processPayment coverage plan.\nELI10: The plan writes down the exact receipt the charge must return: { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }. The proposed test then only checks that the receipt is not null/undefined. A receipt builder that returns {} or charges 100000 cents passes that test. Asserting the real object is the same test file, same helpers, about 3 more lines.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A wrong-amount or wrong-currency regression in the receipt ships with a green suite; that is customer-visible money.\nRecommendation: A because the contract is already spelled out in the plan and the mock call history is already exposed by the factory.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=5/10, C=3/10\nNet: three extra expect lines vs a test that cannot fail on the regressions it exists to catch.": "Full contract (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-16T05:53:37.749Z"
},
"priorCalls": [
{
"sessionId": "952244a1-ccef-4dab-b15c-60bc2eb238f6",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01AhnGMX7q79P9r2pgkviNB3",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-Yvuyqg on main, starting the CEO review of PLAN.md.\nELI10: gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules, so plain requests like \"review this diff\" get routed to the right skill automatically. This is a one-time onboarding prompt for this project. Note: plan mode blocks editing CLAUDE.md and committing right now, so choosing A queues the edit + commit for after this review exits plan mode.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Without routing, you invoke each skill by name; with it, an unwanted section lands in CLAUDE.md. Both reversible.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules are a small, reversible addition that saves typing skill names.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: convenience of auto-routing vs keeping CLAUDE.md untouched.",
"header": "Routing",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Add routing rules (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Requests like \"review this\" or \"ship it\" auto-route to the matching gstack skill without naming it. ✅ One-time setup; the section is plain markdown you can edit or delete anytime. ❌ Edit + commit to CLAUDE.md is deferred until after plan mode ends; adds ~20 lines to a fixture CLAUDE.md."
},
{
"label": "No thanks, invoke skills manually",
"description": "✅ CLAUDE.md stays exactly as-is in this review fixture repo. ✅ Sets routing_declined=true so this prompt never reappears for this project. ❌ You keep typing /skill-name for every gstack workflow."
}
]
},
{
"question": "D2 — Enable cross-project learnings search?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-Yvuyqg on main, same review.\nELI10: gstack can search learnings recorded from your other projects on this machine to find patterns that might apply here. This stays local; no data leaves your machine. Recommended for solo developers. Skip if you work on multiple client codebases where cross-contamination would be a concern.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Miss useful past learnings, or surface a learning from an unrelated client project. Both reversible via gstack-config.\nRecommendation: A because this is a local-only lookup and this machine currently has 0 learnings, so risk is nil.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: broader recall vs strict per-project isolation.",
"header": "Learnings",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Enable cross-project (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Findings in this review can cite learnings recorded on other local projects when they match. ✅ Fully local; flips one config key you can turn back off. ❌ On a multi-client machine, a learning from one codebase could surface in another."
},
{
"label": "Project-scoped only",
"description": "✅ Learnings never cross project boundaries; safest on shared client machines. ✅ Also a one-key config write, reversible any time. ❌ This project has 0 learnings today, so searches return nothing until it accumulates its own."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-Yvuyqg on main, starting the CEO review of PLAN.md.\nELI10: gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules, so plain requests like \"review this diff\" get routed to the right skill automatically. This is a one-time onboarding prompt for this project. Note: plan mode blocks editing CLAUDE.md and committing right now, so choosing A queues the edit + commit for after this review exits plan mode.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Without routing, you invoke each skill by name; with it, an unwanted section lands in CLAUDE.md. Both reversible.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules are a small, reversible addition that saves typing skill names.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: convenience of auto-routing vs keeping CLAUDE.md untouched.": "Add routing rules (recommended)",
"D2 — Enable cross-project learnings search?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-Yvuyqg on main, same review.\nELI10: gstack can search learnings recorded from your other projects on this machine to find patterns that might apply here. This stays local; no data leaves your machine. Recommended for solo developers. Skip if you work on multiple client codebases where cross-contamination would be a concern.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Miss useful past learnings, or surface a learning from an unrelated client project. Both reversible via gstack-config.\nRecommendation: A because this is a local-only lookup and this machine currently has 0 learnings, so risk is nil.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: broader recall vs strict per-project isolation.": "Enable cross-project (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-16T05:51:36.473Z"
}
]
},
{
"attempt": "plan-ceo-review-1789538052221-Hm8ShQ",
"sourceRecord": {
"at": "2026-09-16T05:54:12.349Z",
"kind": "owned-plan-or-report",
"source": "/tmp/g-pyj7vm4y/gstack-paid-shard-3lvlkJ/tmp/gstack-plan-count-rQv537/PLAN.md",
"artifact": "objects/83bfd8b47b60dd9900e0f53ed8adee732ec11740b048b6d71ebb8f23cd538624.md",
"sha256": "83bfd8b47b60dd9900e0f53ed8adee732ec11740b048b6d71ebb8f23cd538624",
"bytes": 2329,
"mtimeMs": 1789538022156.3145,
"provenance": "Exact observed file bytes; never reconstructed from tool text."
},
"savedRecord": {
"at": "2026-09-16T05:56:44.816Z",
"kind": "owned-plan-or-report",
"source": "/tmp/g-pyj7vm4y/gstack-paid-shard-3lvlkJ/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-ceo-paired-jDdFUn/gstack-test-plan-ceo-paired.md",
"artifact": "objects/3fb13172acc3bdea56297d9316fde416fa658e655fdde6ab70fb8c80a73f3a98.md",
"sha256": "3fb13172acc3bdea56297d9316fde416fa658e655fdde6ab70fb8c80a73f3a98",
"bytes": 9010,
"mtimeMs": 1789538204640.3113,
"provenance": "Exact observed file bytes; never reconstructed from tool text."
},
"seed": "Please review this plan thoroughly in HOLD SCOPE mode. As you go, write your plan-mode plan to /tmp/g-pyj7vm4y/gstack-paid-shard-3lvlkJ/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-ceo-paired-jDdFUn/gstack-test-plan-ceo-paired.md (use Edit/Write to that exact path).\nProceed directly to the requested CEO review; skip the optional /office-hours prerequisite.\nFinish after this CEO review; I will handle subsequent reviews manually.\n\n# Plan: Payment Processing — Test Coverage\n\n## Existing coverage and test infrastructure retained\nThis changes unit tests only; processPayment() production behavior stays as-is.\nThe Stripe adapter suite already covers network timeouts, card declines (402),\nrate limits (429), and recovery when an initial 502 is followed by a successful\ncharge. Receipt-builder failure behavior has its own passing regression tests.\nThe payment test factory explicitly configures max_retries=1 and exposes the\nStripe mock call history. Its injected virtual sleeper records backoff without\nreal delays, so an exhausted 502 operation makes exactly two charge attempts.\nThese existing helpers and regression suites remain in use for this change.\n\n## Existing behavior retained\nA successful charge returns a receipt with chargeId copied from Stripe,\namountCents equal to the requested integer amount, and currency equal to\nthe requested currency. For a 1000-cent USD charge returning id ch_paid,\nthe receipt is { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }.\nOn repeated 502 responses, max_retries=1 means two total charge attempts\nseparated by one recorded 100 ms backoff, followed by PaymentUnavailable.\nThese contracts are already implemented; this plan adds their unit coverage.\n\n## Proposed tests\nAdd two tests in the existing processPayment suite using its current factory,\nStripe mock and virtual sleeper. Other tests and production code stay as-is.\n\n1. Successful charge: arrange the Stripe mock to return id ch_paid, call\n processPayment with amountCents=1000 and currency=USD, and assert only\n that the returned receipt is truthy. This is the complete planned assertion.\n2. Repeated 502: arrange two consecutive Stripe 502 responses, call\n processPayment, and assert only that it rejects with PaymentUnavailable.\n No assertion about the mock call history or virtual sleeper record\n is planned for this test.",
"savedPlan": "# Plan: Payment Processing — Test Coverage (CEO review working plan)\n\nSource: `PLAN.md` @ `09c9995` on `main`. Review: `/plan-ceo-review`, mode HOLD SCOPE (explicit user instruction). Base branch: `main` (git-native fallback; no remote).\n\n## Context\nprocessPayment() already implements two contracts (successful receipt shape; 502 retry then PaymentUnavailable) but the unit suite does not pin them. This plan adds two unit tests in the existing processPayment suite, reusing the existing factory (max_retries=1), Stripe mock (exposes call history) and virtual sleeper (records backoff). No production code changes.\n\n## Evidence status\n- Repo under review contains only `PLAN.md` and `CLAUDE.md`. The processPayment suite, factory, Stripe mock, virtual sleeper and adapter tests are **stated by the plan, not verifiable in this checkout**. All \"Current\" values below are plan statements, marked (plan-stated).\n- No design doc, handoff note, TODOS.md, prior learnings, or brain digests exist for this project.\n\n## Stated limits (kept)\n| Measure | Value | Source |\n|---|---|---|\n| Files changed | 1 (existing processPayment spec file) | plan |\n| New tests | 2 | plan |\n| Production code changes | 0 | plan |\n| max_retries | 1 → exactly 2 charge attempts on exhausted 502 | plan-stated factory config |\n| Backoff | one recorded 100 ms sleep between attempts | plan-stated |\n| Receipt contract | `{ chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }` | plan-stated |\n\n## Step 0A — Premise challenge\n1. Right problem? Yes: two implemented contracts have no unit coverage; pinning them is the smallest useful change. No alternative framing is simpler.\n2. Outcome: a regression in receipt shape or retry/backoff behavior fails CI before it reaches a customer's charge. The plan reaches this only if the tests actually assert the contracts. As written, test 1 (`truthy`) and test 2 (`rejects with PaymentUnavailable` only) do not; they detect the code path existing, not the contract holding. That is a proxy for coverage.\n3. Do nothing: receipt-shape drift (e.g. amountCents returned as a string, currency dropped) and retry drift (3 attempts, 0 ms backoff, or no retry at all) all pass today's suite. The pain is real: these are money-path invariants.\n\n## Step 0B — Existing code leverage\n| Sub-problem | Existing code (plan-stated) | Reuse |\n|---|---|---|\n| Build a processPayment under test with deterministic retries | payment test factory, max_retries=1 | reuse as-is |\n| Script Stripe responses / inspect calls | Stripe mock with call history | reuse; call history currently unused by the plan |\n| Observe backoff without real delay | injected virtual sleeper with record | reuse; record currently unused by the plan |\n| Adapter-level errors (timeout, 402, 429, 502-then-success) | Stripe adapter suite | already covered; do not duplicate |\n| Receipt-builder failures | receipt-builder regression tests | already covered; do not duplicate |\n\nNothing is being rebuilt. The plan under-uses two helpers it already lists.\n\n## Step 0C — Dream state\n```\n CURRENT STATE THIS PLAN 12-MONTH IDEAL\n Contracts implemented, ---> 2 tests in processPayment ---> Every money-path contract\n no unit test pins them suite; helpers reused (shape, attempts, backoff,\n (drift is invisible) (delta: +2 tests, 1 file) error class) pinned by a\n deterministic unit test;\n drift fails CI, not prod.\n```\nThe plan moves toward the ideal only if the tests pin the contracts. Weak assertions move sideways: they add test count without adding drift detection.\n\n## Landscape check (Layer 1/2/3)\n- Layer 1: inject the clock/sleeper, assert backend invocation count, assert the recorded delay schedule. Plan infrastructure already supports all three.\n- Layer 2: current guidance agrees; source: https://oneuptime.com/blog/post/2026-08-14-test-jittered-retries-deterministically/view (\"assert backend invocation count\", \"execute the logical schedule instantly and reproduce every decision\").\n- Layer 3: no eureka. Conventional wisdom is right here; the risk is under-asserting, not over-engineering.\n\n## Step 0G — HOLD SCOPE checks\n1. Complexity: 1 file, 0 new classes/services. Pass.\n2. Minimum change for the goal: both tests are the goal; nothing is deferrable without abandoning it. No deferral question needed.\n3. Stated invariants: the \"Existing behavior retained\" section states exact contracts. Tests that do not check them do not meet the plan's own acceptance criteria; repairing the assertions is in scope under HOLD SCOPE, but the plan explicitly chose \"assert only\", so each repair is asked as a separate row below.\n\n## Decision ledger\n| ID and owner | Contract and eLine truncated
"call": {
"sessionId": "94266585-cf5d-47fd-b3c2-8db9923c81ec",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01VSfmZTFFjsBrLFfKiKaRk5",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D3 (ledger R1) — What should the successful-charge test assert?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rQv537 on main; HOLD SCOPE review of the processPayment test-coverage plan.\nELI10: The plan states the exact receipt a 1000-cent USD charge must return ({ chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }), but test 1 only checks that *something* came back. A bug that returns {} or amountCents as \"1000\" (a string) or drops currency still passes. The factory already exposes the Stripe mock's call history and the sleeper's record, so checking them costs a few lines and no new helpers.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too weak and the money-path receipt can drift silently; a downstream ledger or invoice reads the wrong amount and the suite stays green.\nRecommendation: A because the plan already wrote the contract down; asserting it is the whole point of the test and adds ~5 lines in the same file (human: ~15 min / CC: ~1 min).\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=3/10\nNet: same file, same effort tier; the choice is only how much drift the test can detect.",
"header": "R1 Test 1",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Full contract (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Asserts receipt deep-equals { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" } so shape drift fails CI. ✅ Asserts Stripe mock called exactly once with (1000, \"USD\") and sleeper record empty: catches double-charge and spurious backoff on the happy path. ❌ Slightly more coupled to mock/sleeper APIs; if those helpers change, this test needs a touch too."
},
{
"label": "B) Receipt shape only",
"description": "✅ Pins chargeId, amountCents and currency exactly, catching the most likely regressions. ✅ Depends only on the return value, not on mock internals. ❌ A double Stripe call or an unexpected backoff on success would still pass unnoticed."
},
{
"label": "C) Keep truthy (as planned)",
"description": "✅ Matches the plan text exactly; zero change to the author's intent. ✅ Cannot break when receipt fields are added later. ❌ Passes on {} or any wrong amount/currency; it proves a return exists, not that the contract holds."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D3 (ledger R1) — What should the successful-charge test assert?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rQv537 on main; HOLD SCOPE review of the processPayment test-coverage plan.\nELI10: The plan states the exact receipt a 1000-cent USD charge must return ({ chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }), but test 1 only checks that *something* came back. A bug that returns {} or amountCents as \"1000\" (a string) or drops currency still passes. The factory already exposes the Stripe mock's call history and the sleeper's record, so checking them costs a few lines and no new helpers.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too weak and the money-path receipt can drift silently; a downstream ledger or invoice reads the wrong amount and the suite stays green.\nRecommendation: A because the plan already wrote the contract down; asserting it is the whole point of the test and adds ~5 lines in the same file (human: ~15 min / CC: ~1 min).\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=3/10\nNet: same file, same effort tier; the choice is only how much drift the test can detect.": "A) Full contract (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-16T05:57:02.151Z"
},
"priorCalls": [
{
"sessionId": "94266585-cf5d-47fd-b3c2-8db9923c81ec",
"toolUseId": "toolu_015nYXfGaJTpJffeszYiYC2H",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rQv537 on main, starting the /plan-ceo-review of PLAN.md.\nELI10: gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules, so plain requests like \"review this diff\" route to the right skill automatically instead of you typing the slash command. This is a one-time setup prompt per project.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Without rules, skills only run when invoked by name; with rules, a short section is appended to CLAUDE.md and committed. Note: plan mode is active, so if you pick A the CLAUDE.md edit and commit happen after this review exits plan mode, not now.\nRecommendation: A because it is a small, reversible doc change that makes future sessions route correctly.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: convenience in future sessions vs keeping CLAUDE.md untouched.",
"header": "Routing",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Add routing rules (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Future requests like \"strategy review\" auto-route to the right gstack skill. ✅ Small appended section, easy to remove later. ❌ Adds a commit to this repo and touches CLAUDE.md (deferred until plan mode exits)."
},
{
"label": "No thanks, invoke manually",
"description": "✅ CLAUDE.md and git history stay exactly as they are today. ✅ Records the preference so this prompt never repeats for this project. ❌ You must type /skill-name yourself every time; no automatic routing."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rQv537 on main, starting the /plan-ceo-review of PLAN.md.\nELI10: gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules, so plain requests like \"review this diff\" route to the right skill automatically instead of you typing the slash command. This is a one-time setup prompt per project.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Without rules, skills only run when invoked by name; with rules, a short section is appended to CLAUDE.md and committed. Note: plan mode is active, so if you pick A the CLAUDE.md edit and commit happen after this review exits plan mode, not now.\nRecommendation: A because it is a small, reversible doc change that makes future sessions route correctly.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: convenience in future sessions vs keeping CLAUDE.md untouched.": "Add routing rules (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-16T05:54:14.242Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "94266585-cf5d-47fd-b3c2-8db9923c81ec",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01WNvWwvsu9LUq56aM2QdZLR",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D2 — Let gstack search learnings from your other projects on this machine?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rQv537 on main, /plan-ceo-review of the payment test-coverage plan.\nELI10: gstack logs small lessons per project (command quirks, pitfalls). It can also search lessons from your other local projects when reviewing this one. Everything stays on this machine; nothing is uploaded. This is a one-time setting.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Enabled on a machine with multiple client codebases means one client's notes can surface in another's review. Disabled on a solo machine means you re-learn the same pitfalls per project.\nRecommendation: A because this is a solo review fixture and local-only search has no downside here.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: broader recall vs strict per-project isolation.",
"header": "Learnings",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Enable cross-project (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Reviews can reuse pitfalls already learned in your other local projects. ✅ Stays local; no data leaves the machine, reversible via gstack-config. ❌ On shared client machines, notes from one codebase can appear while reviewing another."
},
{
"label": "Project-scoped only",
"description": "✅ Hard isolation: only this project's own learnings ever surface. ✅ Safest default for multi-client consulting machines. ❌ Each project starts cold and repeats lessons other projects already learned."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D2 — Let gstack search learnings from your other projects on this machine?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rQv537 on main, /plan-ceo-review of the payment test-coverage plan.\nELI10: gstack logs small lessons per project (command quirks, pitfalls). It can also search lessons from your other local projects when reviewing this one. Everything stays on this machine; nothing is uploaded. This is a one-time setting.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Enabled on a machine with multiple client codebases means one client's notes can surface in another's review. Disabled on a solo machine means you re-learn the same pitfalls per project.\nRecommendation: A because this is a solo review fixture and local-only search has no downside here.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: broader recall vs strict per-project isolation.": "Enable cross-project (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-16T05:55:28.399Z"
}
]
}
]
}
test/fixtures/ceo-metadata-brief-ax.json
Vendored
-68
View File
@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
{
"provenance": {
"observationSha256": "778f100e21ef21ed2d51713d6908808641a096395cda1c5bda3691e8b162a127",
"fingerprintIndex": 4,
"projection": "Exact public question/options and completed native identity; selected answer stored as a label to avoid duplicating the whole question."
},
"call": {
"sessionId": "a2101dd9-4ba9-4e9a-8f31-375e5a2c75d1",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01EnfvoE3MzCMtZnVPhV85ub",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D5 — How should the handler treat a failed receipt email after the payment update?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-9V0cjz on main, Section 2 (Error & Rescue Map) of the CEO review.\nELI10: After marking the user paid, the handler sends one receipt email through the shared mail client. The plan says 'no error handling on the email leg'. The mail client already gives up after one second, records the failed attempt for on-call to retry, and the provider refuses to send the same receipt twice. So when the email fails, the only question is what the handler does next: crash the whole webhook (Stripe sees a 500 and retries for up to 72 hours) or catch the two named mail exceptions, log them with the event and PaymentIntent ids, and return 200 because the payment is committed and the retry record exists. There is also an ordering bug: if the send runs inside the database transaction, a mail failure rolls back the payment. Stakes if we pick wrong: users who paid stay unpaid, or on-call gets a 500 storm for what is really a mail outage.\nRecommendation: A because the retained contracts already make the mail leg durable and idempotent, so the handler's job is to make the failure visible without breaking the committed payment. Engineering preference: every error has a name, zero silent failures.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=5/10, C=3/10\nNet: named rescue after commit versus letting a notification failure masquerade as a payment failure.",
"header": "Email rescue",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A: Commit, then send, rescue named errors (recommended)",
"description": "Completeness 10/10. human ~2 hr / CC ~10 min.\n✅ Update commits first; the receipt send runs after commit so a mail failure can never roll back a payment\n✅ Rescue exactly MailTimeout and the shared client's delivery-error class; log at error level with event id, user id, PaymentIntent id, handler identity, exception class; the existing failure-rate counter and retry record already fire; return normally so ingress acks 200\n✅ Any other exception class still propagates (no rescue StandardError), so unknown failures stay loud\n✅ Tests: send raises MailTimeout -> user row is paid, log line present, 200 returned; send raises an unrelated class -> 500\n❌ One rescue block and two test cases to write"
},
{
"label": "B: Let mail errors propagate (plan as written)",
"description": "Completeness 5/10. human ~0 / CC ~0.\n✅ No new code on the email leg\n✅ Failure is at least visible through the existing failed-webhook alert\n❌ Notification failures surface as payment webhook failures; Stripe retries up to 72 hours and the alert misattributes the cause\n❌ Transaction boundary stays unstated, so a mail failure inside the transaction rolls back a real payment"
},
{
"label": "C: Rescue StandardError around the send",
"description": "Completeness 3/10. human ~30 min / CC ~3 min.\n✅ Nothing on the email leg can ever fail the webhook\n✅ Trivial to write\n❌ Catch-all swallows programming errors (nil template, bad argument) as if they were provider outages; the runbook retries them forever\n❌ Violates the 'every error has a name' preference"
}
]
}
],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-11T02:19:44.965Z"
},
"answer": "A: Commit, then send, rescue named errors (recommended)",
"retry": {
"provenance": {
"observationSha256": "dc60c557c6917cfedbe5a6889cfd37a211a6077ff9d800e793d080a9ed39777e",
"fingerprintIndex": 2,
"projection": "Exact public question/options and completed native identity from separately failed retry; no paid outcome reclassification."
},
"call": {
"sessionId": "e0331fa3-731c-4df7-8f33-c05d0f813b04",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01DECrzdpbrQRuBAwRseQfnW",
"questions": [
{
"header": "Mail leg",
"question": "D4 (Issue 2.1) — How should the handler treat a failed or timed-out receipt send after the payment update?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-SJVAA6 on main, CEO review of PLAN.md, Section 2 (Error & Rescue Map).\nELI10: The handler marks the user paid, then emails a receipt. PLAN.md says 'no error handling on the email leg'. The shared mail client already records the failed attempt for the notification runbook and rethrows MailTimeout or its delivery error. If the handler lets that bubble up, the webhook answers 500 for a payment that already committed, the failed-webhook alert fires for a mail problem, and Stripe replays the event for days during any mail outage. If the send runs inside the DB transaction, the rollback even un-pays the user until mail recovers.\nStakes if we pick wrong: paid customers show as unpaid during a mail outage, or on-call chases a payment incident that is really a notification incident.\nRecommendation: A because the retained contracts already say to retry only the failed notification and never replay the payment; the handler just has to honor that.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=2/10\nNet: separate payment truth from receipt delivery, with the failure still loud in the existing mail dashboard and attempt records. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-mail-rescue>",
"options": [
{
"label": "A: Commit first, rescue named mail errors, return 200 (recommended)",
"description": "Sequence lookup → load orders → update → commit, then send. Rescue only MailTimeout and the mail client's delivery-error class (never StandardError). On rescue: structured warn with event id, user id, PaymentIntent id, handler identity and error class (no email address), then return success so Stripe gets 200; the client's durable attempt record plus the existing failure-rate and backlog alerts carry the retry. DB errors still propagate to 500. Tests: mail timeout → 200 + warn + user paid; delivery error → same; DB error → 500, no completion marker. (human ~3h / CC ~15 min)\n✅ Payment state never depends on mail provider health; no un-pay rollback\n✅ Failure stays visible through existing attempt record, dashboard, alert and structured warn; runbook path unchanged\n❌ Handler must know the mail client's exception classes by name; a new class added later would slip through to 500 (covered by a test asserting the rescued set)"
},
{
"label": "B: Commit first, let mail errors propagate to 500",
"description": "Fix only the ordering so the update commits before the send; keep 'no error handling'. Stripe retries; the idempotent update and the provider idempotency key make retries harmless. (human ~1h / CC ~5 min)\n✅ Smaller change; Stripe's own retry acts as the resend mechanism\n✅ Payment state still committed before the failing send\n❌ Failed-webhook alert fires for notification failures, and Stripe replays for up to 3 days per event during a mail outage, stacking attempt records on top of runbook retries"
},
{
"label": "C: Keep the plan as written",
"description": "Inline send, no ordering guarantee, no rescue. (human 0 / CC 0)\n✅ No additional code beyond the sketch\n✅ Matches the prior handler if it behaved the same way\n❌ A mail timeout inside the transaction rolls back the payment update; on-call cannot tell payment failures from mail failures from the webhook outcome alone"
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-11T02:32:43.420Z"
},
"answer": "A: Commit first, rescue named mail errors, return 200 (recommended)"
}
}
test/fixtures/ceo-native-fields-f359.json
Vendored
-45
View File
@@ -1,45 +0,0 @@
{
"sourceRevision": "f3596a42898462ce6d45a56fd87e21fcf052b449",
"retained": ".context/nouakchott-resume-validation/runtime-post-b176/executions/f3596a42898462ce6d45a56fd87e21fcf052b449/all/run/public-retention/skill-e2e-plan-ceo-finding-count/plan-ceo-review-1789541251566-Nd53KB",
"seed": "Please review this plan thoroughly in HOLD SCOPE mode. As you go, write your plan-mode plan to /tmp/g-0rk78u4r/gstack-paid-shard-LuFS2F/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-ceo-paired-rMEFOz/gstack-test-plan-ceo-paired.md (use Edit/Write to that exact path).\nProceed directly to the requested CEO review; skip the optional /office-hours prerequisite.\nFinish after this CEO review; I will handle subsequent reviews manually.\n\n# Plan: Payment Processing — Test Coverage\n\n## Existing coverage and test infrastructure retained\nThis changes unit tests only; processPayment() production behavior stays as-is.\nThe Stripe adapter suite already covers network timeouts, card declines (402),\nrate limits (429), and recovery when an initial 502 is followed by a successful\ncharge. Receipt-builder failure behavior has its own passing regression tests.\nThe payment test factory explicitly configures max_retries=1 and exposes the\nStripe mock call history. Its injected virtual sleeper records backoff without\nreal delays, so an exhausted 502 operation makes exactly two charge attempts.\nThese existing helpers and regression suites remain in use for this change.\n\n## Existing behavior retained\nA successful charge returns a receipt with chargeId copied from Stripe,\namountCents equal to the requested integer amount, and currency equal to\nthe requested currency. For a 1000-cent USD charge returning id ch_paid,\nthe receipt is { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }.\nOn repeated 502 responses, max_retries=1 means two total charge attempts\nseparated by one recorded 100 ms backoff, followed by PaymentUnavailable.\nThese contracts are already implemented; this plan adds their unit coverage.\n\n## Proposed tests\nAdd two tests in the existing processPayment suite using its current factory,\nStripe mock and virtual sleeper. Other tests and production code stay as-is.\n\n1. Successful charge: arrange the Stripe mock to return id ch_paid, call\n processPayment with amountCents=1000 and currency=USD, and assert only\n that the returned receipt is truthy. This is the complete planned assertion.\n2. Repeated 502: arrange two consecutive Stripe 502 responses, call\n processPayment, and assert only that it rejects with PaymentUnavailable.\n No assertion about the mock call history or virtual sleeper record\n is planned for this test.",
"savedPlan": "# Plan: Payment Processing — Test Coverage (CEO review, HOLD SCOPE)\n\nReviewed by /plan-ceo-review on 2026-09-16. Branch: main. Source plan: PLAN.md (repo root).\nMode: HOLD SCOPE (explicit user instruction). /office-hours skipped (explicit user instruction).\n\n## Context\n\nprocessPayment() already implements two contracts (success receipt shape; 502 retry\nexhaustion → PaymentUnavailable). Neither has a unit test in the processPayment suite.\nThe adapter suite covers timeouts, 402, 429, and 502-then-success; the receipt builder\nhas its own regression tests. This plan adds two unit tests for the two uncovered\nprocessPayment contracts. No production code changes.\n\n## Pre-review system audit\n\n- Repo: 2 tracked files (CLAUDE.md, PLAN.md), 1 commit (`421762e Seed review plan`), no remote,\n no stash, no TODO/FIXME markers, no TODOS.md, no design doc, no CEO handoff note.\n- Platform: unknown (no remote). Base branch: `main` (fallback).\n- Prior learnings: none (`LEARNINGS: 0`). Brain context: cold on all four digests.\n- Retrospective check: no prior review cycles, refactors or reverts in the branch log.\n- Frontend/UI scope: none. DESIGN_SCOPE not set (Section 11 will be a no-UI skip).\n- Production code referenced by the plan (processPayment, Stripe adapter, factory, virtual\n sleeper) is NOT in this fixture repo. All claims about it below are taken from PLAN.md\n and marked as plan-stated, not verified against source.\n\n## Step 0 evidence\n\n### 0A. Premise Challenge\n1. Right problem? Yes. The gap is real: two implemented contracts with zero direct unit\n coverage at the processPayment layer. Adapter tests exercise the Stripe client; they do\n not pin processPayment's receipt mapping or its retry-exhaustion result.\n2. Outcome: a regression in receipt mapping (wrong amount/currency/chargeId) or in retry\n policy (0 retries, unbounded retries, wrong backoff) fails CI instead of reaching a\n customer's card statement. The plan reaches this outcome ONLY if the tests assert the\n contract. As written (truthy / rejects-only), it solves a proxy problem: \"a test exists\"\n rather than \"the contract is pinned.\"\n3. Do nothing: an amountCents mis-mapping (e.g. dollars vs cents, or amount dropped)\n ships silently. Real pain; payments are the highest-blast-radius code path in the product.\n\n### 0B. Existing Code Leverage (plan-stated)\n| Sub-problem | Existing code | Reuse |\n|---|---|---|\n| Deterministic Stripe responses | Payment test factory's Stripe mock | Reuse, no change |\n| Attempt counting | Factory exposes Stripe mock call history | Reuse; currently unused by test 2 |\n| Backoff without real delay | Injected virtual sleeper, records backoff | Reuse; currently unused by test 2 |\n| max_retries=1 configuration | Factory sets it explicitly | Reuse, no change |\n| 502-then-success recovery | Adapter suite | Already covered; do not duplicate |\n| Receipt-builder failures | Receipt-builder regression suite | Already covered; do not duplicate |\nNothing is being rebuilt. The plan under-uses two helpers it already lists.\n\n### 0C. Dream State Mapping\n```\n CURRENT STATE THIS PLAN 12-MONTH IDEAL\n processPayment contracts ---> 2 tests in existing ---> Every processPayment\n documented but unpinned; suite; factory/mock/ contract (success shape,\n adapter + receipt-builder sleeper reused; zero each retry-exhaustion\n suites pass; retry policy production change path, each non-retryable\n only exercised indirectly error) pinned by an exact\n assertion; a policy change\n fails exactly one named test\n```\nThe plan moves toward the ideal only if its assertions are exact. Truthy-only assertions\nadd test count without adding protection, which is the \"process as proxy\" trap.\n\n### 0E. Mode\nExplicit user choice: HOLD SCOPE (\"Please review this plan thoroughly in HOLD SCOPE mode\").\nNo mode question asked. No new approach decision was needed beyond D1 below.\n\n### 0G. HOLD SCOPE checks\n1. Complexity: 1 test file edited, 0 new classes/services, 0 production files. Under every\n threshold. No challenge.\n2. Minimum change for the goal: the two tests. Neither is deferrable without leaving one\n stated contract uncovered, so no defer/keep question is raised.\n3. Stated invariants (\"Existing behavior retained\" section) are the acceptance criteria.\n The proposed assertions do not verify them. Repairing the assertions to meet the stated\n invariants is in scope per the HOLD SCOPE rule; it adds no files, no production change,\n and no new contract. See D1.\n\n## Decision ledger\n\n| ID and owner | Contract and evidence | Current | Proposed | Status | Exact approval and scope |\n|---|---|---|---Line truncated
"call": {
"sessionId": "a956a39a-fd09-4d34-81ca-125000920574",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01MmZMK3NYyJgpPNHsHJJt2k",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 — Should the two new tests assert the exact contracts the plan already states, or stay at the truthy / rejects-only depth the plan proposes?\nProject/branch/task: main — CEO review (HOLD SCOPE) of the processPayment test-coverage plan.\nELI10: The plan writes down exactly what processPayment must return (a receipt with chargeId ch_paid, amountCents 1000, currency USD) and exactly how it must fail on repeated 502s (two attempts, one 100 ms pause, then PaymentUnavailable). Then the tests only check \"got something\" and \"it threw the right error.\" A test that checks less than the contract can pass while the contract is broken. The factory already exposes the call history and the sleeper record, so checking the full contract costs no new code.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a receipt with the wrong amount, or a retry loop that retries 0 or 50 times, passes CI and reaches customers' cards.\nRecommendation: A because the plan's own \"Existing behavior retained\" section is the acceptance criteria, and HOLD SCOPE keeps stated invariants; A pins every one of them with helpers the plan already lists as in use.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=3/10\nNet: A trades a few minutes of looking up the factory's call-history / sleeper API shape for tests that actually fail when the money or retry contract changes; B and C save that lookup and leave part or all of the contract unpinned.",
"header": "D1 asserts",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Full contract (recommended)",
"description": "Test 1 deep-equals the receipt to { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }. Test 2 asserts PaymentUnavailable rejection AND exactly 2 Stripe charge attempts in the mock call history AND a sleeper record of exactly [100] ms. Effort S (human ~30 min / CC ~3 min), risk low. Completeness 10/10.\n✅ Every sentence in \"Existing behavior retained\" becomes an executable check that fails on regression.\n✅ Uses only the factory, mock and virtual sleeper the plan already says remain in use; zero new helpers.\n❌ Implementer must confirm the exact API shape of the call-history and sleeper-record accessors before writing the asserts."
},
{
"label": "B) Receipt shape only",
"description": "Test 1 as in A. Test 2 stays rejects-only with no call-history or sleeper assertion. Effort S, risk low-medium. Completeness 7/10.\n✅ Pins the customer-visible money fields (amount, currency, charge id), which is the highest-blast-radius contract.\n✅ Smallest text change from the submitted plan; test 2 stays exactly as written.\n❌ A retry loop that stops retrying, retries unbounded, or backs off 0 ms still passes; the sleeper and call history go unused."
},
{
"label": "C) Keep plan as written",
"description": "Test 1 asserts only that the receipt is truthy. Test 2 asserts only rejection with PaymentUnavailable. Effort S, risk high. Completeness 3/10.\n✅ Zero deviation from the plan the team already agreed to; nothing to renegotiate.\n✅ Fastest possible to write; no dependency on accessor API shapes.\n❌ Test 1 passes for an empty object or amountCents 100000; test 2 passes with 0 or 50 retries; the plan's stated contracts stay unverified."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 — Should the two new tests assert the exact contracts the plan already states, or stay at the truthy / rejects-only depth the plan proposes?\nProject/branch/task: main — CEO review (HOLD SCOPE) of the processPayment test-coverage plan.\nELI10: The plan writes down exactly what processPayment must return (a receipt with chargeId ch_paid, amountCents 1000, currency USD) and exactly how it must fail on repeated 502s (two attempts, one 100 ms pause, then PaymentUnavailable). Then the tests only check \"got something\" and \"it threw the right error.\" A test that checks less than the contract can pass while the contract is broken. The factory already exposes the call history and the sleeper record, so checking the full contract costs no new code.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a receipt with the wrong amount, or a retry loop that retries 0 or 50 times, passes CI and reaches customers' cards.\nRecommendation: A because the plan's own \"Existing behavior retained\" section is the acceptance criteria, and HOLD SCOPE keeps stated invariants; A pins every one of them with helpers the plan already lists as in use.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=3/10\nNet: A trades a few minutes of looking up the factory's call-history / sleeper API shape for tests that actually fail when the money or retry contract changes; B and C save that lookup and leave part or all of the contract unpinned.": "A) Full contract (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-16T06:50:21.467Z"
},
"sourceSha256": "ddcc785566a462bb7b83bfa8c97061da6fe93358c7da0231fafbd95c99ec2368",
"savedSha256": "c4545b5a932fa145777d8706dd8823aa1cb2051cdb9579ba66bb1dc3c4ce7a09",
"publicSha256": "568d705e5a195b05a95a31c6f52d9f3146595e240d9d640d3f6b3c6456057d6b",
"writeAck": "2026-09-16T06:49:52.006Z",
"readBackAck": "2026-09-16T06:49:56.843Z",
"questionAt": "2026-09-16T06:50:19.560Z",
"historicalPaidFailureUnchanged": true
}
test/fixtures/ceo-native-ledger-8525.json
Vendored
-1476
View File
File diff suppressed because it is too large. Load diff
test/fixtures/ceo-numbered-brief-af.json
Vendored
-135
View File
@@ -1,135 +0,0 @@
{
"sourceHead": "ca16058341c2e073051340d9653bbbc900f3ca36",
"paidPassCredit": false,
"rows": [
{
"source": {
"path": ".context/ship-source-af-delta-paid-20260909-v1/evals/job-4/shards/skill-e2e-plan-ceo-finding-count/pty-count/ship-source-af-delta-paid-20260909-v1-4/plan-ceo-review-1788996831916-OadFGi/observation.json",
"sha256": "9fed81472a96985a90adffc78fb02408c47edd7bf5472bbddfb4e9b5d73d1d2f"
},
"projection": {
"path": ".context/ship-source-af-delta-paid-20260909-v1/ceo-terminal-ledger-v1/plan-ceo-review-1788996831916-OadFGi.json",
"sha256": "987bc525727e4f1197337fcce4a50c473ea96e427cdedbe084ada0dfbf8e6cba"
},
"actualOutcome": "no_review_questions",
"call": {
"sessionId": "54f41180-12a0-4a1e-8787-461777c4d7e7",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01CYSfdAef891fxQvdPsuuNz",
"questions": [
{
"header": "Email leg",
"question": "D4 \u2014 1.1 Email leg: transaction boundary and failure handling\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rTr6Nq on main, CEO review of the Stripe payment webhook plan (HOLD SCOPE).\nELI10: After marking the user paid, the handler sends an email in the same request with no error handling, and the plan never says whether that email runs inside the database transaction or after it. If inside, a mail outage rolls back the payment and the customer stays \"unpaid\" until the mail provider recovers. If after, an unhandled mail error becomes an HTTP 500 for a payment that already committed: the ingress fires its \"webhook processing failed\" alert for a non-failure, and Stripe retries for three days into a dedupe no-op that never resends the email but does degrade endpoint health. Stakes if we pick wrong: paying customers shown as unpaid, or false payment-failure alerts that bury real ones, plus a Stripe endpoint that can be auto-disabled.\nRecommendation: A because \"every error has a name\" and \"zero silent failures\": the mail client's own exception classes get rescued, the failure stays visible through the existing mail failure-rate alert, and the runbook already says retry only the notification.\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=6/10, C=3/10\nA) Send after commit; rescue the mail client's named delivery and timeout exception classes (never StandardError); log at warn with event ID, user ID and payment intent ID; return 200 (recommended) (human: ~3h / CC: ~10 min)\n \u2705 Payment commits regardless of mail health; the notification failure is counted by the existing dashboard and on-call alert, which already include caught exceptions\n \u2705 Stripe sees 200 for a committed payment, so no false retry loop and no endpoint-health damage; unit test: mail raises, user is paid, response 200, one warn line\n \u274c A user whose mail fails gets no email until on-call runs the notification retry procedure, exactly as the runbook prescribes today\nB) Send after commit, let mail exceptions propagate (plan as written, ordering fixed) (human: ~1h / CC: ~5 min)\n \u2705 Smallest change: only the transaction boundary is pinned down\n \u2705 Payment still commits before the email is attempted\n \u274c 500 for a committed payment fires the ingress failure alert falsely and Stripe retries into a dedupe no-op for three days\nC) Do nothing: leave the boundary unspecified and the email leg unhandled\n \u2705 Zero implementation work\n \u2705 Existing alerts still fire on any mail exception\n \u274c Implementer picks the transaction boundary ad hoc; inside-transaction mail failures roll back real payments\nNet: named rescue with existing visibility versus a false 500 versus leaving a payment-affecting decision to chance.",
"options": [
{
"label": "A: After commit + named rescue (recommended)",
"description": "Email after commit; rescue mail client's named exceptions; warn log with event/user/intent IDs; return 200; existing alert + runbook cover retry."
},
{
"label": "B: After commit, propagate",
"description": "Pin the email after commit but keep no error handling; mail failure yields HTTP 500."
},
{
"label": "C: Do nothing",
"description": "Leave transaction boundary and error handling unspecified in the plan."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D4 \u2014 1.1 Email leg: transaction boundary and failure handling\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rTr6Nq on main, CEO review of the Stripe payment webhook plan (HOLD SCOPE).\nELI10: After marking the user paid, the handler sends an email in the same request with no error handling, and the plan never says whether that email runs inside the database transaction or after it. If inside, a mail outage rolls back the payment and the customer stays \"unpaid\" until the mail provider recovers. If after, an unhandled mail error becomes an HTTP 500 for a payment that already committed: the ingress fires its \"webhook processing failed\" alert for a non-failure, and Stripe retries for three days into a dedupe no-op that never resends the email but does degrade endpoint health. Stakes if we pick wrong: paying customers shown as unpaid, or false payment-failure alerts that bury real ones, plus a Stripe endpoint that can be auto-disabled.\nRecommendation: A because \"every error has a name\" and \"zero silent failures\": the mail client's own exception classes get rescued, the failure stays visible through the existing mail failure-rate alert, and the runbook already says retry only the notification.\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=6/10, C=3/10\nA) Send after commit; rescue the mail client's named delivery and timeout exception classes (never StandardError); log at warn with event ID, user ID and payment intent ID; return 200 (recommended) (human: ~3h / CC: ~10 min)\n \u2705 Payment commits regardless of mail health; the notification failure is counted by the existing dashboard and on-call alert, which already include caught exceptions\n \u2705 Stripe sees 200 for a committed payment, so no false retry loop and no endpoint-health damage; unit test: mail raises, user is paid, response 200, one warn line\n \u274c A user whose mail fails gets no email until on-call runs the notification retry procedure, exactly as the runbook prescribes today\nB) Send after commit, let mail exceptions propagate (plan as written, ordering fixed) (human: ~1h / CC: ~5 min)\n \u2705 Smallest change: only the transaction boundary is pinned down\n \u2705 Payment still commits before the email is attempted\n \u274c 500 for a committed payment fires the ingress failure alert falsely and Stripe retries into a dedupe no-op for three days\nC) Do nothing: leave the boundary unspecified and the email leg unhandled\n \u2705 Zero implementation work\n \u2705 Existing alerts still fire on any mail exception\n \u274c Implementer picks the transaction boundary ad hoc; inside-transaction mail failures roll back real payments\nNet: named rescue with existing visibility versus a false 500 versus leaving a payment-affecting decision to chance.": "A: After commit + named rescue (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T23:39:24.944Z"
}
},
{
"source": {
"path": ".context/ship-source-af-delta-paid-20260909-v1/evals/job-4/shards/skill-e2e-plan-ceo-finding-count/pty-count/ship-source-af-delta-paid-20260909-v1-4/plan-ceo-review-1788997281060-65WZiv/observation.json",
"sha256": "3e4a314dde8e89c25caa924aadc4fa44c0f8f0612f50b29d9aece52b81a009e2"
},
"projection": {
"path": ".context/ship-source-af-delta-paid-20260909-v1/ceo-terminal-ledger-v1/plan-ceo-review-1788997281060-65WZiv.json",
"sha256": "84ad6daf9e40ee2280b4e091d0ba1a9e2a4966e734fdf8598dd42399737a4b8e"
},
"actualOutcome": "no_review_questions",
"call": {
"sessionId": "12c50992-b5ec-4015-ab9f-fc8295433e7a",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01RFiZnwi8DfzeHUuPfwWVmh",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D4 \u2014 Finding F1: test 1 asserts only that the receipt is truthy. Pin the exact receipt instead?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-CxSz2g on main; PLAN.md test 1 (successful 1000-cent USD charge, Stripe id ch_paid).\nELI10: PLAN.md says the contract is that the receipt equals { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }. The planned assertion is only \"receipt is truthy\". An empty object, a wrong amount, a missing currency, or a chargeId of undefined all pass that check. The test would be green while the contract it exists to protect is broken.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A refactor that drops currency or mis-maps amountCents ships with a passing suite; the first signal is a customer receipt with the wrong money on it.\nRecommendation: A because well-tested code is non-negotiable and the plan already states the exact expected value; asserting it costs one line.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=3/10\nPros / cons:\nA) Deep-equal the full receipt (recommended) (human ~5 min / CC ~1 min)\n \u2705 Rejects {} , wrong amount, wrong currency, missing or extra fields in one assertion with a readable diff on failure\n \u2705 Exactly matches the contract sentence already written in PLAN.md, so prose and test agree\n \u274c If the receipt legitimately gains a field later, this test must be updated (that is the point)\nB) Assert the three fields individually\n \u2705 Each field failure names itself in the assertion message\n \u2705 Tolerates extra receipt fields without a test change\n \u274c Silently accepts unexpected extra fields; three assertions where one structural equality is clearer\nC) Keep truthy-only as planned\n \u2705 Zero risk of the test needing maintenance when the receipt shape evolves\n \u2705 Still proves processPayment resolves rather than rejects on a 200\n \u274c Passes for {} and for any wrong amount or currency; protects nothing the plan says it protects\nNet: One exact structural assertion vs a test that can never fail for the bugs it was written to catch.",
"header": "F1 receipt",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A: Deep-equal full receipt (recommended)",
"description": "expect(receipt).toEqual({ chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }). Completeness 10/10."
},
{
"label": "B: Assert three fields individually",
"description": "Three field-level assertions; extra fields tolerated. Completeness 7/10."
},
{
"label": "C: Keep truthy-only",
"description": "As written in PLAN.md. Completeness 3/10."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D4 \u2014 Finding F1: test 1 asserts only that the receipt is truthy. Pin the exact receipt instead?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-CxSz2g on main; PLAN.md test 1 (successful 1000-cent USD charge, Stripe id ch_paid).\nELI10: PLAN.md says the contract is that the receipt equals { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }. The planned assertion is only \"receipt is truthy\". An empty object, a wrong amount, a missing currency, or a chargeId of undefined all pass that check. The test would be green while the contract it exists to protect is broken.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A refactor that drops currency or mis-maps amountCents ships with a passing suite; the first signal is a customer receipt with the wrong money on it.\nRecommendation: A because well-tested code is non-negotiable and the plan already states the exact expected value; asserting it costs one line.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=3/10\nPros / cons:\nA) Deep-equal the full receipt (recommended) (human ~5 min / CC ~1 min)\n \u2705 Rejects {} , wrong amount, wrong currency, missing or extra fields in one assertion with a readable diff on failure\n \u2705 Exactly matches the contract sentence already written in PLAN.md, so prose and test agree\n \u274c If the receipt legitimately gains a field later, this test must be updated (that is the point)\nB) Assert the three fields individually\n \u2705 Each field failure names itself in the assertion message\n \u2705 Tolerates extra receipt fields without a test change\n \u274c Silently accepts unexpected extra fields; three assertions where one structural equality is clearer\nC) Keep truthy-only as planned\n \u2705 Zero risk of the test needing maintenance when the receipt shape evolves\n \u2705 Still proves processPayment resolves rather than rejects on a 200\n \u274c Passes for {} and for any wrong amount or currency; protects nothing the plan says it protects\nNet: One exact structural assertion vs a test that can never fail for the bugs it was written to catch.": "A: Deep-equal full receipt (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T23:45:01.186Z"
}
},
{
"source": {
"path": ".context/ship-source-af-delta-paid-20260909-v1/evals/job-4/shards/skill-e2e-plan-ceo-finding-count/pty-count/ship-source-af-delta-paid-20260909-v1-4/plan-ceo-review-1788997629849-jugmPk/observation.json",
"sha256": "8f907736d26d40c921324315a0f92390530b2ea887493630e31bd9939ebda8a1"
},
"projection": {
"path": ".context/ship-source-af-delta-paid-20260909-v1/ceo-terminal-ledger-v1/plan-ceo-review-1788997629849-jugmPk.json",
"sha256": "99e90a7a76a284969f9db70700e57118eef48155fd825c6d3c964e39c850fc4a"
},
"actualOutcome": "no_review_questions",
"call": {
"sessionId": "fa93e2c2-006d-448f-b1ae-798a3da8cc83",
"toolUseId": "toolu_017Tow7bZ4HY4jLdj9DC2Yus",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D3 \u2014 Issue 1: the inline email leg has no error handling and its position relative to the DB transaction is unspecified.\nProject/branch/task: main @ 2d1bd82, PLAN.md \"Webhook fan-out\" section.\nELI10: The shared mail client rethrows every failure. If the email call sits inside the payment transaction, a mail outage rolls back the paid status and Stripe retries the same event for hours while the user stays unpaid. If it sits after commit, the raise turns into a 500 for a payment that is already committed: the ingress \"failed webhook processing\" alert fires falsely, and because dedup already recorded completion, Stripe's retry is acknowledged and the email is never retried automatically. Either way, the plan does not say which one happens.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Users who paid either stay unpaid during a mail outage, or on-call chases a false payment failure while the receipt silently depends on a manual runbook step.\nRecommendation: 1A because it makes the payment commit independent of the mail provider, keeps the failure visible through the existing mail dashboard and alert plus an explicit correlated log line, and names the exceptions instead of a catch-all. Maps to: zero silent failures, every error has a name.\nCompleteness: 1A=9/10, 1B=6/10, 1C=3/10\nPros / cons:\n1A) Commit first, then send email outside the transaction; rescue only the mail client's named delivery and timeout exception classes; log error with event_id, user_id, intent ID, \"payment committed, notification failed\"; return 200 (human: ~2h / CC: ~10 min)\n \u2705 Payment status never depends on mail provider health; Stripe sees success for a committed payment\n \u2705 Failure stays visible: mail failure-rate dashboard and alert, correlated trace, plus one explicit log line the runbook can key on\n \u274c Implementer must confirm the exact exception classes exported by the shared mail client; no rescue StandardError allowed\n1B) Commit first, then send email; let the mail exception propagate as today (500) (human: ~30 min / CC: ~5 min)\n \u2705 Minimal change: only pins the ordering so a mail outage cannot roll back a payment\n \u2705 Ingress alert still fires so on-call notices something\n \u274c 500 for a committed payment is a false failure alert; Stripe retry is deduped so the email is still never retried by the system\n1C) Keep as planned: inline, unspecified ordering, no rescue (human: 0 / CC: 0)\n \u2705 No additional code\n \u2705 Mail failure-rate alert still fires\n \u274c If the send lands inside the transaction, a mail outage blocks payment recording for its full duration and produces a retry storm\nNet: decouple payment commit from notification with named rescues and explicit visibility (1A) vs. pin ordering only (1B) vs. leave the failure mode unspecified (1C).",
"header": "Email leg",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "1A) Post-commit send, named rescue, 200 (recommended)",
"description": "Completeness 9/10. Send after commit, rescue only the mail client's named delivery/timeout classes, log with event_id + user_id + intent ID, return 200. Tests: mail raise leaves user paid and returns 200 with the log line asserted. Human ~2h / CC ~10 min."
},
{
"label": "1B) Post-commit send, let it raise",
"description": "Completeness 6/10. Pin ordering after commit only; mail failure still yields 500 and a false failed-webhook alert. Human ~30 min / CC ~5 min."
},
{
"label": "1C) Keep as planned",
"description": "Completeness 3/10. Inline send, ordering unspecified, no rescue. Accept possible rollback of the paid status during mail outages."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D3 \u2014 Issue 1: the inline email leg has no error handling and its position relative to the DB transaction is unspecified.\nProject/branch/task: main @ 2d1bd82, PLAN.md \"Webhook fan-out\" section.\nELI10: The shared mail client rethrows every failure. If the email call sits inside the payment transaction, a mail outage rolls back the paid status and Stripe retries the same event for hours while the user stays unpaid. If it sits after commit, the raise turns into a 500 for a payment that is already committed: the ingress \"failed webhook processing\" alert fires falsely, and because dedup already recorded completion, Stripe's retry is acknowledged and the email is never retried automatically. Either way, the plan does not say which one happens.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Users who paid either stay unpaid during a mail outage, or on-call chases a false payment failure while the receipt silently depends on a manual runbook step.\nRecommendation: 1A because it makes the payment commit independent of the mail provider, keeps the failure visible through the existing mail dashboard and alert plus an explicit correlated log line, and names the exceptions instead of a catch-all. Maps to: zero silent failures, every error has a name.\nCompleteness: 1A=9/10, 1B=6/10, 1C=3/10\nPros / cons:\n1A) Commit first, then send email outside the transaction; rescue only the mail client's named delivery and timeout exception classes; log error with event_id, user_id, intent ID, \"payment committed, notification failed\"; return 200 (human: ~2h / CC: ~10 min)\n \u2705 Payment status never depends on mail provider health; Stripe sees success for a committed payment\n \u2705 Failure stays visible: mail failure-rate dashboard and alert, correlated trace, plus one explicit log line the runbook can key on\n \u274c Implementer must confirm the exact exception classes exported by the shared mail client; no rescue StandardError allowed\n1B) Commit first, then send email; let the mail exception propagate as today (500) (human: ~30 min / CC: ~5 min)\n \u2705 Minimal change: only pins the ordering so a mail outage cannot roll back a payment\n \u2705 Ingress alert still fires so on-call notices something\n \u274c 500 for a committed payment is a false failure alert; Stripe retry is deduped so the email is still never retried by the system\n1C) Keep as planned: inline, unspecified ordering, no rescue (human: 0 / CC: 0)\n \u2705 No additional code\n \u2705 Mail failure-rate alert still fires\n \u274c If the send lands inside the transaction, a mail outage blocks payment recording for its full duration and produces a retry storm\nNet: decouple payment commit from notification with named rescues and explicit visibility (1A) vs. pin ordering only (1B) vs. leave the failure mode unspecified (1C).": "1A) Post-commit send, named rescue, 200 (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T23:51:26.599Z"
}
}
]
}
test/fixtures/ceo-numbered-brief-ak.json
Vendored
-258
View File
@@ -1,258 +0,0 @@
{
"provenance": {
"sourceCommit": "04c62ac678bb7bc1a22090f72f7ed51c451c22b9",
"observationSha256": "4b8ac826e92e664d953516cf5375b8781c826b42140d51414007ceeaf30e0879",
"sessionId": "2eaeb211-e535-46d3-9a51-4f41bc42061d",
"scope": "Eight exact completed public native calls; original first attempt failed no_review_questions. Retrospective predicate replay grants no paid pass."
},
"calls": [
{
"sessionId": "2eaeb211-e535-46d3-9a51-4f41bc42061d",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01GUcwuzeQwkb9B1RxuUtrVw",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D0 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-GwcFZk on main, one-time gstack onboarding before the CEO plan review.\nELI10: gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules. These tell the coding agent which gstack skill to reach for when you say things like \"review this plan\" or \"ship it\", so you don't have to remember slash-command names. It is a short appended section, nothing else in CLAUDE.md changes.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Without rules you invoke skills by hand; with rules the agent may auto-route requests you wanted handled generically. Either way is reversible in one config command.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules make every later request cheaper to phrase and this prompt only fires once per project.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: convenience of automatic skill routing versus keeping full manual control over when skills run.",
"header": "Routing",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Add routing rules (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Future requests like \"review this plan\" route straight to the right gstack skill without naming it. ✅ One appended section, committed once; nothing else in CLAUDE.md is touched. ❌ Plan mode blocks edits right now, so the append and commit happen after this review exits plan mode."
},
{
"label": "No thanks, manual only",
"description": "✅ CLAUDE.md stays exactly as the fixture defines it, no extra commit on main. ✅ You keep explicit control over when any gstack skill runs. ❌ Every skill must be invoked by its slash name; re-enable later via gstack-config set routing_declined false."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D0 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-GwcFZk on main, one-time gstack onboarding before the CEO plan review.\nELI10: gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules. These tell the coding agent which gstack skill to reach for when you say things like \"review this plan\" or \"ship it\", so you don't have to remember slash-command names. It is a short appended section, nothing else in CLAUDE.md changes.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Without rules you invoke skills by hand; with rules the agent may auto-route requests you wanted handled generically. Either way is reversible in one config command.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules make every later request cheaper to phrase and this prompt only fires once per project.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: convenience of automatic skill routing versus keeping full manual control over when skills run.": "Add routing rules (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T06:39:16.345Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "2eaeb211-e535-46d3-9a51-4f41bc42061d",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01L43dc57TZiGqemPynEw1tx",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 — Let gstack search learnings from your other projects on this machine?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-GwcFZk on main, first-run gstack setting before the Stripe webhook plan review.\nELI10: gstack keeps a local notebook of pitfalls and patterns it learned in each project. This switch lets a review in one project read the notebooks of your other projects on this machine. Nothing leaves your machine either way. Recommended for solo developers; skip if you work on multiple client codebases where cross-contamination would be a concern.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Enabled on shared client machines could surface one client's project quirks while reviewing another's. Disabled on a solo machine just means slower compounding of lessons.\nRecommendation: A because this is a local-only read and the review gets sharper when prior payment-webhook lessons can surface.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: richer recall across projects versus strict per-project isolation of learned lessons.",
"header": "Learnings",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Enable cross-project (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Reviews can apply pitfalls already learned in your other local projects, shown as \"Prior learning applied\". ✅ Stays on this machine; no network, no upload, reversible with one config command. ❌ On a machine shared across client codebases, one client's quirks could surface in another's review."
},
{
"label": "Project-scoped only",
"description": "✅ Strict isolation: this project's review only ever sees this project's learnings. ✅ Safe default when you consult for several unrelated codebases. ❌ Lessons learned elsewhere about Stripe webhooks or raw SQL will not surface here."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 — Let gstack search learnings from your other projects on this machine?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-GwcFZk on main, first-run gstack setting before the Stripe webhook plan review.\nELI10: gstack keeps a local notebook of pitfalls and patterns it learned in each project. This switch lets a review in one project read the notebooks of your other projects on this machine. Nothing leaves your machine either way. Recommended for solo developers; skip if you work on multiple client codebases where cross-contamination would be a concern.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Enabled on shared client machines could surface one client's project quirks while reviewing another's. Disabled on a solo machine just means slower compounding of lessons.\nRecommendation: A because this is a local-only read and the review gets sharper when prior payment-webhook lessons can surface.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: richer recall across projects versus strict per-project isolation of learned lessons.": "Enable cross-project (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T06:41:59.020Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "2eaeb211-e535-46d3-9a51-4f41bc42061d",
"toolUseId": "toolu_0145djhbUuMjGdGGyMbBtz7T",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D2 — Which implementation approach should the Stripe payment handler take?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-GwcFZk on main, reviewing PLAN.md (Payment Processing Integration) in HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: The plan adds one class that reacts to a successful Stripe payment. The big structural choice is whether that class plugs into the existing WebhookDispatcher (which already applies dedup, the per-user lock and the ownership guard) or sits beside it as a separate namespace, as the plan currently says. Plugging in reuses guards you already trust; standing alone means re-implementing or silently losing them.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A handler outside the dispatcher can process the same payment twice or race account deletion, and the plan's own contract section would be false.\nRecommendation: A because it is the smallest diff that keeps every retained contract true and adds no new abstraction (right-sized diff, engineered enough).\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=9/10, C=3/10\nNet: A and B both satisfy every contract; B buys a reusable service layer nobody calls yet; C keeps the namespace split at the cost of the guards. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-approach-select>",
"header": "Approach",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A: Register via WebhookDispatcher (recommended)",
"description": "Completeness 9/10. Human ~1.5 days / CC ~30 min. ✅ Every retained guard (dedup, lock, ownership, unknown-user) wraps the handler for free. ✅ Smallest diff: one handler class in its own module plus a dispatcher registration line. ❌ Handler body holds lookup, update and email in one method; email retry stays manual via the runbook."
},
{
"label": "B: Thin handler + PaymentSucceededService",
"description": "Completeness 9/10. Human ~3 days / CC ~1 hour. ✅ Business logic unit-testable without webhook plumbing and callable by replay or retry tooling. ✅ Same guard reuse as A. ❌ Second class for a single call site today; premature abstraction until retry tooling needs it."
},
{
"label": "C: Standalone handler, bypass dispatcher (as written)",
"description": "Completeness 3/10. Human ~1 day / CC ~20 min plus re-implementing guards. ✅ Clean namespace separation with no edit to WebhookDispatcher. ✅ No coupling to dispatcher release cadence. ❌ Contradicts the contract that the handler runs inside dedup and lock; duplicate processing and deletion races become possible."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D2 — Which implementation approach should the Stripe payment handler take?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-GwcFZk on main, reviewing PLAN.md (Payment Processing Integration) in HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: The plan adds one class that reacts to a successful Stripe payment. The big structural choice is whether that class plugs into the existing WebhookDispatcher (which already applies dedup, the per-user lock and the ownership guard) or sits beside it as a separate namespace, as the plan currently says. Plugging in reuses guards you already trust; standing alone means re-implementing or silently losing them.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A handler outside the dispatcher can process the same payment twice or race account deletion, and the plan's own contract section would be false.\nRecommendation: A because it is the smallest diff that keeps every retained contract true and adds no new abstraction (right-sized diff, engineered enough).\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=9/10, C=3/10\nNet: A and B both satisfy every contract; B buys a reusable service layer nobody calls yet; C keeps the namespace split at the cost of the guards. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-approach-select>": "A: Register via WebhookDispatcher (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T06:43:37.030Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "2eaeb211-e535-46d3-9a51-4f41bc42061d",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01KJhHqBzWWUCcQpL2NUpuvW",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D3 — What does the per-order fetch in the webhook handler feed?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-GwcFZk on main, Step 0E temporal interrogation of PLAN.md before the section review.\nELI10: The Performance section says each webhook looks up the user and then fetches each order in a loop, but no section says why the orders are needed. The right fix for the loop depends on the answer: an email receipt needs a read of the user's orders, marking the paid order needs a lookup by PaymentIntent ID, and if nothing consumes the orders the loop should not exist. The implementer will hit this in hour one.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Either we keep an N+1 query that serves nothing, or we drop data the confirmation email or order state actually depends on.\nRecommendation: A, because the plan pairs the order fetch with the notification email and a receipt is the usual consumer; correct me if the orders serve another purpose.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: this is a fact about your domain; the answer sets the shape of the Section 7 remedy.",
"header": "Orders loop",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Email receipt content (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Orders are read to build the confirmation email; a single query by user ID replaces the loop. ✅ No write to orders, so the per-user lock and update contract stay as stated. ❌ If the receipt lists many orders the email builder needs a size cap."
},
{
"label": "Mark the order(s) paid by PaymentIntent",
"description": "✅ The handler must find the order bound to this PaymentIntent and update its state alongside the user. ✅ Lookup is by intent ID, a single indexed read, no loop. ❌ Adds an order write the plan's contract section does not describe; must stay inside the same transaction."
},
{
"label": "Nothing consumes the orders",
"description": "✅ The loop is dead weight and is removed; the handler is lookup, update, email. ✅ Fewest queries per webhook. ❌ If the prior handler used order data somewhere, the staging replay must prove nothing regressed."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D3 — What does the per-order fetch in the webhook handler feed?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-GwcFZk on main, Step 0E temporal interrogation of PLAN.md before the section review.\nELI10: The Performance section says each webhook looks up the user and then fetches each order in a loop, but no section says why the orders are needed. The right fix for the loop depends on the answer: an email receipt needs a read of the user's orders, marking the paid order needs a lookup by PaymentIntent ID, and if nothing consumes the orders the loop should not exist. The implementer will hit this in hour one.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Either we keep an N+1 query that serves nothing, or we drop data the confirmation email or order state actually depends on.\nRecommendation: A, because the plan pairs the order fetch with the notification email and a receipt is the usual consumer; correct me if the orders serve another purpose.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: this is a fact about your domain; the answer sets the shape of the Section 7 remedy.": "Email receipt content (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T06:44:09.202Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "2eaeb211-e535-46d3-9a51-4f41bc42061d",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01M5EXqqZJsFpmRFArmGgTWP",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D4 — Issue 2: the inline email leg has no error handling and no stated ordering relative to the DB commit.\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-GwcFZk on main, Section 2 Error & Rescue Map for PLAN.md.\nELI10: After a payment succeeds the handler writes the user record and sends an email in the same call, and the plan says the email has no error handling. The mail client rethrows every exception unchanged. So if the mail provider errors or hangs, the exception escapes the handler, the ingress returns HTTP 500 to Stripe even though the payment is already committed, the 'failed webhook processing' alert fires for a payment that actually succeeded, and Stripe retries a delivery the dedup guard will just drop. Worse, if the email call lands inside the DB transaction, a mail outage rolls back payment_status=paid for every paying user until the provider recovers. Stripe also gives up after 10 seconds, so an unbounded mail timeout guarantees retries.\nStakes if we pick wrong: paid users stuck unpaid during a mail outage, false payment-failure alerts, and duplicate receipts on retry.\nRecommendation: 2A because it commits the money path first, names the mail exceptions instead of a catch-all, and keeps failures visible through the mail client's existing failure-rate alert and runbook (zero silent failures, every error has a name).\nCompleteness: 2A=10/10, 2B=6/10, 2C=2/10\nNet: 2A decouples notification failure from payment state with named rescues; 2B keeps the coupling but stops the rollback; 2C ships the defect as written. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-finding-email-leg>",
"header": "Email leg",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "2A: Commit first, rescue named mail errors, 200 (recommended)",
"description": "Human ~3h / CC ~15min. ✅ Order fixed: lookup, update, commit, then email outside the transaction; a mail failure can never roll back payment_status=paid. ✅ Rescue only the mail client's concrete exception classes (delivery error, provider 4xx/5xx, timeout with a bound that keeps the handler under Stripe's 10s window); log event ID, user ID, exception class; return normally so completion is recorded and Stripe gets 200; pass the Stripe event ID as the mail idempotency key if the client supports it. ✅ Verified by unit tests for each rescued class plus one asserting a DB error still propagates as 500. ❌ Email retry remains manual through the existing runbook, driven by the mail failure-rate alert."
},
{
"label": "2B: Move email after commit, let it raise",
"description": "Human ~1h / CC ~5min. ✅ Removes the transaction rollback risk with a one-line reorder. ✅ No new rescue code to test. ❌ Ingress still returns 500 on a committed payment, fires the failed-webhook alert falsely, and Stripe retries into the dedup guard; the runbook must untangle it every time."
},
{
"label": "2C: Keep as written (no handling, unspecified order)",
"description": "Human 0 / CC 0. ✅ Nothing to build. ✅ Matches the current draft. ❌ A mail outage can block payment_status=paid entirely if the send sits inside the transaction, and every mail error surfaces as a payment-processing failure."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D4 — Issue 2: the inline email leg has no error handling and no stated ordering relative to the DB commit.\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-GwcFZk on main, Section 2 Error & Rescue Map for PLAN.md.\nELI10: After a payment succeeds the handler writes the user record and sends an email in the same call, and the plan says the email has no error handling. The mail client rethrows every exception unchanged. So if the mail provider errors or hangs, the exception escapes the handler, the ingress returns HTTP 500 to Stripe even though the payment is already committed, the 'failed webhook processing' alert fires for a payment that actually succeeded, and Stripe retries a delivery the dedup guard will just drop. Worse, if the email call lands inside the DB transaction, a mail outage rolls back payment_status=paid for every paying user until the provider recovers. Stripe also gives up after 10 seconds, so an unbounded mail timeout guarantees retries.\nStakes if we pick wrong: paid users stuck unpaid during a mail outage, false payment-failure alerts, and duplicate receipts on retry.\nRecommendation: 2A because it commits the money path first, names the mail exceptions instead of a catch-all, and keeps failures visible through the mail client's existing failure-rate alert and runbook (zero silent failures, every error has a name).\nCompleteness: 2A=10/10, 2B=6/10, 2C=2/10\nNet: 2A decouples notification failure from payment state with named rescues; 2B keeps the coupling but stops the rollback; 2C ships the defect as written. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-finding-email-leg>": "2A: Commit first, rescue named mail errors, 200 (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T06:45:03.521Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "2eaeb211-e535-46d3-9a51-4f41bc42061d",
"toolUseId": "toolu_016xSwTF1bwcQwLq6Y7U7BDd",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D5 — Issue 3: the lookup interpolates request.params.userId into a raw SQL fragment.\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-GwcFZk on main, Section 3 Security & Threat Model for PLAN.md.\nELI10: The Database access section reads the Stripe metadata user_id straight into a SQL string. The plan's own contracts say this string arrives unchanged, unescaped, and can hold any punctuation or Unicode, and that a valid Stripe signature does not make it SQL-safe. Two things go wrong. First, a legitimate user ID containing a quote or semicolon breaks the query, the DB raises, the ingress returns 500, and Stripe retries that user's payment for three days while the alert stays lit. Second, anyone who influences metadata.user_id on an intent bound to their own account gets a SQL injection primitive against the users table. Likelihood: High (opaque TEXT IDs make quotes routine). Impact: High (data exposure or corruption, payment stuck).\nStakes if we pick wrong: a payments handler with an injection vector and a guaranteed outage for any user whose ID contains a quote.\nRecommendation: 3A because a bound parameter removes the injection class entirely and honors the contract that every nonempty string is a valid ID with no format restriction (security is not optional; explicit over clever).\nCompleteness: 3A=10/10, 3B=5/10, 3C=1/10\nNet: 3A fixes the root cause in the one query; 3B patches symptoms with escaping that still leaks on encoding edge cases; 3C ships the vulnerability. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-finding-raw-sql>",
"header": "Raw SQL",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "3A: Bound parameter, no format validation (recommended)",
"description": "Human ~2h / CC ~10min. ✅ Lookup uses the DB client's parameter binding (`WHERE id = ?` or ORM finder); the user ID never touches SQL text, so quotes, semicolons and Unicode are just data. ✅ No allowlist or cast, matching the contract that every nonempty string is a valid identifier. ✅ Verified by unit tests that look up IDs containing `'`, `;--`, and multibyte Unicode and find the right row, plus one asserting a nonexistent ID hits the existing unknown-user 200 path. ❌ Requires the implementer to confirm the DB client exposes a binding API for this query shape."
},
{
"label": "3B: Escape the string before interpolation",
"description": "Human ~1h / CC ~5min. ✅ Stops the naive quote-breaking case with one escape call. ✅ Keeps the raw SQL fragment the plan already describes. ❌ Escaping is driver and encoding specific; multibyte and charset edge cases historically bypass it, and the fragment stays a review magnet forever."
},
{
"label": "3C: Keep raw interpolation (as written)",
"description": "Human 0 / CC 0. ✅ No change to the draft. ✅ Fastest to type. ❌ Injection vector in a payment path plus a hard outage for every user whose opaque ID contains a quote."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D5 — Issue 3: the lookup interpolates request.params.userId into a raw SQL fragment.\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-GwcFZk on main, Section 3 Security & Threat Model for PLAN.md.\nELI10: The Database access section reads the Stripe metadata user_id straight into a SQL string. The plan's own contracts say this string arrives unchanged, unescaped, and can hold any punctuation or Unicode, and that a valid Stripe signature does not make it SQL-safe. Two things go wrong. First, a legitimate user ID containing a quote or semicolon breaks the query, the DB raises, the ingress returns 500, and Stripe retries that user's payment for three days while the alert stays lit. Second, anyone who influences metadata.user_id on an intent bound to their own account gets a SQL injection primitive against the users table. Likelihood: High (opaque TEXT IDs make quotes routine). Impact: High (data exposure or corruption, payment stuck).\nStakes if we pick wrong: a payments handler with an injection vector and a guaranteed outage for any user whose ID contains a quote.\nRecommendation: 3A because a bound parameter removes the injection class entirely and honors the contract that every nonempty string is a valid ID with no format restriction (security is not optional; explicit over clever).\nCompleteness: 3A=10/10, 3B=5/10, 3C=1/10\nNet: 3A fixes the root cause in the one query; 3B patches symptoms with escaping that still leaks on encoding edge cases; 3C ships the vulnerability. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-finding-raw-sql>": "3A: Bound parameter, no format validation (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T06:45:26.149Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "2eaeb211-e535-46d3-9a51-4f41bc42061d",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01KN76Yk1j8owHKo7cJWv2AM",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D6 — Issue 4: no automated tests are planned for a new payment handler.\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-GwcFZk on main, Section 6 Test Review for PLAN.md.\nELI10: The Tests section says none are planned and the existing integration suite will catch regressions. But the plan's own contract section admits the staging replay is manual deployment verification, not automated regression coverage, and the existing suite cannot exercise a class that does not exist yet. Every remedy approved so far (dispatcher registration, commit-then-notify with named rescues, bound parameters, the batched order read) has a behavior that is only proven by a test. Without them the first proof that a quote-containing user ID works is a production Stripe retry storm.\nStakes if we pick wrong: regressions in the money path are found by customers and on-call instead of CI.\nRecommendation: 4A because well-tested code is non-negotiable and each approved remedy already defines its assertion; writing them costs minutes with CC.\nCompleteness: 4A=10/10, 4B=6/10, 4C=1/10\nNet: 4A proves every approved behavior in CI; 4B proves the happy path only; 4C keeps the manual checklist as the sole safety net. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-finding-no-tests>",
"header": "Tests",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "4A: Full unit + integration suite (recommended)",
"description": "Human ~1 day / CC ~20min. ✅ Unit: happy path sets payment_status=paid and intent ID and sends one email; user IDs with `'`, `;--`, Unicode resolve; unknown user takes the 200 guard path with no update or email; each named mail exception is rescued, logged with event and user ID, and the handler returns normally; DB exception propagates; orders load in exactly one query (query-count assertion); email idempotency key equals the event ID. ✅ Integration: signed fixture event through the ingress proves the handler is reached only via WebhookDispatcher under the flag; a duplicate event ID is dropped with no second update or email; a concurrent duplicate blocked on the per-user lock rechecks the marker and skips. ❌ Roughly 12 to 15 test cases to write and keep green."
},
{
"label": "4B: Happy-path unit tests only",
"description": "Human ~2h / CC ~5min. ✅ Proves the update and email fire on a valid event. ✅ Small suite, quick to write. ❌ Leaves the injection fix, the rescue paths and the dedup registration unproven; those are exactly the behaviors that failed in the draft."
},
{
"label": "4C: No tests, rely on manual staging replay (as written)",
"description": "Human 0 / CC 0. ✅ Nothing to write. ✅ The rollout checklist still runs once before broad enable. ❌ Contradicts the contract that the checklist is not regression coverage; every later change to the handler ships blind."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D6 — Issue 4: no automated tests are planned for a new payment handler.\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-GwcFZk on main, Section 6 Test Review for PLAN.md.\nELI10: The Tests section says none are planned and the existing integration suite will catch regressions. But the plan's own contract section admits the staging replay is manual deployment verification, not automated regression coverage, and the existing suite cannot exercise a class that does not exist yet. Every remedy approved so far (dispatcher registration, commit-then-notify with named rescues, bound parameters, the batched order read) has a behavior that is only proven by a test. Without them the first proof that a quote-containing user ID works is a production Stripe retry storm.\nStakes if we pick wrong: regressions in the money path are found by customers and on-call instead of CI.\nRecommendation: 4A because well-tested code is non-negotiable and each approved remedy already defines its assertion; writing them costs minutes with CC.\nCompleteness: 4A=10/10, 4B=6/10, 4C=1/10\nNet: 4A proves every approved behavior in CI; 4B proves the happy path only; 4C keeps the manual checklist as the sole safety net. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-finding-no-tests>": "4A: Full unit + integration suite (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T06:45:52.304Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "2eaeb211-e535-46d3-9a51-4f41bc42061d",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01EmXPYA1TtkW9PFC3KnscWU",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D7 — Issue 5: the handler fetches each order in a loop (N+1) inside the webhook request.\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-GwcFZk on main, Section 7 Performance Review for PLAN.md.\nELI10: You confirmed in D3 that the orders feed the receipt email. The plan reads them one query per order, all while holding the per-user lock and inside Stripe's 10 second response window. A user with 200 orders means 201 queries per webhook; under 10x traffic that is connection-pool pressure and slow webhooks, and a slow webhook turns into Stripe retries that the dedup guard must absorb. One query scoped by user ID returns the same rows.\nStakes if we pick wrong: webhook latency scales with a user's order history, and busy users become the ones whose payments time out.\nRecommendation: 5A because a single indexed read is the smallest change that makes latency flat per webhook and it is directly testable with a query-count assertion (engineered enough, observability included).\nCompleteness: 5A=10/10, 5B=6/10, 5C=2/10\nNet: 5A makes the read O(1) queries with a bounded payload; 5B fixes the query count but not the payload; 5C leaves latency tied to order history. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-finding-n-plus-one>",
"header": "N+1 orders",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "5A: Single query, index check, receipt cap (recommended)",
"description": "Human ~2h / CC ~10min. ✅ Replace the loop with one `orders WHERE user_id = ?` read (bound parameter, same rule as 3A) selecting only the columns the receipt template uses; verify or add the `orders.user_id` index in the same change. ✅ Cap the receipt at the N most recent orders with a 'view all' line so the email body and query payload stay bounded; log the query duration through the existing DB client trace. ✅ Verified by a query-count assertion (exactly one orders query) and a test with more than N orders producing a capped receipt. ❌ Needs the receipt template to accept a truncated list."
},
{
"label": "5B: Preload orders, no cap",
"description": "Human ~1h / CC ~5min. ✅ One query instead of N with an ORM preload. ✅ No template change. ❌ A user with thousands of orders still produces a huge query payload and email body inside the 10 second window."
},
{
"label": "5C: Keep the loop (as written)",
"description": "Human 0 / CC 0. ✅ Nothing to change. ✅ Simple to read. ❌ Query count and latency scale with order history under the per-user lock; retries and pool pressure at 10x load."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D7 — Issue 5: the handler fetches each order in a loop (N+1) inside the webhook request.\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-GwcFZk on main, Section 7 Performance Review for PLAN.md.\nELI10: You confirmed in D3 that the orders feed the receipt email. The plan reads them one query per order, all while holding the per-user lock and inside Stripe's 10 second response window. A user with 200 orders means 201 queries per webhook; under 10x traffic that is connection-pool pressure and slow webhooks, and a slow webhook turns into Stripe retries that the dedup guard must absorb. One query scoped by user ID returns the same rows.\nStakes if we pick wrong: webhook latency scales with a user's order history, and busy users become the ones whose payments time out.\nRecommendation: 5A because a single indexed read is the smallest change that makes latency flat per webhook and it is directly testable with a query-count assertion (engineered enough, observability included).\nCompleteness: 5A=10/10, 5B=6/10, 5C=2/10\nNet: 5A makes the read O(1) queries with a bounded payload; 5B fixes the query count but not the payload; 5C leaves latency tied to order history. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-finding-n-plus-one>": "5A: Single query, index check, receipt cap (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T06:46:12.434Z"
}
]
}
test/fixtures/ceo-onboarding-packet-90f.json
Vendored
-60
View File
@@ -1,60 +0,0 @@
{
"source": "90f099817ac7e56cddafbd6fdac4c12dfd70f4a4",
"cliVersion": "2.1.251",
"originalOutcome": {
"outcome": "error",
"reviewCount": 0,
"step0Count": 0,
"error": "Invalid or duplicated completed native decision"
},
"provenance": {
"case": "plan-ceo-finding-count:paired",
"attempt": "plan-ceo-review-1789487819364-A9tWfs",
"publicCaptureSha256": "77dab72421f48dbea2d459b9ed27eb64e9289b327f69f4e01dc68f8b8b439eee",
"scope": "One complete acknowledged onboarding call only; no report existed or was required before setup."
},
"call": {
"sessionId": "d85796d3-a8b8-463c-8cb7-a60d806874d6",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01G57fBV3scjjCCf9xcCDcss",
"questions": [
{
"header": "Routing",
"question": "D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-3VUDV3 on main, CEO review of the payment test-coverage plan.\nELI10: gstack skills work best when CLAUDE.md tells Claude which skill to reach for (bugs → /investigate, strategy → /plan-ceo-review, and so on). Without it you invoke each skill by hand. Note: plan mode is active, so if you pick A the append and commit happen after this review exits plan mode, not now.\nStakes if we pick wrong: mild either way; A means a small committed CLAUDE.md change, B means you type skill names yourself.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules are cheap and make later reviews one line to trigger.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: a one-time 15-line addition to CLAUDE.md versus manual skill invocation.",
"options": [
{
"label": "Add routing rules (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Skills auto-route from plain requests, no memorizing slash names\n✅ Teammates get the same routing from the committed file\n❌ Adds a commit touching CLAUDE.md in a fixture repo you may not own"
},
{
"label": "No thanks, manual",
"description": "✅ CLAUDE.md stays exactly as checked in, zero repo churn\n✅ Re-enable any time with gstack-config set routing_declined false\n❌ Every future skill needs its explicit /name typed"
}
],
"multiSelect": false
},
{
"header": "Learnings",
"question": "D2 — Let gstack search learnings from your other projects on this machine?\nProject/branch/task: same repo and review.\nELI10: gstack records small lessons per project (command quirks, pitfalls). Cross-project mode lets this review also read lessons from your other repos on this machine. Nothing leaves the machine. Good for solo devs; skip if you juggle multiple client codebases where mixing is a concern.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A on a multi-client machine could surface one client's quirks in another's review; B on a solo machine just means slower compounding.\nRecommendation: A because this is a local-only read and there are zero learnings recorded yet, so risk is nil today.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: broader local recall versus strict per-project isolation.",
"options": [
{
"label": "Enable cross-project (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Past fixes from sibling repos surface as 'Prior learning applied' hints\n✅ Stays on this machine; a local config flag, flip back any time\n❌ Client-work isolation is weaker if you mix codebases on one box"
},
{
"label": "Project-scoped only",
"description": "✅ Hard wall between projects; nothing crosses repos\n✅ Safest default for consulting or multi-tenant machines\n❌ Learnings compound slower since each repo starts cold"
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-3VUDV3 on main, CEO review of the payment test-coverage plan.\nELI10: gstack skills work best when CLAUDE.md tells Claude which skill to reach for (bugs → /investigate, strategy → /plan-ceo-review, and so on). Without it you invoke each skill by hand. Note: plan mode is active, so if you pick A the append and commit happen after this review exits plan mode, not now.\nStakes if we pick wrong: mild either way; A means a small committed CLAUDE.md change, B means you type skill names yourself.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules are cheap and make later reviews one line to trigger.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: a one-time 15-line addition to CLAUDE.md versus manual skill invocation.": "Add routing rules (recommended)",
"D2 — Let gstack search learnings from your other projects on this machine?\nProject/branch/task: same repo and review.\nELI10: gstack records small lessons per project (command quirks, pitfalls). Cross-project mode lets this review also read lessons from your other repos on this machine. Nothing leaves the machine. Good for solo devs; skip if you juggle multiple client codebases where mixing is a concern.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A on a multi-client machine could surface one client's quirks in another's review; B on a solo machine just means slower compounding.\nRecommendation: A because this is a local-only read and there are zero learnings recorded yet, so risk is nil today.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: broader local recall versus strict per-project isolation.": "Enable cross-project (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T15:58:13.529Z"
}
}
test/fixtures/ceo-option-metadata-list-6f6730f4.json
Vendored
-39
View File
@@ -1,39 +0,0 @@
{
"sourceCommit": "6f6730f478e20235b3266d56253d097d02dcdf46",
"originalOutcome": "paired callback failed on configured attempt 2: Unsupported current CEO decision before reviewCount increment",
"capture": "Complete public native question, successful answer and report reconstructed from acknowledged Write/Edit operations before this question; no hidden reasoning retained.",
"reportSha256": "6b6c061ee6e829614754379f5e7415bc7aa5d2ab656204adc30832643b9edca0",
"call": {
"sessionId": "6357a819-aaf3-4b9b-a5f2-11c9332352e0",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01VHUeZQQTEfmqKkjjpz6Dn8",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 — R1: How much of the success-receipt contract should Test 1 assert?\nProject/branch/task: main, HOLD SCOPE review of the processPayment test-coverage plan.\nELI10: The plan writes down the exact receipt a 1000-cent USD charge should produce, then the test only checks that \"something came back\". That test passes even if the amount is wrong, the currency is wrong, or the receipt is an empty object. This is a repair to meet the plan's own stated contract, not new scope: same test, same file, one stronger assertion line.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a refactor of receipt building ships wrong amounts or ids to users while the suite stays green.\nRecommendation: A because the plan already spells out the exact expected object; asserting it is one line and pins all three fields.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=3/10\nNet: trading a one-line stronger assertion (and one shape check by the implementer) against a test that cannot fail when the contract breaks.",
"header": "R1 Test 1",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Full receipt equality (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Pins chargeId, amountCents and currency in one assertion using the object PLAN.md already lists. ✅ Fails on the costliest regression: cents/dollars amount conversion errors. ❌ Implementer must confirm the receipt has no extra fields, or use toMatchObject on the three listed fields."
},
{
"label": "B) chargeId only",
"description": "✅ Proves a real mapped receipt came back, not just a truthy value. ✅ Immune to extra-field drift on the receipt object. ❌ Leaves amountCents and currency unguarded; an amount bug passes this test."
},
{
"label": "C) Keep truthy-only as submitted",
"description": "✅ Smallest possible diff, zero chance of a shape-related flake. ✅ Matches the plan text exactly as written. ❌ Does not test contract C1 at all; passes for an empty object and contradicts the plan's stated purpose."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 — R1: How much of the success-receipt contract should Test 1 assert?\nProject/branch/task: main, HOLD SCOPE review of the processPayment test-coverage plan.\nELI10: The plan writes down the exact receipt a 1000-cent USD charge should produce, then the test only checks that \"something came back\". That test passes even if the amount is wrong, the currency is wrong, or the receipt is an empty object. This is a repair to meet the plan's own stated contract, not new scope: same test, same file, one stronger assertion line.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a refactor of receipt building ships wrong amounts or ids to users while the suite stays green.\nRecommendation: A because the plan already spells out the exact expected object; asserting it is one line and pins all three fields.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=3/10\nNet: trading a one-line stronger assertion (and one shape check by the implementer) against a test that cannot fail when the contract breaks.": "A) Full receipt equality (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T15:12:25.264Z"
},
"savedPlan": "# Plan: Payment Processing — Test Coverage (CEO review working plan)\n\nReviewed by /plan-ceo-review in HOLD SCOPE mode on 2026-09-15. Branch: main.\nSource plan: PLAN.md in this repo. Review target is the plan, not the skill checkout.\n\n## Context\n\nprocessPayment() already implements two contracts (receipt shape on success,\nretry-then-PaymentUnavailable on repeated 502). Neither has a direct unit test\nin the processPayment suite. This plan adds those two tests using the existing\nfactory, Stripe mock and virtual sleeper. Production code is unchanged.\n\n## Existing coverage and test infrastructure retained (from PLAN.md)\n\n- Unit tests only; processPayment() production behavior stays as-is.\n- Stripe adapter suite covers network timeouts, card declines (402), rate\n limits (429), and 502-then-success recovery.\n- Receipt-builder failure behavior has its own passing regression tests.\n- Payment test factory configures max_retries=1 and exposes Stripe mock call\n history. Injected virtual sleeper records backoff without real delays, so an\n exhausted 502 operation makes exactly two charge attempts.\n- These helpers and suites remain in use.\n\nReview note: none of these files are in this checkout (repo holds only\nPLAN.md and CLAUDE.md). Claims above are carried as stated, unverified.\n\n## Existing behavior retained (from PLAN.md) — the contracts under test\n\nC1. Successful charge returns a receipt with chargeId copied from Stripe,\n amountCents equal to the requested integer amount, currency equal to the\n requested currency. For 1000-cent USD with Stripe id ch_paid:\n `{ chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }`.\nC2. On repeated 502, max_retries=1 means two total charge attempts separated\n by one recorded 100 ms backoff, then PaymentUnavailable.\n\n## Proposed tests (as submitted in PLAN.md — under review)\n\nTwo tests in the existing processPayment suite, using its current factory,\nStripe mock and virtual sleeper. Other tests and production code unchanged.\n\n1. Successful charge: Stripe mock returns id ch_paid; call processPayment with\n amountCents=1000, currency=USD; assert only that the receipt is truthy.\n Plan text: \"This is the complete planned assertion.\"\n2. Repeated 502: two consecutive Stripe 502 responses; call processPayment;\n assert only that it rejects with PaymentUnavailable. Plan text: no\n assertion on mock call history or sleeper record.\n\n---\n\n# Step 0 — Scope challenge (HOLD SCOPE)\n\n## 0A. Premise Challenge\n\n1. Right problem? Yes: pinning already-shipped payment contracts with direct\n unit tests is the right, cheap move. Receipt mapping and retry exhaustion\n are the two places a refactor of processPayment silently breaks money\n handling.\n2. Outcome vs proxy: the stated outcome is \"unit coverage of C1 and C2\". The\n submitted assertions measure a proxy: \"processPayment resolves to\n something\" and \"processPayment rejects with the right class\". Neither\n test fails if C1 or C2 regress:\n - Test 1 passes for `{}`, for `amountCents: 100000`, for `currency: \"usd\"`,\n for `chargeId: undefined`. Truthy is not a receipt contract.\n - Test 2 passes if the code never retries (one attempt), retries five\n times, or skips the backoff entirely. The factory already exposes the\n exact two instruments (call history, sleeper record) that would catch\n this, and the plan opts out of using them.\n Internal contradiction: section \"Existing behavior retained\" says \"this\n plan adds their unit coverage\"; section \"Proposed tests\" adds coverage of\n neither contract. Coverage-line metrics would go up while the contracts\n stay unguarded (proxy metric, not user outcome).\n3. Do nothing: the contracts stay implemented and untested at the\n processPayment layer. Pain is real but latent; it surfaces on the next\n refactor of receipt building or retry loop, in production, as wrong\n amounts or a hung/duplicated charge path.\n\n## 0B. Existing Code Leverage\n\n| Sub-problem | Existing code (per plan) | Reused? |\n|---|---|---|\n| Build processPayment under test with max_retries=1 | payment test factory | Yes |\n| Script Stripe responses (ch_paid, 502, 502) | Stripe mock | Yes |\n| Observe attempt count | factory-exposed mock call history | Available, unused by plan |\n| Observe backoff without wall-clock delay | injected virtual sleeper record | Available, unused by plan |\n| 502-then-success recovery | Stripe adapter suite | Already covered, not duplicated |\n| Receipt-builder failure paths | receipt-builder regression tests | Already covered, not duplicated |\n\nNothing is rebuilt. The gap is that two available instruments go unused.\n\n## 0C. Dream State Mapping\n\n```\n CURRENT STATE THIS PLAN 12-MONTH IDEAL\n C1, C2 implemented, ---> +2 tests that exist ---> Every stated payment contract\n untested Line truncated
}
test/fixtures/ceo-parenthesized-issue-ah.json
Vendored
-293
View File
@@ -1,293 +0,0 @@
{
"sourceHead": "c9e7a422be47b69d855f48cfce9024457e0dd4fc",
"sourceSnapshot": {
"path": ".context/ship-source-ah-delta-paid-20260910-v1/ceo-first-finding-checkpoint-ledger-v1/public-snapshots.json",
"sha256": "b60ad4921c649276c52d8f09caf45178d91d028b56560e49610165faede4eed9"
},
"sessionId": "d87d468e-9058-4a52-8dc8-f7d4246dc13a",
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-zcm490/tmp/gstack-plan-count-q8859d",
"publicEvents": [
{
"line": 107,
"record": {
"type": "assistant",
"sessionId": "d87d468e-9058-4a52-8dc8-f7d4246dc13a",
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-zcm490/tmp/gstack-plan-count-q8859d",
"isSidechain": false,
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T03:17:25.755Z",
"message": {
"role": "assistant",
"content": [
{
"type": "tool_use",
"id": "toolu_01M2hWu9BLPXb7e1wjfF23L5",
"name": "AskUserQuestion",
"input": {
"questions": [
{
"header": "Email leg",
"question": "D4 (Issue 1) \u2014 What should the handler do when the notification email fails after the payment update commits?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-q8859d on main, PLAN.md \"Webhook fan-out\": update + email inline, no error handling on the email leg.\nELI10: The database write says \"this user paid\" and commits. Then the email call throws. Today that exception turns into a 500, which tells Stripe \"try again\". But the payment is already saved, so the retry either gets swallowed by the dedup guard (no email ever goes out) or re-runs the handler and can send a second email. Stripe's failed-webhook alert fires for a payment that actually succeeded, which the runbook says must never trigger a blind replay.\nStakes if we pick wrong: paid users get zero or two receipts, on-call gets paged for successful payments, and a permanently rejected address retries for 72 hours.\nRecommendation: 1A because it is the only option where a committed payment returns 200 and the failure is still fully visible through the mail client's existing metric, alert and runbook. Maps to your preference: every error has a name, zero silent failures.\nCompleteness: 1A=9/10, 1B=4/10, 1C=2/10\nPros / cons:\n1A) Order: commit update -> record dedup completion -> send email. Rescue only the mail client's named classes (MailDeliveryError, MailTimeoutError, MailRejectedError). Log at error with event ID, user ID, payment intent ID, exception class. Return 200. If the existing notification retry procedure has a programmatic entry point, call it in the rescue; otherwise the logged correlation feeds the runbook. Tests: one per rescued class asserting 200, update persisted, error log emitted; one asserting DB errors still propagate as 500. (recommended) (human ~3h / CC ~15 min)\n \u2705 Committed payments never report failure to Stripe, so no false retries or alert noise\n \u2705 Named rescues only; DB failures keep their retry-via-500 contract untouched\n \u2705 Failure remains visible via the mail client's failure-rate metric, alert, and correlated trace\n \u274c Adds a rescue block and ordering rule the implementer must get right; needs the tests listed\n1B) Keep no rescue, but move the email after commit and dedup record so a retry cannot double-send (human ~30 min / CC ~5 min)\n \u2705 Tiny change; no new rescue code in the handler\n \u2705 Double email is prevented because the retry hits the dedup guard\n \u274c A mail failure still returns 500 and pages on-call for a successful payment; the retry acks 200 and the notification is silently never sent\n1C) Do nothing; keep the plan as written (human 0 / CC 0)\n \u2705 No implementation work\n \u2705 Behavior is at least consistent with the prior handler if it did the same\n \u274c Ordering is unspecified, so a mail outage can either roll back a real payment or send duplicate emails, and every mail failure looks like a webhook failure\nNet: a rescue with a name and a 200, versus letting Stripe retry a payment that already committed. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-email-leg-rescue>",
"options": [
{
"label": "1A) Named rescue, 200, log+trace (recommended)",
"description": "Completeness 9/10. Commit -> dedup record -> email; rescue only mail classes; log correlated; return 200; tests per class."
},
{
"label": "1B) Reorder only, no rescue",
"description": "Completeness 4/10. Email after commit + dedup record; failures still 500 and page on-call."
},
{
"label": "1C) Do nothing",
"description": "Completeness 2/10. Keep inline email with no rescue and unspecified ordering."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
]
},
"caller": {
"type": "direct"
}
}
]
}
}
},
{
"line": 108,
"record": {
"type": "user",
"sessionId": "d87d468e-9058-4a52-8dc8-f7d4246dc13a",
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-zcm490/tmp/gstack-plan-count-q8859d",
"isSidechain": false,
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T03:17:27.593Z",
"message": {
"role": "user",
"content": [
{
"type": "tool_result",
"content": "Your questions have been answered: \"D4 (Issue 1) \u2014 What should the handler do when the notification email fails after the payment update commits?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-q8859d on main, PLAN.md \"Webhook fan-out\": update + email inline, no error handling on the email leg.\nELI10: The database write says \"this user paid\" and commits. Then the email call throws. Today that exception turns into a 500, which tells Stripe \"try again\". But the payment is already saved, so the retry either gets swallowed by the dedup guard (no email ever goes out) or re-runs the handler and can send a second email. Stripe's failed-webhook alert fires for a payment that actually succeeded, which the runbook says must never trigger a blind replay.\nStakes if we pick wrong: paid users get zero or two receipts, on-call gets paged for successful payments, and a permanently rejected address retries for 72 hours.\nRecommendation: 1A because it is the only option where a committed payment returns 200 and the failure is still fully visible through the mail client's existing metric, alert and runbook. Maps to your preference: every error has a name, zero silent failures.\nCompleteness: 1A=9/10, 1B=4/10, 1C=2/10\nPros / cons:\n1A) Order: commit update -> record dedup completion -> send email. Rescue only the mail client's named classes (MailDeliveryError, MailTimeoutError, MailRejectedError). Log at error with event ID, user ID, payment intent ID, exception class. Return 200. If the existing notification retry procedure has a programmatic entry point, call it in the rescue; otherwise the logged correlation feeds the runbook. Tests: one per rescued class asserting 200, update persisted, error log emitted; one asserting DB errors still propagate as 500. (recommended) (human ~3h / CC ~15 min)\n \u2705 Committed payments never report failure to Stripe, so no false retries or alert noise\n \u2705 Named rescues only; DB failures keep their retry-via-500 contract untouched\n \u2705 Failure remains visible via the mail client's failure-rate metric, alert, and correlated trace\n \u274c Adds a rescue block and ordering rule the implementer must get right; needs the tests listed\n1B) Keep no rescue, but move the email after commit and dedup record so a retry cannot double-send (human ~30 min / CC ~5 min)\n \u2705 Tiny change; no new rescue code in the handler\n \u2705 Double email is prevented because the retry hits the dedup guard\n \u274c A mail failure still returns 500 and pages on-call for a successful payment; the retry acks 200 and the notification is silently never sent\n1C) Do nothing; keep the plan as written (human 0 / CC 0)\n \u2705 No implementation work\n \u2705 Behavior is at least consistent with the prior handler if it did the same\n \u274c Ordering is unspecified, so a mail outage can either roll back a real payment or send duplicate emails, and every mail failure looks like a webhook failure\nNet: a rescue with a name and a 200, versus letting Stripe retry a payment that already committed. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-email-leg-rescue>\"=\"1A) Named rescue, 200, log+trace (recommended)\". You can now continue with these answers in mind.",
"tool_use_id": "toolu_01M2hWu9BLPXb7e1wjfF23L5"
}
]
}
}
},
{
"line": 122,
"record": {
"type": "assistant",
"sessionId": "d87d468e-9058-4a52-8dc8-f7d4246dc13a",
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-zcm490/tmp/gstack-plan-count-q8859d",
"isSidechain": false,
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T03:18:20.407Z",
"message": {
"role": "assistant",
"content": [
{
"type": "tool_use",
"id": "toolu_019pkzdAQt72RfCswrXXvvyc",
"name": "AskUserQuestion",
"input": {
"questions": [
{
"header": "SQL lookup",
"question": "D5 (Issue 2) \u2014 How should the handler look up the user from `request.params.userId`?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-q8859d on main, PLAN.md \"Database access\": userId read directly into a raw SQL fragment.\nELI10: `userId` is a string copied out of Stripe metadata. Our own server usually writes it, but the plan itself says nothing casts, escapes or validates it, and a valid Stripe signature only proves Stripe sent it, not that the string is safe. Pasting it into SQL means anyone who can set that metadata (a leaked API key, a dashboard edit, a bug in intent creation) can run their own SQL against the users table. Separately, a garbage string that fails the ID column's type cast raises a database error, which becomes a 500, which makes Stripe retry an unfixable event for three days.\nStakes if we pick wrong: data exfiltration or destruction through the payment path, plus 72 hours of retries and alerts for one malformed event.\nRecommendation: 2A because it closes injection completely and gives a malformed ID the same 200-and-warn treatment the adapter already gives a missing one. Maps to your preferences: security is not optional, explicit over clever, DRY (reuse the existing lookup helper).\nCompleteness: 2A=10/10, 2B=6/10, 2C=0/10\nPros / cons:\n2A) Validate then bind: parse userId to the users primary-key type (integer or UUID, whichever the schema uses; reject anything else including oversized or unicode strings). On parse failure log a warning with event ID and the rejected value length (not the value), ack 200 (retry cannot fix it). On success call the existing lookup helper, which uses a bound parameter; never build SQL text from the value. Tests: injection payload never reaches the DB and returns 200 + warning; wrong-type string returns 200 + warning; valid ID hits the existing lookup guard paths. (recommended) (human ~2h / CC ~10 min)\n \u2705 No SQL text is ever built from external input, so injection is impossible by construction\n \u2705 Malformed IDs return 200 with a correlated warning instead of 72h of retries\n \u2705 Reuses the existing lookup helper and its not-found guard; no duplicated query\n \u274c Needs the primary-key type confirmed and one small validation step with its tests\n2B) Bound parameter only, no shape validation (human ~1h / CC ~5 min)\n \u2705 Closes the injection vector with a single change to how the query is built\n \u2705 Reuses the existing lookup helper as-is\n \u274c A non-ID string still raises a type-cast DB error, which the wrapper turns into a 500 and Stripe retries for 72 hours; the log says \"DB failure\" not \"bad input\"\n2C) Keep the raw SQL fragment as written (human 0 / CC 0)\n \u2705 No work\n \u2705 Matches the sketch\n \u274c Live SQL injection on the payment path; the plan's own contract text says the input is unsanitized\nNet: reject bad input loudly and bind good input, versus trusting a string because Stripe signed the envelope. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-sql-lookup>",
"options": [
{
"label": "2A) Validate + bound lookup (recommended)",
"description": "Completeness 10/10. Parse to PK type, 200+warn on failure, existing helper with bound param, injection + type tests."
},
{
"label": "2B) Bound parameter only",
"description": "Completeness 6/10. Parameterize the query; malformed IDs still cause 500 and 72h retries."
},
{
"label": "2C) Keep raw SQL fragment",
"description": "Completeness 0/10. Plan as written; injection remains open."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
]
},
"caller": {
"type": "direct"
}
}
]
}
}
},
{
"line": 123,
"record": {
"type": "user",
"sessionId": "d87d468e-9058-4a52-8dc8-f7d4246dc13a",
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-zcm490/tmp/gstack-plan-count-q8859d",
"isSidechain": false,
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T03:18:21.399Z",
"message": {
"role": "user",
"content": [
{
"type": "tool_result",
"content": "Your questions have been answered: \"D5 (Issue 2) \u2014 How should the handler look up the user from `request.params.userId`?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-q8859d on main, PLAN.md \"Database access\": userId read directly into a raw SQL fragment.\nELI10: `userId` is a string copied out of Stripe metadata. Our own server usually writes it, but the plan itself says nothing casts, escapes or validates it, and a valid Stripe signature only proves Stripe sent it, not that the string is safe. Pasting it into SQL means anyone who can set that metadata (a leaked API key, a dashboard edit, a bug in intent creation) can run their own SQL against the users table. Separately, a garbage string that fails the ID column's type cast raises a database error, which becomes a 500, which makes Stripe retry an unfixable event for three days.\nStakes if we pick wrong: data exfiltration or destruction through the payment path, plus 72 hours of retries and alerts for one malformed event.\nRecommendation: 2A because it closes injection completely and gives a malformed ID the same 200-and-warn treatment the adapter already gives a missing one. Maps to your preferences: security is not optional, explicit over clever, DRY (reuse the existing lookup helper).\nCompleteness: 2A=10/10, 2B=6/10, 2C=0/10\nPros / cons:\n2A) Validate then bind: parse userId to the users primary-key type (integer or UUID, whichever the schema uses; reject anything else including oversized or unicode strings). On parse failure log a warning with event ID and the rejected value length (not the value), ack 200 (retry cannot fix it). On success call the existing lookup helper, which uses a bound parameter; never build SQL text from the value. Tests: injection payload never reaches the DB and returns 200 + warning; wrong-type string returns 200 + warning; valid ID hits the existing lookup guard paths. (recommended) (human ~2h / CC ~10 min)\n \u2705 No SQL text is ever built from external input, so injection is impossible by construction\n \u2705 Malformed IDs return 200 with a correlated warning instead of 72h of retries\n \u2705 Reuses the existing lookup helper and its not-found guard; no duplicated query\n \u274c Needs the primary-key type confirmed and one small validation step with its tests\n2B) Bound parameter only, no shape validation (human ~1h / CC ~5 min)\n \u2705 Closes the injection vector with a single change to how the query is built\n \u2705 Reuses the existing lookup helper as-is\n \u274c A non-ID string still raises a type-cast DB error, which the wrapper turns into a 500 and Stripe retries for 72 hours; the log says \"DB failure\" not \"bad input\"\n2C) Keep the raw SQL fragment as written (human 0 / CC 0)\n \u2705 No work\n \u2705 Matches the sketch\n \u274c Live SQL injection on the payment path; the plan's own contract text says the input is unsanitized\nNet: reject bad input loudly and bind good input, versus trusting a string because Stripe signed the envelope. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-sql-lookup>\"=\"2A) Validate + bound lookup (recommended)\". You can now continue with these answers in mind.",
"tool_use_id": "toolu_019pkzdAQt72RfCswrXXvvyc"
}
]
}
}
}
],
"calls": [
{
"sessionId": "d87d468e-9058-4a52-8dc8-f7d4246dc13a",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01M2hWu9BLPXb7e1wjfF23L5",
"questions": [
{
"header": "Email leg",
"question": "D4 (Issue 1) \u2014 What should the handler do when the notification email fails after the payment update commits?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-q8859d on main, PLAN.md \"Webhook fan-out\": update + email inline, no error handling on the email leg.\nELI10: The database write says \"this user paid\" and commits. Then the email call throws. Today that exception turns into a 500, which tells Stripe \"try again\". But the payment is already saved, so the retry either gets swallowed by the dedup guard (no email ever goes out) or re-runs the handler and can send a second email. Stripe's failed-webhook alert fires for a payment that actually succeeded, which the runbook says must never trigger a blind replay.\nStakes if we pick wrong: paid users get zero or two receipts, on-call gets paged for successful payments, and a permanently rejected address retries for 72 hours.\nRecommendation: 1A because it is the only option where a committed payment returns 200 and the failure is still fully visible through the mail client's existing metric, alert and runbook. Maps to your preference: every error has a name, zero silent failures.\nCompleteness: 1A=9/10, 1B=4/10, 1C=2/10\nPros / cons:\n1A) Order: commit update -> record dedup completion -> send email. Rescue only the mail client's named classes (MailDeliveryError, MailTimeoutError, MailRejectedError). Log at error with event ID, user ID, payment intent ID, exception class. Return 200. If the existing notification retry procedure has a programmatic entry point, call it in the rescue; otherwise the logged correlation feeds the runbook. Tests: one per rescued class asserting 200, update persisted, error log emitted; one asserting DB errors still propagate as 500. (recommended) (human ~3h / CC ~15 min)\n \u2705 Committed payments never report failure to Stripe, so no false retries or alert noise\n \u2705 Named rescues only; DB failures keep their retry-via-500 contract untouched\n \u2705 Failure remains visible via the mail client's failure-rate metric, alert, and correlated trace\n \u274c Adds a rescue block and ordering rule the implementer must get right; needs the tests listed\n1B) Keep no rescue, but move the email after commit and dedup record so a retry cannot double-send (human ~30 min / CC ~5 min)\n \u2705 Tiny change; no new rescue code in the handler\n \u2705 Double email is prevented because the retry hits the dedup guard\n \u274c A mail failure still returns 500 and pages on-call for a successful payment; the retry acks 200 and the notification is silently never sent\n1C) Do nothing; keep the plan as written (human 0 / CC 0)\n \u2705 No implementation work\n \u2705 Behavior is at least consistent with the prior handler if it did the same\n \u274c Ordering is unspecified, so a mail outage can either roll back a real payment or send duplicate emails, and every mail failure looks like a webhook failure\nNet: a rescue with a name and a 200, versus letting Stripe retry a payment that already committed. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-email-leg-rescue>",
"options": [
{
"label": "1A) Named rescue, 200, log+trace (recommended)",
"description": "Completeness 9/10. Commit -> dedup record -> email; rescue only mail classes; log correlated; return 200; tests per class."
},
{
"label": "1B) Reorder only, no rescue",
"description": "Completeness 4/10. Email after commit + dedup record; failures still 500 and page on-call."
},
{
"label": "1C) Do nothing",
"description": "Completeness 2/10. Keep inline email with no rescue and unspecified ordering."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D4 (Issue 1) \u2014 What should the handler do when the notification email fails after the payment update commits?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-q8859d on main, PLAN.md \"Webhook fan-out\": update + email inline, no error handling on the email leg.\nELI10: The database write says \"this user paid\" and commits. Then the email call throws. Today that exception turns into a 500, which tells Stripe \"try again\". But the payment is already saved, so the retry either gets swallowed by the dedup guard (no email ever goes out) or re-runs the handler and can send a second email. Stripe's failed-webhook alert fires for a payment that actually succeeded, which the runbook says must never trigger a blind replay.\nStakes if we pick wrong: paid users get zero or two receipts, on-call gets paged for successful payments, and a permanently rejected address retries for 72 hours.\nRecommendation: 1A because it is the only option where a committed payment returns 200 and the failure is still fully visible through the mail client's existing metric, alert and runbook. Maps to your preference: every error has a name, zero silent failures.\nCompleteness: 1A=9/10, 1B=4/10, 1C=2/10\nPros / cons:\n1A) Order: commit update -> record dedup completion -> send email. Rescue only the mail client's named classes (MailDeliveryError, MailTimeoutError, MailRejectedError). Log at error with event ID, user ID, payment intent ID, exception class. Return 200. If the existing notification retry procedure has a programmatic entry point, call it in the rescue; otherwise the logged correlation feeds the runbook. Tests: one per rescued class asserting 200, update persisted, error log emitted; one asserting DB errors still propagate as 500. (recommended) (human ~3h / CC ~15 min)\n \u2705 Committed payments never report failure to Stripe, so no false retries or alert noise\n \u2705 Named rescues only; DB failures keep their retry-via-500 contract untouched\n \u2705 Failure remains visible via the mail client's failure-rate metric, alert, and correlated trace\n \u274c Adds a rescue block and ordering rule the implementer must get right; needs the tests listed\n1B) Keep no rescue, but move the email after commit and dedup record so a retry cannot double-send (human ~30 min / CC ~5 min)\n \u2705 Tiny change; no new rescue code in the handler\n \u2705 Double email is prevented because the retry hits the dedup guard\n \u274c A mail failure still returns 500 and pages on-call for a successful payment; the retry acks 200 and the notification is silently never sent\n1C) Do nothing; keep the plan as written (human 0 / CC 0)\n \u2705 No implementation work\n \u2705 Behavior is at least consistent with the prior handler if it did the same\n \u274c Ordering is unspecified, so a mail outage can either roll back a real payment or send duplicate emails, and every mail failure looks like a webhook failure\nNet: a rescue with a name and a 200, versus letting Stripe retry a payment that already committed. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-email-leg-rescue>": "1A) Named rescue, 200, log+trace (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T03:17:27.593Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "d87d468e-9058-4a52-8dc8-f7d4246dc13a",
"toolUseId": "toolu_019pkzdAQt72RfCswrXXvvyc",
"questions": [
{
"header": "SQL lookup",
"question": "D5 (Issue 2) \u2014 How should the handler look up the user from `request.params.userId`?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-q8859d on main, PLAN.md \"Database access\": userId read directly into a raw SQL fragment.\nELI10: `userId` is a string copied out of Stripe metadata. Our own server usually writes it, but the plan itself says nothing casts, escapes or validates it, and a valid Stripe signature only proves Stripe sent it, not that the string is safe. Pasting it into SQL means anyone who can set that metadata (a leaked API key, a dashboard edit, a bug in intent creation) can run their own SQL against the users table. Separately, a garbage string that fails the ID column's type cast raises a database error, which becomes a 500, which makes Stripe retry an unfixable event for three days.\nStakes if we pick wrong: data exfiltration or destruction through the payment path, plus 72 hours of retries and alerts for one malformed event.\nRecommendation: 2A because it closes injection completely and gives a malformed ID the same 200-and-warn treatment the adapter already gives a missing one. Maps to your preferences: security is not optional, explicit over clever, DRY (reuse the existing lookup helper).\nCompleteness: 2A=10/10, 2B=6/10, 2C=0/10\nPros / cons:\n2A) Validate then bind: parse userId to the users primary-key type (integer or UUID, whichever the schema uses; reject anything else including oversized or unicode strings). On parse failure log a warning with event ID and the rejected value length (not the value), ack 200 (retry cannot fix it). On success call the existing lookup helper, which uses a bound parameter; never build SQL text from the value. Tests: injection payload never reaches the DB and returns 200 + warning; wrong-type string returns 200 + warning; valid ID hits the existing lookup guard paths. (recommended) (human ~2h / CC ~10 min)\n \u2705 No SQL text is ever built from external input, so injection is impossible by construction\n \u2705 Malformed IDs return 200 with a correlated warning instead of 72h of retries\n \u2705 Reuses the existing lookup helper and its not-found guard; no duplicated query\n \u274c Needs the primary-key type confirmed and one small validation step with its tests\n2B) Bound parameter only, no shape validation (human ~1h / CC ~5 min)\n \u2705 Closes the injection vector with a single change to how the query is built\n \u2705 Reuses the existing lookup helper as-is\n \u274c A non-ID string still raises a type-cast DB error, which the wrapper turns into a 500 and Stripe retries for 72 hours; the log says \"DB failure\" not \"bad input\"\n2C) Keep the raw SQL fragment as written (human 0 / CC 0)\n \u2705 No work\n \u2705 Matches the sketch\n \u274c Live SQL injection on the payment path; the plan's own contract text says the input is unsanitized\nNet: reject bad input loudly and bind good input, versus trusting a string because Stripe signed the envelope. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-sql-lookup>",
"options": [
{
"label": "2A) Validate + bound lookup (recommended)",
"description": "Completeness 10/10. Parse to PK type, 200+warn on failure, existing helper with bound param, injection + type tests."
},
{
"label": "2B) Bound parameter only",
"description": "Completeness 6/10. Parameterize the query; malformed IDs still cause 500 and 72h retries."
},
{
"label": "2C) Keep raw SQL fragment",
"description": "Completeness 0/10. Plan as written; injection remains open."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D5 (Issue 2) \u2014 How should the handler look up the user from `request.params.userId`?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-q8859d on main, PLAN.md \"Database access\": userId read directly into a raw SQL fragment.\nELI10: `userId` is a string copied out of Stripe metadata. Our own server usually writes it, but the plan itself says nothing casts, escapes or validates it, and a valid Stripe signature only proves Stripe sent it, not that the string is safe. Pasting it into SQL means anyone who can set that metadata (a leaked API key, a dashboard edit, a bug in intent creation) can run their own SQL against the users table. Separately, a garbage string that fails the ID column's type cast raises a database error, which becomes a 500, which makes Stripe retry an unfixable event for three days.\nStakes if we pick wrong: data exfiltration or destruction through the payment path, plus 72 hours of retries and alerts for one malformed event.\nRecommendation: 2A because it closes injection completely and gives a malformed ID the same 200-and-warn treatment the adapter already gives a missing one. Maps to your preferences: security is not optional, explicit over clever, DRY (reuse the existing lookup helper).\nCompleteness: 2A=10/10, 2B=6/10, 2C=0/10\nPros / cons:\n2A) Validate then bind: parse userId to the users primary-key type (integer or UUID, whichever the schema uses; reject anything else including oversized or unicode strings). On parse failure log a warning with event ID and the rejected value length (not the value), ack 200 (retry cannot fix it). On success call the existing lookup helper, which uses a bound parameter; never build SQL text from the value. Tests: injection payload never reaches the DB and returns 200 + warning; wrong-type string returns 200 + warning; valid ID hits the existing lookup guard paths. (recommended) (human ~2h / CC ~10 min)\n \u2705 No SQL text is ever built from external input, so injection is impossible by construction\n \u2705 Malformed IDs return 200 with a correlated warning instead of 72h of retries\n \u2705 Reuses the existing lookup helper and its not-found guard; no duplicated query\n \u274c Needs the primary-key type confirmed and one small validation step with its tests\n2B) Bound parameter only, no shape validation (human ~1h / CC ~5 min)\n \u2705 Closes the injection vector with a single change to how the query is built\n \u2705 Reuses the existing lookup helper as-is\n \u274c A non-ID string still raises a type-cast DB error, which the wrapper turns into a 500 and Stripe retries for 72 hours; the log says \"DB failure\" not \"bad input\"\n2C) Keep the raw SQL fragment as written (human 0 / CC 0)\n \u2705 No work\n \u2705 Matches the sketch\n \u274c Live SQL injection on the payment path; the plan's own contract text says the input is unsanitized\nNet: reject bad input loudly and bind good input, versus trusting a string because Stripe signed the envelope. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-sql-lookup>": "2A) Validate + bound lookup (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T03:18:21.399Z"
}
],
"setupCalls": [
{
"sessionId": "d87d468e-9058-4a52-8dc8-f7d4246dc13a",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01EY1KHHBh5ps97s9uSQP4h2",
"questions": [
{
"header": "Routing",
"question": "D1 \u2014 Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-q8859d on main, reviewing PLAN.md (Stripe payment webhook handler).\nELI10: gstack works best when CLAUDE.md tells the agent which skill to reach for (bugs \u2192 /investigate, scope \u2192 /plan-ceo-review, ship \u2192 /ship). Without it you invoke skills by hand every time. This is a one-time prompt per project.\nStakes if we pick wrong: nothing breaks either way; you just lose automatic skill routing or gain a CLAUDE.md section you did not want.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules are the documented default and cost one small append. Note: plan mode is active, so the CLAUDE.md edit and commit are deferred until this review exits plan mode.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Add routing rules (recommended)\n \u2705 Future sessions pick the right gstack skill without you naming it each time\n \u2705 One appended section, committed separately, easy to revert if unwanted\n \u274c Adds ~20 lines to CLAUDE.md that teammates will also see and may not want\nB) No thanks, invoke skills manually\n \u2705 CLAUDE.md stays exactly as the fixture seeded it, no repo change from setup\n \u2705 Re-enable later with one gstack-config command if you change your mind\n \u274c Every future skill run needs an explicit slash command from you\nNet: convenience later versus zero repo churn now.",
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Add routing rules (recommended)",
"description": "Append the routing section to CLAUDE.md and commit it after plan mode exits."
},
{
"label": "B) No thanks, manual",
"description": "Set routing_declined=true; re-enable any time via gstack-config."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
},
{
"header": "Learnings",
"question": "D2 \u2014 Let gstack search learnings from your other projects on this machine?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-q8859d on main, CEO plan review.\nELI10: gstack records small lessons per project. With cross-project search on, a lesson learned in another repo on this machine can inform this review. Nothing leaves the machine. Recommended for solo developers; skip if you work across client codebases where mixing context is a concern.\nStakes if we pick wrong: on by mistake means learnings from unrelated client work could surface here; off by mistake means you miss patterns you already learned elsewhere.\nRecommendation: A because this is a local-only lookup and the recorded default for solo work.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)\n \u2705 Past pitfalls from any project on this machine can surface as prior-learning notes\n \u2705 Stays local; a single config flag you can flip back off at any time\n \u274c Learnings from unrelated codebases may show up where they do not apply\nB) Keep learnings project-scoped\n \u2705 No cross-contamination between client or team codebases on this machine\n \u2705 Simplest privacy posture for shared or multi-client machines\n \u274c Each project starts cold and relearns the same pitfalls independently\nNet: shared memory across repos versus strict per-repo isolation.",
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Enable cross-project (recommended)",
"description": "gstack-config set cross_project_learnings true (local only)."
},
{
"label": "B) Project-scoped only",
"description": "gstack-config set cross_project_learnings false."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 \u2014 Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-q8859d on main, reviewing PLAN.md (Stripe payment webhook handler).\nELI10: gstack works best when CLAUDE.md tells the agent which skill to reach for (bugs \u2192 /investigate, scope \u2192 /plan-ceo-review, ship \u2192 /ship). Without it you invoke skills by hand every time. This is a one-time prompt per project.\nStakes if we pick wrong: nothing breaks either way; you just lose automatic skill routing or gain a CLAUDE.md section you did not want.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules are the documented default and cost one small append. Note: plan mode is active, so the CLAUDE.md edit and commit are deferred until this review exits plan mode.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Add routing rules (recommended)\n \u2705 Future sessions pick the right gstack skill without you naming it each time\n \u2705 One appended section, committed separately, easy to revert if unwanted\n \u274c Adds ~20 lines to CLAUDE.md that teammates will also see and may not want\nB) No thanks, invoke skills manually\n \u2705 CLAUDE.md stays exactly as the fixture seeded it, no repo change from setup\n \u2705 Re-enable later with one gstack-config command if you change your mind\n \u274c Every future skill run needs an explicit slash command from you\nNet: convenience later versus zero repo churn now.": "A) Add routing rules (recommended)",
"D2 \u2014 Let gstack search learnings from your other projects on this machine?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-q8859d on main, CEO plan review.\nELI10: gstack records small lessons per project. With cross-project search on, a lesson learned in another repo on this machine can inform this review. Nothing leaves the machine. Recommended for solo developers; skip if you work across client codebases where mixing context is a concern.\nStakes if we pick wrong: on by mistake means learnings from unrelated client work could surface here; off by mistake means you miss patterns you already learned elsewhere.\nRecommendation: A because this is a local-only lookup and the recorded default for solo work.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)\n \u2705 Past pitfalls from any project on this machine can surface as prior-learning notes\n \u2705 Stays local; a single config flag you can flip back off at any time\n \u274c Learnings from unrelated codebases may show up where they do not apply\nB) Keep learnings project-scoped\n \u2705 No cross-contamination between client or team codebases on this machine\n \u2705 Simplest privacy posture for shared or multi-client machines\n \u274c Each project starts cold and relearns the same pitfalls independently\nNet: shared memory across repos versus strict per-repo isolation.": "A) Enable cross-project (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T03:14:18.643Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "d87d468e-9058-4a52-8dc8-f7d4246dc13a",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01TopSkSasMW3J5dU3bKLTWz",
"questions": [
{
"header": "Approach",
"question": "D3 \u2014 Which implementation structure should the plan adopt for the Stripe payment handler?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-q8859d on main, PLAN.md Payment Processing Integration, HOLD SCOPE review.\nELI10: The plan says the new handler skips the existing WebhookDispatcher for a \"clean namespace\", yet also promises the existing dedup, per-user lock and unknown-user guards still protect it. Those guards sit on the dispatcher path. You can register the handler with the dispatcher (guards apply automatically), keep the bypass and re-wire each guard by hand, or ship the bypass as sketched.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a paid user could be processed twice, or reach an unguarded path where a Stripe retry re-runs the update and email with no dedup.\nRecommendation: B because the plan's retained contracts only hold if the handler sits behind the dispatcher, and it is a one-line registration.\nCompleteness: A=3/10, B=9/10, C=6/10\nPros / cons:\nA) Standalone handler, bypass dispatcher (plan as written) (human ~1 day / CC ~20 min)\n \u2705 Smallest diff and no edits to the shared dispatcher module at all\n \u2705 Handler file stands alone, easy to read in isolation\n \u274c Dedup, lock and lookup guards are claimed but nothing on this path applies them\nB) Register handler inside WebhookDispatcher (recommended) (human ~1.5 days / CC ~30 min)\n \u2705 Dedup, per-user lock, unknown-user ack and tracing apply by construction\n \u2705 One dispatch path; namespace separation comes from module layout, not a bypass\n \u274c Requires one registration change in the dispatcher and giving up the literal bypass\nC) Standalone handler with guards re-wired as explicit middleware (human ~2 days / CC ~45 min)\n \u2705 Keeps the bypass the plan asked for while making each guard visible\n \u2705 No change to the dispatcher module\n \u274c Two dispatch paths forever; every guard change must land twice or drifts silently\nNet: one shared pipeline versus a second pipeline you maintain by hand. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-approach>",
"options": [
{
"label": "B) Register in dispatcher (recommended)",
"description": "Completeness 9/10. Same class, registered for payment_intent.succeeded; reuse existing lookup helper."
},
{
"label": "A) Standalone bypass (as written)",
"description": "Completeness 3/10. Keep the plan's structure; guards must be re-verified for this path."
},
{
"label": "C) Standalone + explicit guards",
"description": "Completeness 6/10. Compose dedup, lock and lookup guards around the handler by hand."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D3 \u2014 Which implementation structure should the plan adopt for the Stripe payment handler?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-q8859d on main, PLAN.md Payment Processing Integration, HOLD SCOPE review.\nELI10: The plan says the new handler skips the existing WebhookDispatcher for a \"clean namespace\", yet also promises the existing dedup, per-user lock and unknown-user guards still protect it. Those guards sit on the dispatcher path. You can register the handler with the dispatcher (guards apply automatically), keep the bypass and re-wire each guard by hand, or ship the bypass as sketched.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a paid user could be processed twice, or reach an unguarded path where a Stripe retry re-runs the update and email with no dedup.\nRecommendation: B because the plan's retained contracts only hold if the handler sits behind the dispatcher, and it is a one-line registration.\nCompleteness: A=3/10, B=9/10, C=6/10\nPros / cons:\nA) Standalone handler, bypass dispatcher (plan as written) (human ~1 day / CC ~20 min)\n \u2705 Smallest diff and no edits to the shared dispatcher module at all\n \u2705 Handler file stands alone, easy to read in isolation\n \u274c Dedup, lock and lookup guards are claimed but nothing on this path applies them\nB) Register handler inside WebhookDispatcher (recommended) (human ~1.5 days / CC ~30 min)\n \u2705 Dedup, per-user lock, unknown-user ack and tracing apply by construction\n \u2705 One dispatch path; namespace separation comes from module layout, not a bypass\n \u274c Requires one registration change in the dispatcher and giving up the literal bypass\nC) Standalone handler with guards re-wired as explicit middleware (human ~2 days / CC ~45 min)\n \u2705 Keeps the bypass the plan asked for while making each guard visible\n \u2705 No change to the dispatcher module\n \u274c Two dispatch paths forever; every guard change must land twice or drifts silently\nNet: one shared pipeline versus a second pipeline you maintain by hand. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-approach>": "B) Register in dispatcher (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T03:15:39.519Z"
}
],
"observedFirstReviewClassifications": [
false,
false
],
"historicalOutcome": "no_review_questions",
"scope": "First completed distinct attempt; whole paid job and retry were still active when fixture authored."
}
test/fixtures/ceo-payment-ledger-decisions.json
Vendored
-316
View File
@@ -1,316 +0,0 @@
{
"sourceRevision": "d30620e8d16f19dcdcb2eefebc536de0decbf809",
"cli": "2.1.251",
"originalOutcome": {
"outcome": "no_review_questions",
"reviewCount": 0,
"step0Count": 8
},
"projectionSource": ".context/sep15-ceo-finding-phase-audit/projection-provenance.json",
"seed": "Please review this plan thoroughly in HOLD SCOPE mode. As you go, write your plan-mode plan to /owned/plan.md (use Edit/Write to that exact path).\nProceed directly to the requested CEO review; skip the optional /office-hours prerequisite.\nFinish after this CEO review; I will handle subsequent reviews manually.\n\n# Plan: Payment Processing Integration\n\n## Existing contracts retained\nThe approved motivation is to move payment orchestration out of the prior\nlibrary-adapter handler into application-owned code while retaining the\nexisting payment and receipt product behavior. The shared dispatcher remains\navailable; the proposed bypass below is still an architectural choice to review.\nThe existing ingress middleware verifies the Stripe signature against the\nraw request body and rejects invalid signatures before invoking handlers.\nThe existing ingress forwards only `payment_intent.succeeded` events to\nthis handler; other Stripe event types are acknowledged without invoking it.\nThe existing payload adapter exposes `event.data.object.metadata.user_id`\nas `request.params.userId`. This params object is the parsed body-data map,\nnot URL query/path parameters; all users share one webhook URL.\nThe adapter acknowledges missing, nil, or empty user_id metadata with\nHTTP 200 and an event-correlated warning before invoking this handler.\nFor every nonempty external string it performs no SQL-format validation.\nThe adapter forwards that external string unchanged. It does not cast,\nescape, or SQL-sanitize it; a valid signature does not make it safe for SQL.\nUser IDs are opaque TEXT values, including punctuation and Unicode. The\nlookup has no integer/UUID cast or ID-format restriction; every nonempty\nstring is a valid identifier representation.\nAn existing ingress ownership guard checks the PaymentIntent ID against\nits stored opaque user-ID binding before invoking the handler. A mismatch\nis acknowledged with HTTP 200 and an event-correlated warning. This is an\nidentity comparison, not SQL-format validation; the adapter still forwards\nthe original string unchanged.\nThe existing webhook event guard deduplicates deliveries by Stripe event ID,\nand an existing per-user lock serializes payment updates.\nThe event guard acquires the existing per-user lock before checking the\ncommitted completion marker, and rechecks after any lock wait. It holds\nthat lock through the handler and completion bookkeeping; an overlapping\ncompleted duplicate does not invoke the handler.\nThe new handler runs inside those unchanged guards; this plan does not\nreplace signature verification, event deduplication, or update locking.\nThe existing user update assigns payment_status=paid and the payment intent\nID; it does not increment a balance or counter. Repeating the same payment\nintent assigns the same values, independently of the event-ID guard.\nThe existing lookup-result guard acknowledges unknown/deleted users with\nHTTP 200, logs the event, and stops before user updates or email fan-out.\nThe retained recipient-policy helper treats a nil or empty email address as\nskipped_missing_address: payment processing continues normally, and no mail\nclient call is attempted. It persists an event/user/PaymentIntent-correlated\nskip record, emits a structured warning, and increments the existing counter.\nThe existing notification runbook already covers that skip result: correct\nthe account address, then retry only its recorded notification using the\nsame PaymentIntent idempotency key. It never replays the payment for this case.\nThat recipient policy does not catch failures from sends to nonempty addresses;\nthe shared mail client still rethrows those exceptions to this handler.\nAccount deletion uses the same per-user lock. The handler holds it from\nlookup through update and inline email, so deletion either precedes lookup\n(the existing unknown/deleted-user path) or follows the handler; it cannot\nremove the user between lookup and update.\nThe ingress wrapper already logs event IDs, outcomes, and durations, with\nalerts for failed webhook processing. Those controls remain in place.\nThe existing DB and mail clients attach the adapter user ID and event ID\nto outcome traces, including update success and email delivery success or\nfailure. These shared clients rethrow exceptions unchanged; tracing does\nnot rescue email errors or change the inline email call below.\nThe shared mail client also publishes its delivery failure rate to the\nexisting dashboard and tested on-call alert, including caught exceptions.\nThe existing incident runbook uses the correlated DB and mail outcomes to\ndistinguish committed payments from failed notifications. It directs on-call\nto check provider status and retry only the failed notification through the\nexisting notification retry procedure, never replay the payment blindly.\nDB lookup/update exceptions propagate to that ingress wrapper, which logs\nthe failure and returns HTTP 500Line truncated
"captures": [
{
"call": {
"sessionId": "1a2ec784-ed1b-488b-8d13-8ce2dfccc9b6",
"toolUseId": "toolu_017m5rG84NtR5Ah3rJ4ftnjX",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-g23bps on main, one-time gstack setup prompt before the CEO review starts.\nELI10: gstack skills work best when the project's CLAUDE.md tells the assistant which skill to reach for (bugs → /investigate, scope → /plan-ceo-review, and so on). Without it, you invoke skills by hand every time. This is a one-time prompt per project.\nStakes if we pick wrong: pick A and you get a small appended section in CLAUDE.md; pick B and you just type skill names yourself. Either is reversible.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules make future sessions pick the right skill without you remembering names.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNote: plan mode is active, so if you choose A the append + commit is deferred until after this review exits plan mode.\nNet: convenience for future sessions vs. one more block in CLAUDE.md.",
"header": "Routing",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Future requests auto-route to the right gstack skill without manual invocation. ✅ One committed section, visible to teammates, easy to edit or remove later. ❌ Adds ~15 lines to CLAUDE.md; write deferred until plan mode exits."
},
{
"label": "No thanks, I'll invoke skills manually",
"description": "✅ CLAUDE.md stays exactly as it is in this fixture repository. ✅ Full manual control over which skill runs and when. ❌ You must remember and type skill names yourself each session."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-g23bps on main, one-time gstack setup prompt before the CEO review starts.\nELI10: gstack skills work best when the project's CLAUDE.md tells the assistant which skill to reach for (bugs → /investigate, scope → /plan-ceo-review, and so on). Without it, you invoke skills by hand every time. This is a one-time prompt per project.\nStakes if we pick wrong: pick A and you get a small appended section in CLAUDE.md; pick B and you just type skill names yourself. Either is reversible.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules make future sessions pick the right skill without you remembering names.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNote: plan mode is active, so if you choose A the append + commit is deferred until after this review exits plan mode.\nNet: convenience for future sessions vs. one more block in CLAUDE.md.": "Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T08:24:48.560Z"
},
"savedPlan": null,
"sourceLine": 27,
"kind": "setup-or-backlog"
},
{
"call": {
"sessionId": "1a2ec784-ed1b-488b-8d13-8ce2dfccc9b6",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Lob9uzjrn2V58mg6fuYf5f",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D2 — Enable cross-project learnings search on this machine?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-g23bps on main, one-time gstack config before the review's Prior Learnings step.\nELI10: gstack records small lessons from past sessions (project quirks, pitfalls). It can search lessons from your other local projects too, to spot patterns that apply here. Everything stays on this machine; nothing is uploaded. Solo developers usually want this; consultants juggling client codebases usually don't.\nStakes if we pick wrong: enable it on a multi-client machine and a lesson from one client's repo could color advice on another's; disable it and each project learns from scratch.\nRecommendation: Enable because this is a local, read-only search and the fixture has zero learnings of its own to draw from.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: broader pattern matching vs. strict per-project isolation.",
"header": "Learnings",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Lessons from other local repos surface here, so recurring pitfalls get caught sooner. ✅ Local-only search; no data leaves this machine at any point. ❌ Client-codebase cross-contamination if you juggle unrelated employers or clients."
},
{
"label": "Keep learnings project-scoped only",
"description": "✅ Strict isolation: each project only sees its own recorded lessons. ✅ Safe default when working across multiple client codebases. ❌ This fixture has zero learnings, so the Prior Learnings step finds nothing."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D2 — Enable cross-project learnings search on this machine?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-g23bps on main, one-time gstack config before the review's Prior Learnings step.\nELI10: gstack records small lessons from past sessions (project quirks, pitfalls). It can search lessons from your other local projects too, to spot patterns that apply here. Everything stays on this machine; nothing is uploaded. Solo developers usually want this; consultants juggling client codebases usually don't.\nStakes if we pick wrong: enable it on a multi-client machine and a lesson from one client's repo could color advice on another's; disable it and each project learns from scratch.\nRecommendation: Enable because this is a local, read-only search and the fixture has zero learnings of its own to draw from.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: broader pattern matching vs. strict per-project isolation.": "Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T08:25:36.664Z"
},
"savedPlan": null,
"sourceLine": 44,
"kind": "setup-or-backlog"
},
{
"call": {
"sessionId": "1a2ec784-ed1b-488b-8d13-8ce2dfccc9b6",
"toolUseId": "toolu_014pDL5teMNwdEStX6HpLCb7",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D3 (ledger R1) — Should the new handler bypass `WebhookDispatcher` or register through it?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-g23bps on main, CEO review of the Stripe payment handler plan, HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: Today one module (the dispatcher) decides which code handles which Stripe event. The plan wants the new handler to skip that module and get its own front door, for a \"clean namespace\". But the namespace question is already settled: the class is `Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler` either way. What is actually being decided is whether Stripe events keep one routing table or grow a second one.\nStakes if we pick wrong: two routing paths means the feature flag is read in two places, the next event type has to re-decide, and a rollback that flips the flag can leave one path live. One path means editing the shared dispatcher file.\nRecommendation: A because the stated benefit (namespace) is already delivered by the class name, and a second routing path is pure maintenance cost.\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=6/10, C=7/10\nNet: one routing table plus a small dispatcher edit, versus zero shared-code edits plus a permanent second path.",
"header": "Wiring R1",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Register through WebhookDispatcher (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Single routing table; the flag chooses old vs new handler in one place, so rollback is one flip. ✅ The next Stripe event type follows the same path; no re-deciding. ❌ Requires touching the shared dispatcher file and confirming it accepts an app-owned class."
},
{
"label": "B) Bypass WebhookDispatcher (as planned)",
"description": "✅ No edits to shared dispatcher code; smallest diff to files other teams own. ✅ Handler can be wired and tested in isolation at the ingress. ❌ Two routing paths and duplicated flag logic to keep in sync forever."
},
{
"label": "C) Dispatcher plus adapter shim",
"description": "✅ Keeps the dispatcher while isolating any interface mismatch in one shim. ✅ Lets the handler interface evolve independently of dispatcher signatures. ❌ Third moving part with no demonstrated need; premature abstraction."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D3 (ledger R1) — Should the new handler bypass `WebhookDispatcher` or register through it?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-g23bps on main, CEO review of the Stripe payment handler plan, HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: Today one module (the dispatcher) decides which code handles which Stripe event. The plan wants the new handler to skip that module and get its own front door, for a \"clean namespace\". But the namespace question is already settled: the class is `Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler` either way. What is actually being decided is whether Stripe events keep one routing table or grow a second one.\nStakes if we pick wrong: two routing paths means the feature flag is read in two places, the next event type has to re-decide, and a rollback that flips the flag can leave one path live. One path means editing the shared dispatcher file.\nRecommendation: A because the stated benefit (namespace) is already delivered by the class name, and a second routing path is pure maintenance cost.\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=6/10, C=7/10\nNet: one routing table plus a small dispatcher edit, versus zero shared-code edits plus a permanent second path.": "A) Register through WebhookDispatcher (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T08:27:56.000Z"
},
"sourceLine": 88,
"kind": "seeded-remedy",
"savedPlan": "# Captured public ledger excerpts\n\n## Decision ledger\n\n| ID and owner | Contract and evidence | Current | Proposed | Status | Exact approval and scope |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| R1 Architecture (user) | PLAN.md L100-108: name settled; dispatcher reuse vs separate impl \"remains open\" | Bypass `WebhookDispatcher` with standalone class | see 0D | unresolved | |\n| R2 DB lookup (user) | PLAN.md L21-26, L110-112: adapter forwards raw TEXT unchanged, no sanitization | Raw SQL fragment from `request.params.userId` | see 0D | unresolved | |\n| R3 Email leg (user) | PLAN.md L52-53, L60-73, L85-97, L114-116: mail client rethrows; ingress returns 500 on exception | Inline send, exception propagates to ingress | see 0D | unresolved | |\n| R4 Tests (user) | PLAN.md L76-80, L118-119: manual staging replay only | No automated tests | see 0D | unresolved | |\n| R5 Order loading (user) | PLAN.md L81-84, L92-95, L121-123: 2s DB budget; loop is data loading | Per-order fetch loop | see 0D | unresolved | |\n| M Mode (user) | User request: \"HOLD SCOPE mode\" | HOLD SCOPE | n/a | approved | User request line 1: \"review this plan thoroughly in HOLD SCOPE mode\" |\n\n## Step 0D. Alternatives (pending)\n\n### R1. Handler wiring: bypass or register through `WebhookDispatcher`\n\nCommitments (offered options only):\n- class name [approved, PLAN.md L100-103]: current=`Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler`; A=same; B=same; C=same\n- routing path [pending]: current=bypass dispatcher; A=register in `WebhookDispatcher`; B=bypass (standalone entry); C=dispatcher forwards to handler via thin adapter shim\n- guards (signature/dedup/lock/ownership) [approved, L38-39]: current=unchanged; A=unchanged; B=unchanged; C=unchanged\n- feature flag rollout [approved, L74-75]: current=existing flag; A=existing flag selects handler inside dispatcher; B=existing flag switches ingress target; C=existing flag\n\n| Option | Summary | Effort | Risk | Pros | Cons | Reuse / verification |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| A. Register through dispatcher (recommended) | Add the new class as the `payment_intent.succeeded` handler entry in `WebhookDispatcher`; flag picks old vs new | S (human ~half day / CC ~10 min) | low | one routing table, one place the flag is read, future event types follow the same path; namespace is already \"clean\" via `Webhooks::` | must touch dispatcher file; dispatcher contract must accept an app-owned class (unknown until source inspected) | reuses dispatcher, guards, tracing; verified by existing dispatcher tests plus new handler tests (R4) |\n| B. Bypass dispatcher | Standalone handler wired directly at ingress, as planned | S (human ~half day / CC ~10 min) | medium | no dispatcher edits; smallest diff to shared code | two routing paths to keep in sync; flag logic duplicated at ingress; next event type has to choose again; \"clean namespace\" is not a benefit since naming is already settled | reuses guards only; routing behavior unverified by existing suite |\n| C. Adapter shim | Keep dispatcher, add a shim that translates to the new handler interface | M | medium | isolates interface differences | third moving part with no stated need; premature abstraction | partial |\n",
"phase": "## Step 0D. Alternatives (pending)",
"excerptNote": "Verbatim ledger, enclosing phase heading, and this decision section at the actual native request; other saved plan sections omitted.",
"savedWholePlanSha256": "3ac9ac282cde90b0b168a83a8430ae034a1d0cb8a2dca85d2097acb0052b25f8"
},
{
"call": {
"sessionId": "1a2ec784-ed1b-488b-8d13-8ce2dfccc9b6",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01QZ25FNXrNCaoByu9foNBBB",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D4 (ledger R2) — How should the user lookup consume `request.params.userId`?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-g23bps on main, CEO review of the Stripe payment handler plan, HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: The user ID arrives as free text that the client set on the PaymentIntent. Stripe's signature only proves Stripe delivered it, not that the text is harmless. The plan glues that text straight into a SQL string. Anyone who can set metadata on a PaymentIntent can then run their own SQL against the payments database. A bound parameter (the database receives the query and the value separately) makes that impossible with no change in behavior.\nStakes if we pick wrong: data exfiltration or destruction through the payments path, reachable from a signed Stripe event.\nRecommendation: A because it is the only option that removes the raw fragment while keeping the retained \"opaque TEXT, no format validation\" contract exactly as is.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=10/10 (if an ORM exists), C=3/10\nNet: same one-line query, but the value travels as a parameter instead of as text spliced into SQL.",
"header": "Lookup R2",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Bound parameter via existing DB client (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Closes the injection surface completely; punctuation and Unicode IDs keep working as opaque text. ✅ Reuses the shared DB client so the correlated outcome traces stay unchanged. ❌ Requires the implementer to confirm the client's parameter-binding API (no source in this repo)."
},
{
"label": "B) ORM finder (find_by id)",
"description": "✅ Same safety as a bound parameter, and idiomatic if the codebase already uses an ORM. ✅ Shortest code; unknown-user path falls out naturally as nil. ❌ Only viable if an ORM model exists for users; unknown without source."
},
{
"label": "C) Keep concatenation, add manual escaping",
"description": "✅ Smallest textual change to the plan as written. ✅ No new client API to learn. ❌ Dialect-specific escaping is the classic wrong fix; still a raw SQL fragment fed by external text."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D4 (ledger R2) — How should the user lookup consume `request.params.userId`?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-g23bps on main, CEO review of the Stripe payment handler plan, HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: The user ID arrives as free text that the client set on the PaymentIntent. Stripe's signature only proves Stripe delivered it, not that the text is harmless. The plan glues that text straight into a SQL string. Anyone who can set metadata on a PaymentIntent can then run their own SQL against the payments database. A bound parameter (the database receives the query and the value separately) makes that impossible with no change in behavior.\nStakes if we pick wrong: data exfiltration or destruction through the payments path, reachable from a signed Stripe event.\nRecommendation: A because it is the only option that removes the raw fragment while keeping the retained \"opaque TEXT, no format validation\" contract exactly as is.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=10/10 (if an ORM exists), C=3/10\nNet: same one-line query, but the value travels as a parameter instead of as text spliced into SQL.": "A) Bound parameter via existing DB client (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T08:28:43.145Z"
},
"sourceLine": 106,
"kind": "seeded-remedy",
"savedPlan": "# Captured public ledger excerpts\n\n## Decision ledger\n\n| ID and owner | Contract and evidence | Current | Proposed | Status | Exact approval and scope |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| R1 Architecture (user) | PLAN.md L100-108: name settled; dispatcher reuse vs separate impl \"remains open\" | Bypass `WebhookDispatcher` with standalone class | A: register `Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler` as the `payment_intent.succeeded` entry in `WebhookDispatcher`; existing flag selects old/new inside dispatcher | approved | D3 answer = A. Scope: routing path only; class name, guards, flag mechanism unchanged |\n| R2 DB lookup (user) | PLAN.md L21-26, L110-112: adapter forwards raw TEXT unchanged, no sanitization | Raw SQL fragment from `request.params.userId` | see 0D | unresolved | |\n| R3 Email leg (user) | PLAN.md L52-53, L60-73, L85-97, L114-116: mail client rethrows; ingress returns 500 on exception | Inline send, exception propagates to ingress | see 0D | unresolved | |\n| R4 Tests (user) | PLAN.md L76-80, L118-119: manual staging replay only | No automated tests | see 0D | unresolved | |\n| R5 Order loading (user) | PLAN.md L81-84, L92-95, L121-123: 2s DB budget; loop is data loading | Per-order fetch loop | see 0D | unresolved | |\n| M Mode (user) | User request: \"HOLD SCOPE mode\" | HOLD SCOPE | n/a | approved | User request line 1: \"review this plan thoroughly in HOLD SCOPE mode\" |\n\n## Step 0D. Alternatives (pending)\n\n### R2. User lookup: raw SQL fragment from `request.params.userId`\n\nTrace (from retained contracts): the adapter forwards a nonempty, signature-verified TEXT value\nunchanged. Signature verification proves Stripe sent the event; it says nothing about the\nmetadata content, which is whatever the client set when creating the PaymentIntent. Ownership\nguard compares identity only. So the raw fragment is reachable by any string that passed\ningress, including quotes and comment sequences.\n\n```\n Stripe event ──► signature OK ──► type filter ──► ownership guard ──► adapter\n │ userId (raw TEXT)\n ▼\n \"SELECT ... WHERE id = '\" + userId + \"'\" ◄── injection surface\n```\n\nCommitments:\n- input value [approved, L21-26]: current=opaque nonempty TEXT, unchanged; A=same; B=same; C=same\n- query construction [pending]: current=string concatenation; A=bound parameter via existing DB client; B=ORM finder (`find_by(id:)` equivalent); C=concatenation plus manual escaping\n- ID-format validation [approved, L24-26: none]: current=none; A=none; B=none; C=none\n- unknown-user result [approved, L43-44]: current=guard returns 200 + log; A=same; B=same; C=same\n\n| Option | Summary | Effort | Risk | Pros | Cons | Reuse / verification |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| A. Bound parameter (recommended) | Pass `userId` as a query parameter through the existing DB client | S (human ~1h / CC ~2 min) | low | closes injection entirely; preserves opaque-TEXT semantics incl. Unicode; DB client tracing unchanged | none material | reuses DB client; test: quote/comment/Unicode IDs return the correct row or the unknown-user path |\n| B. ORM finder | Use the model's finder | S | low | same safety; idiomatic | only if the codebase uses an ORM (unknown; no source present) | same tests |\n| C. Manual escaping | Keep concatenation, escape quotes | S | high | minimal text change | escaping is dialect-specific and historically wrong; still a raw fragment | not acceptable under \"security is not optional\" |\n",
"phase": "## Step 0D. Alternatives (pending)",
"excerptNote": "Verbatim ledger, enclosing phase heading, and this decision section at the actual native request; other saved plan sections omitted.",
"savedWholePlanSha256": "be08127c10a4d53569282fbf5529bbf966e171d348be487e79ea83c97652d1d2"
},
{
"call": {
"sessionId": "1a2ec784-ed1b-488b-8d13-8ce2dfccc9b6",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01VaLzPYo28mRYR2uCmyfdHY",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D5 (ledger R3) — What happens when the inline receipt email fails after the payment update commits?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-g23bps on main, CEO review of the Stripe payment handler plan, HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: The handler marks the user paid, then sends the receipt. If the mail provider times out, the plan lets that error escape, so the webhook answers Stripe with \"500, failed\" even though the payment was recorded. Stripe then retries the whole event for up to 72 hours, re-sending the email each time, while the existing notification-retry runbook is ALSO retrying it. During a mail outage every payment webhook fails, and Stripe can disable an endpoint that keeps failing. A mail hiccup turns into a payments outage.\nStakes if we pick wrong: on-call gets paged twice per failure, the failed-notification backlog inflates on every Stripe retry, and a sustained mail outage can stop payment_status updates entirely.\nRecommendation: A because the mail client already records the failed attempt durably, alerts on it, and has a runbook to retry it; the handler just needs to stop lying to Stripe about the payment.\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=4/10, C=9/10 (but out of HOLD scope: needs job infrastructure not among retained contracts)\nNet: rescue two named mail exceptions after commit and return 200, versus letting Stripe's retry machinery double as a mail retry, versus adding a job queue.",
"header": "Email R3",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Rescue named mail exceptions after commit, return 200 (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Stripe sees a truthful 200; the payment IS committed. One retry owner: the existing notification procedure. ✅ No retry storm, no duplicate pages, no endpoint-disable risk during a mail outage. ❌ Implementer must enumerate the mail client's exception classes; a catch-all would be a regression."
},
{
"label": "B) Propagate the error (as planned)",
"description": "✅ Zero handler code; failures are loud through the ingress 500 path. ✅ Stripe retry gives a free second send attempt minutes later. ❌ Payment reported as failed when it succeeded; two retry mechanisms fight; mail outage can disable the webhook endpoint."
},
{
"label": "C) Enqueue the send to a background job after commit",
"description": "✅ Webhook returns fast; email retries are owned by the job system with its own backoff. ✅ Matches the textbook Stripe pattern for slow side effects. ❌ Requires a job queue that is not among the retained contracts; a scope expansion in HOLD SCOPE mode."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D5 (ledger R3) — What happens when the inline receipt email fails after the payment update commits?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-g23bps on main, CEO review of the Stripe payment handler plan, HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: The handler marks the user paid, then sends the receipt. If the mail provider times out, the plan lets that error escape, so the webhook answers Stripe with \"500, failed\" even though the payment was recorded. Stripe then retries the whole event for up to 72 hours, re-sending the email each time, while the existing notification-retry runbook is ALSO retrying it. During a mail outage every payment webhook fails, and Stripe can disable an endpoint that keeps failing. A mail hiccup turns into a payments outage.\nStakes if we pick wrong: on-call gets paged twice per failure, the failed-notification backlog inflates on every Stripe retry, and a sustained mail outage can stop payment_status updates entirely.\nRecommendation: A because the mail client already records the failed attempt durably, alerts on it, and has a runbook to retry it; the handler just needs to stop lying to Stripe about the payment.\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=4/10, C=9/10 (but out of HOLD scope: needs job infrastructure not among retained contracts)\nNet: rescue two named mail exceptions after commit and return 200, versus letting Stripe's retry machinery double as a mail retry, versus adding a job queue.": "A) Rescue named mail exceptions after commit, return 200 (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T08:29:56.431Z"
},
"sourceLine": 121,
"kind": "seeded-remedy",
"savedPlan": "# Captured public ledger excerpts\n\n## Decision ledger\n\n| ID and owner | Contract and evidence | Current | Proposed | Status | Exact approval and scope |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| R1 Architecture (user) | PLAN.md L100-108: name settled; dispatcher reuse vs separate impl \"remains open\" | Bypass `WebhookDispatcher` with standalone class | A: register `Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler` as the `payment_intent.succeeded` entry in `WebhookDispatcher`; existing flag selects old/new inside dispatcher | approved | D3 answer = A. Scope: routing path only; class name, guards, flag mechanism unchanged |\n| R2 DB lookup (user) | PLAN.md L21-26, L110-112: adapter forwards raw TEXT unchanged, no sanitization | Raw SQL fragment from `request.params.userId` | A: `userId` passed as a bound parameter through the existing DB client; no format validation added | approved | D4 answer = A. Scope: query construction only; opaque-TEXT contract and unknown-user guard unchanged |\n| R3 Email leg (user) | PLAN.md L52-53, L60-73, L85-97, L114-116: mail client rethrows; ingress returns 500 on exception | Inline send, exception propagates to ingress | see 0D | unresolved | |\n| R4 Tests (user) | PLAN.md L76-80, L118-119: manual staging replay only | No automated tests | see 0D | unresolved | |\n| R5 Order loading (user) | PLAN.md L81-84, L92-95, L121-123: 2s DB budget; loop is data loading | Per-order fetch loop | see 0D | unresolved | |\n| M Mode (user) | User request: \"HOLD SCOPE mode\" | HOLD SCOPE | n/a | approved | User request line 1: \"review this plan thoroughly in HOLD SCOPE mode\" |\n\n## Step 0D. Alternatives (pending)\n\n### R3. Email leg: inline send with no error handling\n\nTrace of the planned path when the send fails (contracts L52-53, L60-73, L85-97):\n\n```\n lock(user) ─► lookup ─► update payment_status=paid (COMMIT) ─► mail.send(PI key)\n │\n ┌───────────────────────┴───────────────────┐\n │ success │ raises MailTimeout / send error\n ▼ ▼\n completion recorded client records failed attempt (durable)\n HTTP 200 exception propagates through handler\n ingress logs \"failed webhook\", HTTP 500\n Stripe retries with backoff (up to 72h)\n │\n ▼\n retry re-enters handler: lookup, idempotent update,\n send again (provider key suppresses dup success)\n mail still down ─► another failed record, another 500\n```\n\nConsequences of the planned behavior:\n1. A notification failure is reported to Stripe as a payment-processing failure. The payment\n IS committed; the 500 is a lie about the thing Stripe cares about.\n2. Two retry mechanisms fight over one send: Stripe's webhook retry and the existing\n notification retry procedure (runbook L49-51, L66-69, L88-91). Each Stripe retry appends a\n new failed-attempt record, inflating the backlog the dashboard alerts on.\n3. During a total mail-provider outage every `payment_intent.succeeded` returns 500. Stripe\n marks the endpoint failing and can disable it after sustained failure. A mail outage\n becomes a payment-status outage. Inversion: this is the single change most likely to\n cause an incident.\n4. The \"failed webhook processing\" alert fires for a condition the mail failure-rate alert\n already covers, so on-call gets two pages for one cause.\n\nCommitments:\n- ordering [approved by product contract L40-42, L81-84]: current=update then send; A=update commits, then send; B=same; C=update commits, then enqueue\n- mail exception handling [pending]: current=none (propagate); A=rescue named mail exceptions (MailTimeout + the client's send-failure class) after commit, log structured `notification_failed` with event/user/PI correlation, return 200; B=propagate → 500; C=enqueue send to a background job after commit\n- DB exception handling [approved, L70-73]: current=propagate → 500 → retry; A=same; B=same; C=same\n- missing-address path [approved, L45-51]: current=recipient-policy skip; A=same; B=same; C=same\n- retry ownership [approved Line truncated
"phase": "## Step 0D. Alternatives (pending)",
"excerptNote": "Verbatim ledger, enclosing phase heading, and this decision section at the actual native request; other saved plan sections omitted.",
"savedWholePlanSha256": "d397feb87fba2b4fc59f0356cd274d076c2e034d2c7475b7c11e7b6a24581064"
},
{
"call": {
"sessionId": "1a2ec784-ed1b-488b-8d13-8ce2dfccc9b6",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01T2TkDVuS93289ZYJMnWtsh",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D6 (ledger R4) — What automated test coverage ships with the new handler?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-g23bps on main, CEO review of the Stripe payment handler plan, HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: The plan says \"no tests, the existing integration suite will catch regressions.\" But the new handler lives behind a feature flag that defaults to the old handler, so the existing suite never runs the new code at all. The only check is a one-time manual replay in staging. The changes we just approved (bound parameter, mail rescue, dispatcher registration) each have a specific failure path that only a test can pin down.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a payments regression reaches production behind a flag flip, discovered by a customer rather than CI, and the rollback flag is the only safety net.\nRecommendation: A because with AI-assisted coding the twelve tests cost about fifteen minutes, and this is the payments path.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=2/10\nNet: fifteen minutes of test writing versus trusting a manual staging replay to catch SQL, mail and flag regressions.",
"header": "Tests R4",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Handler + dispatcher + integration tests, 12 named cases (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Every approved decision (R1-R3, R5) is pinned by a test, including flag on/off and duplicate-event behavior. ✅ CI actually exercises the new class, which the plan's stated safety net currently does not. ❌ Roughly a day of human effort (about 15 min with CC); more test code to maintain."
},
{
"label": "B) Handler unit tests only (cases 1-9)",
"description": "✅ Covers the risky logic: injection-shaped IDs, mail rescue, DB error propagation, zero orders. ✅ Smaller diff; no changes to the integration harness. ❌ Dispatcher registration, flag switching and guard interplay stay unverified."
},
{
"label": "C) None; manual staging replay only (as planned)",
"description": "✅ Zero test code; ships fastest. ✅ Staging replay still verifies one happy path before broad enablement. ❌ No automated coverage on a payments path; the existing suite never runs the new handler behind the flag."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D6 (ledger R4) — What automated test coverage ships with the new handler?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-g23bps on main, CEO review of the Stripe payment handler plan, HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: The plan says \"no tests, the existing integration suite will catch regressions.\" But the new handler lives behind a feature flag that defaults to the old handler, so the existing suite never runs the new code at all. The only check is a one-time manual replay in staging. The changes we just approved (bound parameter, mail rescue, dispatcher registration) each have a specific failure path that only a test can pin down.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a payments regression reaches production behind a flag flip, discovered by a customer rather than CI, and the rollback flag is the only safety net.\nRecommendation: A because with AI-assisted coding the twelve tests cost about fifteen minutes, and this is the payments path.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=2/10\nNet: fifteen minutes of test writing versus trusting a manual staging replay to catch SQL, mail and flag regressions.": "A) Handler + dispatcher + integration tests, 12 named cases (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T08:30:55.702Z"
},
"sourceLine": 136,
"kind": "seeded-remedy",
"savedPlan": "# Captured public ledger excerpts\n\n## Decision ledger\n\n| ID and owner | Contract and evidence | Current | Proposed | Status | Exact approval and scope |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| R1 Architecture (user) | PLAN.md L100-108: name settled; dispatcher reuse vs separate impl \"remains open\" | Bypass `WebhookDispatcher` with standalone class | A: register `Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler` as the `payment_intent.succeeded` entry in `WebhookDispatcher`; existing flag selects old/new inside dispatcher | approved | D3 answer = A. Scope: routing path only; class name, guards, flag mechanism unchanged |\n| R2 DB lookup (user) | PLAN.md L21-26, L110-112: adapter forwards raw TEXT unchanged, no sanitization | Raw SQL fragment from `request.params.userId` | A: `userId` passed as a bound parameter through the existing DB client; no format validation added | approved | D4 answer = A. Scope: query construction only; opaque-TEXT contract and unknown-user guard unchanged |\n| R3 Email leg (user) | PLAN.md L52-53, L60-73, L85-97, L114-116: mail client rethrows; ingress returns 500 on exception | Inline send, exception propagates to ingress | A: update commits first; send wrapped in `rescue MailTimeout, <client send-failure class>` only; structured `notification_failed` log/trace with event/user/PI; HTTP 200; retries owned by existing notification procedure | approved | D5 answer = A. Scope: mail exception handling only; DB exceptions still propagate → 500; recipient policy unchanged; no job queue |\n| R4 Tests (user) | PLAN.md L76-80, L118-119: manual staging replay only | No automated tests | see 0D | unresolved | |\n| R5 Order loading (user) | PLAN.md L81-84, L92-95, L121-123: 2s DB budget; loop is data loading | Per-order fetch loop | see 0D | unresolved | |\n| M Mode (user) | User request: \"HOLD SCOPE mode\" | HOLD SCOPE | n/a | approved | User request line 1: \"review this plan thoroughly in HOLD SCOPE mode\" |\n\n## Step 0D. Alternatives (pending)\n\n### R4. Tests: none planned\n\nWhy \"the existing integration suite catches regressions\" does not hold: the new handler sits\nbehind a feature flag that defaults to the prior handler. Unless the suite runs with the flag\non, it never executes one line of the new class. The manual staging replay (L76-80) exercises\none happy path once, by hand, before broad enablement. Neither covers the failure paths that\nR2, R3 and R5 exist to fix.\n\nTest-case classification (0D table): this is \"code change and its required regression tests\";\nthe method/coverage is the open choice.\n\nCommitments:\n- handler behavior [approved R1-R3, pending R5]: fixed across all options\n- automated coverage [pending]: current=none; A=handler unit tests for every path + dispatcher registration/flag test + one ingress-level integration test with flag on; B=handler unit tests only; C=none (manual staging replay only)\n- manual staging replay [approved, L76-78]: current=required; A=still required; B=same; C=same\n\nPaths a complete handler test file must cover (each is a named test):\n1. happy: known user, orders present → status paid + PI stored, one send with PI key, 200\n2. zero orders → one send with empty summary, 200\n3. unknown/deleted user → 200, log, no update, no send\n4. nil/empty email → `skipped_missing_address` record, update still committed, no send, 200\n5. `MailTimeout` → update committed, `notification_failed` trace, 200, no exception escapes\n6. mail send-failure class → same as 5\n7. DB lookup error → propagates, no send, ingress sees exception (500)\n8. DB update error → propagates, no send\n9. `userId` containing quote, `--`, `;`, Unicode → correct row or unknown-user path; never a SQL error\n10. dispatcher: flag off → prior handler; flag on → `Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler`\n11. integration (flag on): signed `payment_intent.succeeded` through ingress guards → paid + send\n12. duplicate event ID (flag on) → handler not invoked second time (guard behavior preserved)\n\n| Option | Summary | Effort | Risk | Pros | Cons | Reuse / verification |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| A. Full handler + dispatcher + integration coverage (recommended) | Tests 1-12 | M (human ~1 day / CC ~15 min) | low | every decision in R1-R3/R5 is pinned by a test; rollback and flag behavior verified; CI catches the regressions the plan says it relies on | more test code to maintain | reuses existing suite fixtures/ingress test harness |\n| B. Handler unit tests only | Tests 1-9 | S | medium | covers the risky logic | flag/dispatcher wiring and guard interplay unverified; the integration suite still never runs the new class | partial |\n| C. None (as planned) | Manual staging replay only | none | high | zero test code | no automated regression coverage for a payments path; violates \"well-tested code is non-negotiable\" | none |\n",
"phase": "## Step 0D. Alternatives (pending)",
"excerptNote": "Verbatim ledger, enclosing phase heading, and this decision section at the actual native request; other saved plan sections omitted.",
"savedWholePlanSha256": "b0b80956fc1295f08797b1ad18f05ff64d0120b4f1a77c6da384fcfa286ff12e"
},
{
"call": {
"sessionId": "1a2ec784-ed1b-488b-8d13-8ce2dfccc9b6",
"toolUseId": "toolu_015PDS8cU1PtTXWF9zmbj5w3",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D7 (ledger R5) — How should the handler load the user's orders for the receipt summary?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-g23bps on main, CEO review of the Stripe payment handler plan, HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: The receipt lists the user's orders, so the handler needs them. The plan fetches them one query per order, inside a two-second database budget, before it marks the payment paid. A customer with a thousand orders means a thousand round trips, the budget runs out, the handler throws, Stripe gets a 500 and retries the exact same work for three days. Your best customers are the ones whose payments never get marked paid. One query that fetches all of that user's orders at once makes the cost flat.\nStakes if we pick wrong: deterministic, retry-proof payment failures for the highest-value accounts, invisible until someone with many orders pays.\nRecommendation: A because it removes the failure class with a one-line query change and keeps the receipt content exactly as the product contract describes.\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=3/10, C=9/10 (but changes retained receipt content; needs product sign-off)\nNet: one batched query versus N round trips, with option C trading receipt fidelity for a payload bound.",
"header": "Orders R5",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Single batched orders query (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Query count is constant (user + orders = 2) no matter how many orders exist; the deterministic-timeout class disappears. ✅ Receipt summary content is unchanged, so the retained product contract holds as written. ❌ Extremely large order histories still return a large result set in one round trip."
},
{
"label": "B) Keep the per-order loop (as planned)",
"description": "✅ No change to the plan as written. ✅ Simple to read; each order fetched by its own existing accessor. ❌ High-order-count users hit the 2s budget and fail on every Stripe retry; N queries repeat under the per-user lock each time."
},
{
"label": "C) Batched query plus a row cap in the summary",
"description": "✅ Bounds receipt payload for pathological order counts. ✅ Still one round trip, same constant query count as A. ❌ Changes what the receipt shows, which the plan says is retained product behavior; needs a product decision first."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D7 (ledger R5) — How should the handler load the user's orders for the receipt summary?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-g23bps on main, CEO review of the Stripe payment handler plan, HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: The receipt lists the user's orders, so the handler needs them. The plan fetches them one query per order, inside a two-second database budget, before it marks the payment paid. A customer with a thousand orders means a thousand round trips, the budget runs out, the handler throws, Stripe gets a 500 and retries the exact same work for three days. Your best customers are the ones whose payments never get marked paid. One query that fetches all of that user's orders at once makes the cost flat.\nStakes if we pick wrong: deterministic, retry-proof payment failures for the highest-value accounts, invisible until someone with many orders pays.\nRecommendation: A because it removes the failure class with a one-line query change and keeps the receipt content exactly as the product contract describes.\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=3/10, C=9/10 (but changes retained receipt content; needs product sign-off)\nNet: one batched query versus N round trips, with option C trading receipt fidelity for a payload bound.": "A) Single batched orders query (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T08:31:44.935Z"
},
"sourceLine": 150,
"kind": "seeded-remedy",
"savedPlan": "# Captured public ledger excerpts\n\n## Decision ledger\n\n| ID and owner | Contract and evidence | Current | Proposed | Status | Exact approval and scope |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| R1 Architecture (user) | PLAN.md L100-108: name settled; dispatcher reuse vs separate impl \"remains open\" | Bypass `WebhookDispatcher` with standalone class | A: register `Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler` as the `payment_intent.succeeded` entry in `WebhookDispatcher`; existing flag selects old/new inside dispatcher | approved | D3 answer = A. Scope: routing path only; class name, guards, flag mechanism unchanged |\n| R2 DB lookup (user) | PLAN.md L21-26, L110-112: adapter forwards raw TEXT unchanged, no sanitization | Raw SQL fragment from `request.params.userId` | A: `userId` passed as a bound parameter through the existing DB client; no format validation added | approved | D4 answer = A. Scope: query construction only; opaque-TEXT contract and unknown-user guard unchanged |\n| R3 Email leg (user) | PLAN.md L52-53, L60-73, L85-97, L114-116: mail client rethrows; ingress returns 500 on exception | Inline send, exception propagates to ingress | A: update commits first; send wrapped in `rescue MailTimeout, <client send-failure class>` only; structured `notification_failed` log/trace with event/user/PI; HTTP 200; retries owned by existing notification procedure | approved | D5 answer = A. Scope: mail exception handling only; DB exceptions still propagate → 500; recipient policy unchanged; no job queue |\n| R4 Tests (user) | PLAN.md L76-80, L118-119: manual staging replay only | No automated tests | A: handler unit tests (cases 1-9) + dispatcher flag test (10) + ingress-level integration with flag on (11-12); manual staging replay still required | approved | D6 answer = A. Scope: automated coverage for the new handler and its wiring; does not alter the rollout checklist |\n| R5 Order loading (user) | PLAN.md L81-84, L92-95, L121-123: 2s DB budget; loop is data loading | Per-order fetch loop | see 0D | unresolved | |\n| M Mode (user) | User request: \"HOLD SCOPE mode\" | HOLD SCOPE | n/a | approved | User request line 1: \"review this plan thoroughly in HOLD SCOPE mode\" |\n\n## Step 0D. Alternatives (pending)\n\n### R5. Order loading: per-order fetch loop\n\nTrace: lookup user (1 query), then N queries for N orders, all inside the retained 2-second\nDB+ingress budget (L92-95), and all before the update and send. Order count is unbounded per\nuser. At some N the loop exceeds the budget; the DB deadline raises; the exception propagates\n(approved DB path) → HTTP 500 → Stripe retries → same N, same timeout, every retry for 72h.\n\n```\n N orders: 1 10 100 1000\n queries: 2 11 101 1001 (1 user + N orders)\n at ~2ms each: 4ms 22ms 200ms 2.0s ◄── budget exhausted; deterministic failure\n```\n\nThe user who has bought the most from you is the one whose payment never marks paid. That is\nthe worst possible failure distribution. The retained contract (L81-84) needs the orders only\nto build the summary in one receipt; nothing requires N round trips.\n\nCommitments:\n- receipt semantics [approved, L81-84]: current=one receipt, order summary, empty summary at zero orders; A=same; B=same; C=same\n- order query shape [pending]: current=N per-order fetches; A=one query `WHERE user_id = ?` (bound parameter, same DB client as R2); B=keep loop; C=one query plus a hard cap on rows in the summary\n- deadline behavior on DB timeout [approved, L70-73, L92-95]: current=propagate → 500; A=same; B=same; C=same\n\n| Option | Summary | Effort | Risk | Pros | Cons | Reuse / verification |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| A. Single batched query (recommended) | Fetch all orders for the user in one bound-parameter query | S (human ~1h / CC ~2 min) | low | query count constant (2) regardless of N; removes the deterministic-timeout class; same receipt output | very large N still returns a large result set (bounded by row size, not round trips) | reuses DB client; test: 0, 1, 250 orders → one orders query, identical summary |\n| B. Keep loop (as planned) | N per-order fetches | none | high | zero change | high-order-count users fail forever; each Stripe retry repeats N queries under lock | none |\n| C. Batched + summary cap | One query with LIMIT and a \"and K more\" line | S-M | low | bounds payload for extreme N | changes receipt content, which L81-84 says is retained; product decision, not an engineering one | would need product approval |\n",
"phase": "## Step 0D. Alternatives (pending)",
"excerptNote": "Verbatim ledger, enclosing phase heading, and this decision section at the actual native request; other saved plan sections omitted.",
"savedWholePlanSha256": "b06931440406c6ed954be0c7426e5c5651bcb230520a4d98b16b74ac0e9f9ed7"
},
{
"call": {
"sessionId": "1a2ec784-ed1b-488b-8d13-8ce2dfccc9b6",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01WL49LviBosRu6dahmkegKJ",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D8 (TODO-1) — Record a TODO to remove the prior library-adapter handler and its feature flag after the new handler bakes in?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-g23bps on main, CEO review closing sequence, HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: Once the new handler is live at 100% for a while, the old handler and the flag that switches between them become dead weight: two copies of the same lookup-update-send sequence, and a flag nobody flips. Leaving them means every future payment change has to be made twice or risks drifting. This TODO just records that cleanup so it is not forgotten; it does not do it now.\nStakes if we pick wrong: skip it and the duplicated path quietly becomes permanent; build it now and you lose the rollback flag you need for the rollout.\nRecommendation: A because the cleanup is the natural end of the approved motivation (app-owned code) but must wait for bake-in, so it belongs in TODOS.md, not this PR.\nWhat: delete the prior handler, its dispatcher entry and the flag after N weeks at 100%. Why: Section 5 DRY warning; Section 10 debt item. Pros: one payment path, no dead flag. Cons: removes the rollback lever, so it must wait. Context: flag lives in the dispatcher after R1; prior handler is the library-adapter class. Effort: S (human) → S (CC). Priority: P2. Depends on: new handler at 100% with clean metrics for the bake window.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: remember the cleanup versus forget it versus do it prematurely.",
"header": "TODO-1",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Add to TODOS.md (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Captures the cleanup with its trigger (bake-in complete) so the duplicated sequence does not become permanent. ✅ Keeps the rollback flag intact through the rollout window where it matters. ❌ One more open item to track; TODOS.md is created for this repo since none exists."
},
{
"label": "B) Skip, not valuable enough",
"description": "✅ Nothing new to track right now. ✅ Team may already have a flag-hygiene process that covers this. ❌ The old handler and flag likely stay forever; two payment code paths to maintain."
},
{
"label": "C) Build it now in this PR",
"description": "✅ One payment path from day one; no duplication window at all. ✅ Smaller long-term surface immediately. ❌ Deletes the tested rollback path before the new handler has run in production; contradicts the retained rollout contract."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D8 (TODO-1) — Record a TODO to remove the prior library-adapter handler and its feature flag after the new handler bakes in?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-g23bps on main, CEO review closing sequence, HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: Once the new handler is live at 100% for a while, the old handler and the flag that switches between them become dead weight: two copies of the same lookup-update-send sequence, and a flag nobody flips. Leaving them means every future payment change has to be made twice or risks drifting. This TODO just records that cleanup so it is not forgotten; it does not do it now.\nStakes if we pick wrong: skip it and the duplicated path quietly becomes permanent; build it now and you lose the rollback flag you need for the rollout.\nRecommendation: A because the cleanup is the natural end of the approved motivation (app-owned code) but must wait for bake-in, so it belongs in TODOS.md, not this PR.\nWhat: delete the prior handler, its dispatcher entry and the flag after N weeks at 100%. Why: Section 5 DRY warning; Section 10 debt item. Pros: one payment path, no dead flag. Cons: removes the rollback lever, so it must wait. Context: flag lives in the dispatcher after R1; prior handler is the library-adapter class. Effort: S (human) → S (CC). Priority: P2. Depends on: new handler at 100% with clean metrics for the bake window.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: remember the cleanup versus forget it versus do it prematurely.": "A) Add to TODOS.md (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T08:37:37.340Z"
},
"savedPlan": null,
"sourceLine": 226,
"kind": "setup-or-backlog"
}
]
}
test/fixtures/ceo-plain-fields-f359.json
Vendored
-42
View File
@@ -1,42 +0,0 @@
{
"sourceRevision": "f3596a42898462ce6d45a56fd87e21fcf052b449",
"retained": ".context/nouakchott-resume-validation/runtime-post-b176/executions/f3596a42898462ce6d45a56fd87e21fcf052b449/all/run/public-retention/skill-e2e-plan-ceo-finding-count/plan-ceo-review-1789541686775-P6UQ5y",
"seed": "Please review this plan thoroughly in HOLD SCOPE mode. As you go, write your plan-mode plan to /tmp/g-0rk78u4r/gstack-paid-shard-LuFS2F/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-ceo-J7x9F3/gstack-test-plan-ceo.md (use Edit/Write to that exact path).\nProceed directly to the requested CEO review; skip the optional /office-hours prerequisite.\nFinish after this CEO review; I will handle subsequent reviews manually.\n\n# Plan: Payment Processing Integration\n\n## Existing contracts retained\nThe approved motivation is to move payment orchestration out of the prior\nlibrary-adapter handler into application-owned code while retaining the\nexisting payment and receipt product behavior. The shared dispatcher remains\navailable; the proposed bypass below is still an architectural choice to review.\nThe existing ingress middleware verifies the Stripe signature against the\nraw request body and rejects invalid signatures before invoking handlers.\nThe existing ingress forwards only `payment_intent.succeeded` events to\nthis handler; other Stripe event types are acknowledged without invoking it.\nThe existing payload adapter exposes `event.data.object.metadata.user_id`\nas `request.params.userId`. This params object is the parsed body-data map,\nnot URL query/path parameters; all users share one webhook URL.\nThe adapter acknowledges missing, nil, or empty user_id metadata with\nHTTP 200 and an event-correlated warning before invoking this handler.\nFor every nonempty external string it performs no SQL-format validation.\nThe adapter forwards that external string unchanged. It does not cast,\nescape, or SQL-sanitize it; a valid signature does not make it safe for SQL.\nUser IDs are opaque TEXT values, including punctuation and Unicode. The\nlookup has no integer/UUID cast or ID-format restriction; every nonempty\nstring is a valid identifier representation.\nAn existing ingress ownership guard checks the PaymentIntent ID against\nits stored opaque user-ID binding before invoking the handler. A mismatch\nis acknowledged with HTTP 200 and an event-correlated warning. This is an\nidentity comparison, not SQL-format validation; the adapter still forwards\nthe original string unchanged.\nThe existing webhook event guard deduplicates deliveries by Stripe event ID,\nand an existing per-user lock serializes payment updates.\nThe event guard acquires the existing per-user lock before checking the\ncommitted completion marker, and rechecks after any lock wait. It holds\nthat lock through the handler and completion bookkeeping; an overlapping\ncompleted duplicate does not invoke the handler.\nThe new handler runs inside those unchanged guards; this plan does not\nreplace signature verification, event deduplication, or update locking.\nThe existing user update assigns payment_status=paid and the payment intent\nID; it does not increment a balance or counter. Repeating the same payment\nintent assigns the same values, independently of the event-ID guard.\nThe existing lookup-result guard acknowledges unknown/deleted users with\nHTTP 200, logs the event, and stops before user updates or email fan-out.\nThe retained recipient-policy helper treats a nil or empty email address as\nskipped_missing_address: payment processing continues normally, and no mail\nclient call is attempted. It persists an event/user/PaymentIntent-correlated\nskip record, emits a structured warning, and increments the existing counter.\nThe existing notification runbook already covers that skip result: correct\nthe account address, then retry only its recorded notification using the\nsame PaymentIntent idempotency key. It never replays the payment for this case.\nThat recipient policy does not catch failures from sends to nonempty addresses;\nthe shared mail client still rethrows those exceptions to this handler.\nAccount deletion uses the same per-user lock. The handler holds it from\nlookup through update and inline email, so deletion either precedes lookup\n(the existing unknown/deleted-user path) or follows the handler; it cannot\nremove the user between lookup and update.\nThe ingress wrapper already logs event IDs, outcomes, and durations, with\nalerts for failed webhook processing. Those controls remain in place.\nThe existing DB and mail clients attach the adapter user ID and event ID\nto outcome traces, including update success and email delivery success or\nfailure. These shared clients rethrow exceptions unchanged; tracing does\nnot rescue email errors or change the inline email call below.\nThe shared mail client also publishes its delivery failure rate to the\nexisting dashboard and tested on-call alert, including caught exceptions.\nThe existing incident runbook uses the correlated DB and mail outcomes to\ndistinguish committed payments from failed notifications. It directs on-call\nto check provider status and retry only the failed notification through the\nexisting notification retry procedure, never replay the payment blindly.\nDB lookup/update exceptionLine truncated
"savedPlan": "# Plan: Payment Processing Integration — CEO Review (HOLD SCOPE)\n\nReviewed by /plan-ceo-review on 2026-09-16. Branch: main. Base: main. Platform: unknown (no remote).\nSource plan: PLAN.md (commit 2aaa8e9). Session: 3496206-1789541674-b00cf7c7.\nMode: HOLD SCOPE (explicit user instruction; no mode question asked).\n\n## Context\n\nMove Stripe `payment_intent.succeeded` orchestration out of the prior library-adapter\nhandler into application-owned code, keeping the existing payment and receipt product\nbehavior. The plan adds one handler class, a user lookup, a user update, an inline\nreceipt email, and per-order data loading. It sits inside retained ingress guards\n(signature, event-type filter, ownership, event-ID dedup, per-user lock, unknown-user\nstop, feature flag with tested rollback).\n\n## Original plan (verbatim, PLAN.md:105-123)\n\n### Architecture\nWe're adding a new `StripePaymentWebhookHandler` class that will handle Stripe webhooks.\nThis bypasses the existing `WebhookDispatcher` module — we want a clean namespace separation.\n\n### Database access\nThe new endpoint reads `request.params.userId` directly into a raw SQL fragment for the lookup query.\n\n### Webhook fan-out\nOn payment success we update the user record AND fire a notification email.\nBoth happen inline; no error handling on the email leg.\n\n### Tests\nNone planned. We'll rely on the existing integration suite catching regressions.\n\n### Performance\nEach webhook lookup hits the database for the user, then fetches each order in a loop.\n\nThe \"Existing contracts retained\" section (PLAN.md:7-103) is treated as the source of\ntruth for retained behavior and is not repeated here.\n\n## Pre-review system audit\n\n- Repo: two files (CLAUDE.md, PLAN.md), one commit, no stash, no TODO/FIXME, no TODOS.md,\n no architecture docs, no design doc, no CEO handoff note. No prior learnings (LEARNINGS: 0).\n- No retrospective signal: single commit, nothing reverted or refactored.\n- Frontend/UI scope: none. DESIGN_SCOPE not set; Section 11 will be skipped as no-UI.\n- Landscape (WebSearch fallback; Aside absent): Layer 1 consensus = verify signature on raw\n body, dedup by event.id before business work, commit then 200, replay real events in tests.\n Layer 2 search agrees. Layer 3: the plan inherits all of this from the retained ingress;\n the new risk is concentrated in the four new pieces (bypass, raw SQL, unhandled email, N+1).\n\n## Step 0 evidence\n\n### 0A Premise Challenge\n1. Right problem? Yes: owning payment orchestration in application code is a sound\n maintainability move. The framing \"clean namespace separation\" is already satisfied by\n the approved `Webhooks::` class name; it does not by itself justify bypassing the dispatcher.\n2. Outcome: same user-visible payment + receipt behavior, code the team owns. The plan\n reaches it directly; no proxy problem.\n3. Do nothing: prior handler keeps working. Pain is maintainability, not an outage. That\n means correctness regressions introduced by this move are pure downside; the bar is\n \"no behavior change,\" which is exactly what HOLD SCOPE protects.\n\n### 0B Existing Code Leverage\n| Sub-problem | Existing code | Plan reuses? |\n|---|---|---|\n| Routing events to handlers | `WebhookDispatcher` | NO (bypassed) — open row D1 |\n| Signature, event-type filter, ownership, dedup, per-user lock, unknown-user stop | ingress guards | yes (unchanged) |\n| User lookup | existing DB client (parameterized) | partial — raw SQL fragment proposed, row D2 |\n| Email send, idempotency key, failure record, dashboards | shared mail client | yes, but exception rethrown to a handler with no rescue — row D3 |\n| Rollout | feature flag + tested rollback + manual staging checklist | yes |\n| Regression coverage | \"existing integration suite\" — plan itself says no automated handler coverage exists | NO — row D4 |\n| Order data for receipt | per-order fetch loop | rebuilds an N+1 where one query serves — row D5 |\n\n### 0C Dream State\n```\n CURRENT STATE THIS PLAN 12-MONTH IDEAL\n library-adapter handler ---> app-owned handler class ---> one dispatcher, N app-owned\n behind dispatcher + guards bypassing dispatcher; handlers registered with it;\n raw SQL; unhandled email; parameterized lookups; email\n no automated tests failures never 500 a committed\n payment; replay tests per event\n```\nDirection: toward the ideal on ownership; away from it on routing (two paths), safety\n(raw SQL), and reliability (mail outage becomes webhook failure). Each of those is a\nrepair, not an expansion, so each gets its own decision row below.\n\n### 0E Mode\nHOLD SCOPE, explicit user instruction (\"review this plan thoroughly in HOLD SCOPE mode\").\nStepLine truncated
"call": {
"sessionId": "0afacbe7-f286-4d91-9e01-f4b51767f68e",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01LbJoBo9KBKrGBE71yVH6pB",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 — Should `Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler` register with the existing `WebhookDispatcher`, or bypass it as the plan proposes?\nProject/branch/task: main, Payment Processing Integration plan, HOLD SCOPE CEO review.\nELI10: Today one front door (the dispatcher) receives every Stripe event and routes it, with the security and dedup checks wrapped around that door. The plan builds a second door for payments so the code lives in its own namespace. Two doors means two places to wire the feature flag and two places to prove the guards run. The namespace goal is already met by the approved class name, which works behind either door.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a guard or the flag that only wraps the dispatcher path silently misses the new path; a duplicate or forged-ownership event reaches SQL; flag rollback does not actually route traffic back.\nRecommendation: A because namespace separation is a naming decision, not a routing one, and one routing path keeps every retained guard provably in front of the new code.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: A trades a purist notion of separation for a provable guard chain and an unchanged rollback; B buys independence at the cost of re-proving every guard; C shrinks the diff but undermines the flag-based rollback the plan relies on.",
"header": "Architecture",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Register with dispatcher (recommended)",
"description": "Dispatcher maps payment_intent.succeeded to the new class behind the existing flag. Effort S (human ~half day / CC ~10 min), risk low.\n✅ Every retained guard and the feature flag stay in front of the handler by construction\n✅ Smallest diff and the tested rollback path is completely unchanged\n❌ Routing still lives in the dispatcher module, so separation is namespace-only"
},
{
"label": "B) Bypass dispatcher, prove wiring",
"description": "Separate route wired into ingress with a per-guard proof that signature, filter, ownership, dedup, lock and flag wrap it. Effort M (human ~1-2 days / CC ~30 min), risk medium-high.\n✅ Full routing independence; nothing in the old dispatcher module gets touched\n✅ Matches the plan text as written, no re-litigation of the architecture section\n❌ Second routing path to maintain; any guard hosted by the dispatcher must be duplicated or lifted"
},
{
"label": "C) No new class, extend existing handler",
"description": "Rewrite the dispatcher's existing payment handler body in place as app-owned code. Effort S (human ~half day / CC ~10 min), risk low-medium.\n✅ Smallest surface area: one file, everything reused\n✅ No new routing or registration to reason about at all\n❌ Discards the approved class name and leaves no distinct prior handler for the flag rollback to route to"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 — Should `Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler` register with the existing `WebhookDispatcher`, or bypass it as the plan proposes?\nProject/branch/task: main, Payment Processing Integration plan, HOLD SCOPE CEO review.\nELI10: Today one front door (the dispatcher) receives every Stripe event and routes it, with the security and dedup checks wrapped around that door. The plan builds a second door for payments so the code lives in its own namespace. Two doors means two places to wire the feature flag and two places to prove the guards run. The namespace goal is already met by the approved class name, which works behind either door.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a guard or the flag that only wraps the dispatcher path silently misses the new path; a duplicate or forged-ownership event reaches SQL; flag rollback does not actually route traffic back.\nRecommendation: A because namespace separation is a naming decision, not a routing one, and one routing path keeps every retained guard provably in front of the new code.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: A trades a purist notion of separation for a provable guard chain and an unchanged rollback; B buys independence at the cost of re-proving every guard; C shrinks the diff but undermines the flag-based rollback the plan relies on.": "A) Register with dispatcher (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-16T06:58:38.833Z"
},
"sourceSha256": "8890fe86e7731c8bb71ea1d3d7f754c336e8cfcdeb30e3dc3fae8c0344097d5b",
"savedSha256": "37728ff7d27d99eb56a4170ec3a36bb8af6c385ae298626057b6874219d758b2",
"publicSha256": "fd468cf0816e53a28487a8eb7cac3fb3e1bb1d9605931df44ca6006590ee4692",
"historicalPaidFailureUnchanged": true
}
test/fixtures/ceo-recorded-decisions-67147822.json
Vendored
-154
View File
@@ -1,154 +0,0 @@
{
"source": "67147822f55b911c033617f759dc472d0d348e72",
"cases": [
{
"label": "five",
"call": {
"sessionId": "9bd59b2a-ac16-4357-a379-795b63055694",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01DvNdNFbDYz9BSRCQxi6MiM",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D2 \u2014 How should the new handler get wired in: through WebhookDispatcher, or bypass it?\nProject/branch/task: main; PLAN.md Architecture section says the new class bypasses WebhookDispatcher; PLAN.md:100-103 says this is still open.\nELI10: Today every Stripe event enters through one front door (WebhookDispatcher) that already checks the signature, dedupes, locks the user, and checks ownership before any handler runs. The plan wants to build a second door for the new handler so the dispatcher module stays \"clean\". A second door has to re-install every one of those locks itself, and the feature flag and rollback have to learn about it too. The class name (Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler) is already settled and gives you the namespace separation without a second door.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a bypass that misses one guard means a replayed or forged payment event marks a user paid or sends a receipt; a bypass that misses flag wiring breaks the tested rollback.\nRecommendation: A because namespace separation is a naming choice already satisfied by the class name; bypassing the dispatcher forks the guarded path for no user-visible gain.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=7/10\nNet: one routing path with free guards and rollback vs. a module-purity preference that costs a second entry point to keep safe forever.",
"header": "Wiring",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Register in WebhookDispatcher (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Signature, dedup, per-user lock, ownership guard, flag, and trace attribution all apply with zero new wiring\n\u2705 Smallest diff (~2 files); rollback path identical to today's tested one\n\u274c Dispatcher module gains a one-line registration referencing the new namespace"
},
{
"label": "Bypass dispatcher (plan as written)",
"description": "\u2705 WebhookDispatcher never references the new class; strict module separation\n\u2705 Handler can evolve its own entry contract independently later\n\u274c Second entry point must independently re-wire every guard, the flag, rollback, and handler-identity tracing; plan does not say how (human: ~1-2 days / CC: ~1 hr)"
},
{
"label": "Extend WebhookDispatcher, no new class",
"description": "\u2705 Smallest possible surface; nothing new to register or route\n\u2705 Every guard and trace stays exactly where it is\n\u274c Contradicts the approved motivation (application-owned handler with the settled class name); payment logic grows inside a shared module"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D2 \u2014 How should the new handler get wired in: through WebhookDispatcher, or bypass it?\nProject/branch/task: main; PLAN.md Architecture section says the new class bypasses WebhookDispatcher; PLAN.md:100-103 says this is still open.\nELI10: Today every Stripe event enters through one front door (WebhookDispatcher) that already checks the signature, dedupes, locks the user, and checks ownership before any handler runs. The plan wants to build a second door for the new handler so the dispatcher module stays \"clean\". A second door has to re-install every one of those locks itself, and the feature flag and rollback have to learn about it too. The class name (Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler) is already settled and gives you the namespace separation without a second door.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a bypass that misses one guard means a replayed or forged payment event marks a user paid or sends a receipt; a bypass that misses flag wiring breaks the tested rollback.\nRecommendation: A because namespace separation is a naming choice already satisfied by the class name; bypassing the dispatcher forks the guarded path for no user-visible gain.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=7/10\nNet: one routing path with free guards and rollback vs. a module-purity preference that costs a second entry point to keep safe forever.": "Register in WebhookDispatcher (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T12:33:26.947Z"
},
"savedPlan": "# Plan: Payment Processing Integration \u2014 CEO Review (HOLD SCOPE)\n\nReviewed plan: `PLAN.md` on `main` (fixture repo, base branch `main`, no remote).\nReview skill: `/plan-ceo-review`, mode HOLD SCOPE (explicit user choice).\nSession: 1332703-1789475393-bbb0db9c. Date: 2026-09-15.\n\n## Context\n\nThe approved motivation is to move Stripe payment-success orchestration out of the\nprior library-adapter handler into application-owned code, keeping the existing\npayment and receipt behavior byte-for-byte. The plan text under review is short and\ncarries four choices that each need scrutiny: bypassing `WebhookDispatcher`,\ninterpolating `request.params.userId` into raw SQL, running the receipt email inline\nwith no error handling, and shipping with no automated tests and an N+1 order loop.\n\nEverything in \"Existing contracts retained\" (PLAN.md:7-103) is treated as fact and\nis NOT re-litigated here: signature verification, event-ID dedup with per-user lock,\nownership guard, unknown-user guard, recipient policy for empty addresses, mail\nidempotency key, durable failed-notification record, dashboards, runbooks, feature\nflag with tested rollback, 1s mail deadline, 2s DB/ingress budget inside the 10s\nStripe deadline.\n\n## Pre-review system audit\n\n- Repo: two files (`CLAUDE.md`, `PLAN.md`), one commit `aae5002 Seed review plan`. No stash, no TODO/FIXME, no TODOS.md, no architecture docs, no design doc, no CEO handoff note.\n- No prior review cycles or reverts on this branch (retrospective check: nothing to flag).\n- No source code is present; the review is against the plan's stated contracts only. Every \"existing X\" claim below is taken from PLAN.md, not verified in code. Flagged as a known limitation.\n- Frontend/UI scope: none. Section 11 (design) will be skipped as not applicable.\n- Prior learnings: none recorded. Brain context: cold (no product/goals/decisions digests). `cross_project_learnings` config returned empty; not prompted because there are zero learnings to search either way.\n- Preamble instruction D1 (add gstack routing rules to CLAUDE.md): user chose **A) Add routing rules**. Plan mode blocks the edit and commit; carried as a post-review follow-up (see Follow-ups).\n\n## Landscape check (Search Before Building)\n\nAside not installed; used host WebSearch (one read-only query, sanitized).\n\n- **[Layer 1] Tried and true:** verify signature on raw body, dedupe by `event.id` in the same transaction as the business write, keep the handler fast, make every side effect idempotent, treat notification failure separately from payment failure.\n- **[Layer 2] Current guidance (2026):** ack with 200 quickly and do slow side effects (email, ERP sync) out of band; Stripe retries non-2xx for up to 72h with backoff; idempotency record and business work belong in one transaction.\n Sources: [Hooklistener](https://www.hooklistener.com/learn/stripe-webhooks-implementation), [HookRay](https://hookray.com/blog/stripe-webhook-best-practices-2026), [Webhook Watchtower](https://webhookwatchtower.co.uk/blog/stripe-webhook-guide), [The Road to Enterprise](https://theroadtoenterprise.com/blog/stripe-webhook-idempotency-production), [Appycodes](https://appycodes.dev/blog/stripe-webhooks-end-to-end-2026/).\n- **[Layer 3] First principles for THIS plan:** the retained contracts already deliver dedup, idempotent update, idempotent send, durable failed-send record, and a 1s mail cap inside a 10s budget. So a background queue is not required to be correct here. What the plan gets wrong is not sync-vs-async; it is that an email exception becomes an HTTP 500, which tells Stripe the *payment processing* failed when the payment row is already committed. That misclassification, plus the raw SQL and the unbounded order loop, are the real risks.\n\n## Step 0A. Premise challenge\n\n1. **Right problem?** Yes, narrowly. Owning the orchestration code is a legitimate goal (library-adapter handlers are hard to test and evolve). But the plan's stated reason for bypassing the dispatcher is \"clean namespace separation\", which is a naming concern, and naming is already settled (`Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler`). Namespace does not require bypassing routing.\n2. **Outcome?** Same product behavior, code the team owns. The plan reaches it directly. It also silently changes two behaviors it claims to retain: notification failure now returns 500 (was it 500 before? unstated), and user lookup becomes SQL-injectable.\n3. **Do nothing?** Pain is real but not urgent: the prior handler works and has a tested rollback. That makes this a two-way door with a feature flag, so speed is fine, but the SQL choice is a one-way door on a payments path and gets full rigor.\n\n## Step 0B. Existing code leverage\n\n| Sub-problem | Existing code (per PLAN.md) | Plan's proposal | Rebuild? |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| Signature, event-type filter, param adaptation | ingress middleware + payload adapter | unchanged | no |\n| Dedup +Line truncated
"savedPlanSha256": "9ced0689941ad0475c722a5b29e6449ac64f25eac64fedd9298dc8df49288c87",
"seed": "Please review this plan thoroughly in HOLD SCOPE mode. As you go, write your plan-mode plan to /tmp/gstack-owned-display-e9l650n8/gstack-paid-shard-YDSAa0/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-ceo-gd1Yvn/gstack-test-plan-ceo.md (use Edit/Write to that exact path).\nProceed directly to the requested CEO review; skip the optional /office-hours prerequisite.\nFinish after this CEO review; I will handle subsequent reviews manually.\n\n# Plan: Payment Processing Integration\n\n## Existing contracts retained\nThe approved motivation is to move payment orchestration out of the prior\nlibrary-adapter handler into application-owned code while retaining the\nexisting payment and receipt product behavior. The shared dispatcher remains\navailable; the proposed bypass below is still an architectural choice to review.\nThe existing ingress middleware verifies the Stripe signature against the\nraw request body and rejects invalid signatures before invoking handlers.\nThe existing ingress forwards only `payment_intent.succeeded` events to\nthis handler; other Stripe event types are acknowledged without invoking it.\nThe existing payload adapter exposes `event.data.object.metadata.user_id`\nas `request.params.userId`. This params object is the parsed body-data map,\nnot URL query/path parameters; all users share one webhook URL.\nThe adapter acknowledges missing, nil, or empty user_id metadata with\nHTTP 200 and an event-correlated warning before invoking this handler.\nFor every nonempty external string it performs no SQL-format validation.\nThe adapter forwards that external string unchanged. It does not cast,\nescape, or SQL-sanitize it; a valid signature does not make it safe for SQL.\nUser IDs are opaque TEXT values, including punctuation and Unicode. The\nlookup has no integer/UUID cast or ID-format restriction; every nonempty\nstring is a valid identifier representation.\nAn existing ingress ownership guard checks the PaymentIntent ID against\nits stored opaque user-ID binding before invoking the handler. A mismatch\nis acknowledged with HTTP 200 and an event-correlated warning. This is an\nidentity comparison, not SQL-format validation; the adapter still forwards\nthe original string unchanged.\nThe existing webhook event guard deduplicates deliveries by Stripe event ID,\nand an existing per-user lock serializes payment updates.\nThe event guard acquires the existing per-user lock before checking the\ncommitted completion marker, and rechecks after any lock wait. It holds\nthat lock through the handler and completion bookkeeping; an overlapping\ncompleted duplicate does not invoke the handler.\nThe new handler runs inside those unchanged guards; this plan does not\nreplace signature verification, event deduplication, or update locking.\nThe existing user update assigns payment_status=paid and the payment intent\nID; it does not increment a balance or counter. Repeating the same payment\nintent assigns the same values, independently of the event-ID guard.\nThe existing lookup-result guard acknowledges unknown/deleted users with\nHTTP 200, logs the event, and stops before user updates or email fan-out.\nThe retained recipient-policy helper treats a nil or empty email address as\nskipped_missing_address: payment processing continues normally, and no mail\nclient call is attempted. It persists an event/user/PaymentIntent-correlated\nskip record, emits a structured warning, and increments the existing counter.\nThe existing notification runbook already covers that skip result: correct\nthe account address, then retry only its recorded notification using the\nsame PaymentIntent idempotency key. It never replays the payment for this case.\nThat recipient policy does not catch failures from sends to nonempty addresses;\nthe shared mail client still rethrows those exceptions to this handler.\nAccount deletion uses the same per-user lock. The handler holds it from\nlookup through update and inline email, so deletion either precedes lookup\n(the existing unknown/deleted-user path) or follows the handler; it cannot\nremove the user between lookup and update.\nThe ingress wrapper already logs event IDs, outcomes, and durations, with\nalerts for failed webhook processing. Those controls remain in place.\nThe existing DB and mail clients attach the adapter user ID and event ID\nto outcome traces, including update success and email delivery success or\nfailure. These shared clients rethrow exceptions unchanged; tracing does\nnot rescue email errors or change the inline email call below.\nThe shared mail client also publishes its delivery failure rate to the\nexisting dashboard and tested on-call alert, including caught exceptions.\nThe existing incident runbook uses the correlated DB and mail outcomes to\ndistinguish committed payments from failed notifications. It directs on-call\nto check provider status and retry only the failed notification through the\nexisting notification retry procedure, never replay the payment blindly.\nDB Line truncated
"seedSha256": "3fbcbc43ad7730b762d3192c71f53949c340ead6d2ee9f0a7df27662a893ae2e",
"questionIssuedAt": "2026-09-15T12:33:25.356Z",
"successfulPriorMutations": [
{
"toolUseId": "toolu_01K1oUmgKA8xnKqHvBsHbE3A",
"filePath": "/tmp/gstack-owned-display-e9l650n8/gstack-paid-shard-YDSAa0/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-ceo-gd1Yvn/gstack-test-plan-ceo.md",
"completedAt": "2026-09-15T12:33:09.476Z"
}
]
},
{
"label": "paired",
"call": {
"sessionId": "9229e100-e069-4fd3-ad2a-d9476a7253df",
"toolUseId": "toolu_014qv3yUzYgZUQATzY4msrQN",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D2 \u2014 Ledger R1: what should the successful-charge test assert about the receipt?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md test 1 (successful charge, ch_paid / 1000 / USD).\nELI10: The plan spells out the exact receipt the caller must get back (chargeId copied from Stripe, amountCents and currency copied from the request), then plans to check only that \"something came back\". A refactor that returns { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 100000, currency: \"EUR\" } would pass that test. The test factory and Stripe mock already give you the exact expected value, so the full check is one toEqual line.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a wrong amount or currency on a receipt ships green; customers see the wrong charge on their receipt and support finds out from them, not from CI.\nRecommendation: A because the plan's stated goal is coverage of this contract, and exact equality is the only option that rejects each of the three field mappings going wrong. Maps to: well-tested code is non-negotiable; explicit over clever.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=5/10, C=3/10\nNet: A pins the whole contract for one line of test code; B and C leave amount and currency unguarded.",
"header": "R1 receipt",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Exact receipt equality (recommended)",
"description": "expect(receipt).toEqual({ chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" })\n\u2705 Rejects a wrong chargeId, wrong amountCents, wrong currency, and stray or missing fields\n\u2705 Zero new infrastructure: uses the factory and Stripe mock the plan already names (human: ~10 min / CC: ~1 min)\n\u274c Test must be updated if the receipt shape intentionally gains a field (that is the point)"
},
{
"label": "B) chargeId only",
"description": "expect(receipt.chargeId).toBe(\"ch_paid\")\n\u2705 Confirms the Stripe id is propagated, which is the field most likely to be dropped\n\u2705 Tolerant of receipt-shape growth without touching the test\n\u274c amountCents and currency mapping stay unguarded; a request/response mix-up ships green"
},
{
"label": "C) Truthy only (as planned)",
"description": "expect(receipt).toBeTruthy()\n\u2705 Matches PLAN.md line 31-32 exactly; no plan amendment needed\n\u2705 Never breaks on any receipt change\n\u274c Passes for any non-null value, including a receipt with every field wrong; provides no coverage of contract C1"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D2 \u2014 Ledger R1: what should the successful-charge test assert about the receipt?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md test 1 (successful charge, ch_paid / 1000 / USD).\nELI10: The plan spells out the exact receipt the caller must get back (chargeId copied from Stripe, amountCents and currency copied from the request), then plans to check only that \"something came back\". A refactor that returns { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 100000, currency: \"EUR\" } would pass that test. The test factory and Stripe mock already give you the exact expected value, so the full check is one toEqual line.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a wrong amount or currency on a receipt ships green; customers see the wrong charge on their receipt and support finds out from them, not from CI.\nRecommendation: A because the plan's stated goal is coverage of this contract, and exact equality is the only option that rejects each of the three field mappings going wrong. Maps to: well-tested code is non-negotiable; explicit over clever.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=5/10, C=3/10\nNet: A pins the whole contract for one line of test code; B and C leave amount and currency unguarded.": "A) Exact receipt equality (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T12:33:16.917Z"
},
"savedPlan": "# Plan: Payment Processing \u2014 Test Coverage (CEO review, HOLD SCOPE)\n\nReviewed plan: `PLAN.md` @ 33f85de on `main`. Review skill: `/plan-ceo-review`.\nMode: HOLD SCOPE (explicit user instruction). `/office-hours` skipped (explicit user instruction).\nSubsequent reviews: user will run manually (explicit user instruction; no next-skill handoff question).\n\n## Working plan (from PLAN.md, verbatim contracts)\n\n### Existing coverage and test infrastructure retained\nUnit tests only; `processPayment()` production behavior stays as-is. Per the plan (source not present in this repo, so unverified here):\n- Stripe adapter suite covers network timeouts, card declines (402), rate limits (429), and 502-then-success recovery.\n- Receipt-builder failure behavior has its own passing regression tests.\n- Payment test factory configures `max_retries=1`, exposes Stripe mock call history, and injects a virtual sleeper that records backoff without real delays. An exhausted 502 operation makes exactly two charge attempts.\n\n### Existing behavior retained (contracts this plan is meant to cover)\n- C1: Successful charge returns `{ chargeId: <Stripe id>, amountCents: <requested>, currency: <requested> }`. Example: 1000-cent USD charge with Stripe id `ch_paid` returns `{ chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }`.\n- C2: On repeated 502 with `max_retries=1`: exactly two charge attempts, one recorded 100 ms backoff between them, then rejection with `PaymentUnavailable`.\n\n### Proposed tests (as submitted)\nTwo tests in the existing `processPayment` suite, using its factory, Stripe mock and virtual sleeper. Other tests and production code stay as-is.\n1. Successful charge: mock returns id `ch_paid`; call with `amountCents=1000`, `currency=USD`; **assert only that the receipt is truthy** (stated as the complete planned assertion).\n2. Repeated 502: two consecutive 502s; **assert only rejection with `PaymentUnavailable`**; no assertion on mock call history or sleeper record.\n\n## Step 0 \u2014 Pre-review system audit\n- Repo: `CLAUDE.md`, `PLAN.md` only. One commit (`33f85de Seed review plan`). No remote, no stash, no TODO/FIXME, no TODOS.md, no design doc, no handoff note, no prior review log, no learnings, no brain digests.\n- Base branch: `main` (git-native fallback; platform unknown).\n- The production code and test suite named by the plan are not in this checkout. Every claim about factory/mock/sleeper behavior is **plan-stated, unverified**. This review treats them as stated invariants, not confirmed facts.\n- Retrospective check: no prior cycles on this branch.\n- Frontend/UI scope: none detected. Section 11 will be `SKIPPED (no UI scope)`.\n- Landscape check: search unavailable in this environment (no Aside, no WebSearch needed for a two-test plan); proceeding with in-distribution knowledge. Layer 1 (tried and true) for retry tests: assert the exact attempt count and exact backoff schedule via injected clock/sleeper. That is exactly the infrastructure the plan says already exists.\n\n## Step 0A \u2014 Premise challenge\n1. Right problem? Yes: C1 and C2 are stated contracts with no `processPayment`-level coverage (adapter suite covers 502-then-success, not 502-exhausted; receipt-builder tests cover failure, not the success mapping).\n2. Outcome vs proxy: the outcome is regression protection for C1/C2. As written, test 1 passes for any non-null return (wrong `amountCents`, wrong currency, missing `chargeId` all pass); test 2 passes for a loop that never retries, retries 10 times, or skips backoff entirely. The plan as submitted delivers the proxy (two green tests) without the outcome. The plan's own words say \"this plan adds their unit coverage\"; the assertions do not.\n3. Do nothing: C1/C2 stay unguarded at the caller level. A refactor that drops the backoff or maps `amountCents` from the Stripe response instead of the request ships green. Real pain, not hypothetical: retry/backoff regressions are silent until a Stripe outage.\n\n## Step 0B \u2014 Existing code leverage\n| Sub-problem | Existing code (per plan) | Plan reuses? |\n|---|---|---|\n| Deterministic Stripe responses | Stripe mock in payment test factory | Yes (both tests) |\n| Count charge attempts | Mock call history, exposed by factory | **No** (test 2 ignores it) |\n| Observe backoff without delay | Injected virtual sleeper with record | **No** (test 2 ignores it) |\n| Fixed retry budget | Factory sets `max_retries=1` | Yes (implicitly) |\nNothing is rebuilt. The gap is unused leverage, not duplicated code.\n\n## Step 0C \u2014 Dream state\n```\n CURRENT STATE THIS PLAN 12-MONTH IDEAL\n C1/C2 implemented, no +2 tests in processPayment Every processPayment contract\n processPayment-level tests; ---> suite; assertion depth ---> (receipt shape, attempt count,\n adapter + receipt-builder under review (R1-R3) backoff schedule, errLine truncated
"savedPlanSha256": "eee9233a41f6a1becdf1b56f4bab45b22f6755df79407c7e225ed9a3b6e48851",
"seed": "Please review this plan thoroughly in HOLD SCOPE mode. As you go, write your plan-mode plan to /tmp/gstack-owned-display-e9l650n8/gstack-paid-shard-YDSAa0/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-ceo-paired-KMXrWY/gstack-test-plan-ceo-paired.md (use Edit/Write to that exact path).\nProceed directly to the requested CEO review; skip the optional /office-hours prerequisite.\nFinish after this CEO review; I will handle subsequent reviews manually.\n\n# Plan: Payment Processing \u2014 Test Coverage\n\n## Existing coverage and test infrastructure retained\nThis changes unit tests only; processPayment() production behavior stays as-is.\nThe Stripe adapter suite already covers network timeouts, card declines (402),\nrate limits (429), and recovery when an initial 502 is followed by a successful\ncharge. Receipt-builder failure behavior has its own passing regression tests.\nThe payment test factory explicitly configures max_retries=1 and exposes the\nStripe mock call history. Its injected virtual sleeper records backoff without\nreal delays, so an exhausted 502 operation makes exactly two charge attempts.\nThese existing helpers and regression suites remain in use for this change.\n\n## Existing behavior retained\nA successful charge returns a receipt with chargeId copied from Stripe,\namountCents equal to the requested integer amount, and currency equal to\nthe requested currency. For a 1000-cent USD charge returning id ch_paid,\nthe receipt is { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }.\nOn repeated 502 responses, max_retries=1 means two total charge attempts\nseparated by one recorded 100 ms backoff, followed by PaymentUnavailable.\nThese contracts are already implemented; this plan adds their unit coverage.\n\n## Proposed tests\nAdd two tests in the existing processPayment suite using its current factory,\nStripe mock and virtual sleeper. Other tests and production code stay as-is.\n\n1. Successful charge: arrange the Stripe mock to return id ch_paid, call\n processPayment with amountCents=1000 and currency=USD, and assert only\n that the returned receipt is truthy. This is the complete planned assertion.\n2. Repeated 502: arrange two consecutive Stripe 502 responses, call\n processPayment, and assert only that it rejects with PaymentUnavailable.\n No assertion about the mock call history or virtual sleeper record\n is planned for this test.",
"seedSha256": "462a5d1d6e0e7588c4adfe595fa4d83d31832115df41380dab722c10a86ff432",
"questionIssuedAt": "2026-09-15T12:33:15.119Z",
"successfulPriorMutations": [
{
"toolUseId": "toolu_01C5mLHRG4QqjPzxQ96fNJ7U",
"filePath": "/tmp/gstack-owned-display-e9l650n8/gstack-paid-shard-YDSAa0/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-ceo-paired-KMXrWY/gstack-test-plan-ceo-paired.md",
"completedAt": "2026-09-15T12:32:51.425Z"
},
{
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Kv8f63DWtxFYstmYLQC3Xg",
"filePath": "/tmp/gstack-owned-display-e9l650n8/gstack-paid-shard-YDSAa0/tmp/gstack-hermetic-1332436-eqKgln/with-skills/.claude/plans/purring-tumbling-harp.md",
"completedAt": "2026-09-15T12:32:57.934Z"
}
]
},
{
"label": "paired-retry",
"call": {
"sessionId": "f2ee66ea-0aad-4858-b40f-2737351b63a7",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01FRsiBsYoiMQKVyn5K3wL3W",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 \u2014 Test 1 (successful charge): how deep should the receipt assertion go?\nProject/branch/task: main, adding unit coverage to the processPayment suite; ledger row D1.\nELI10: The plan's own contract says a 1000-cent USD charge must return exactly { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }. The planned test only checks that the receipt is not null, so a receipt with the wrong amount or currency would pass. This decides whether the test guards the contract or just proves the function returned something.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a receipt-mapping bug (wrong amount, wrong currency) ships with a green test suite and customers see wrong numbers.\nRecommendation: A because the plan already states the exact expected object; asserting it is one line and covers every mapped field.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=3/10\nNet: one toEqual line vs a test that cannot fail on the bugs that matter.",
"header": "D1 receipt",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Full receipt equality (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Pins chargeId, amountCents and currency exactly as the plan's contract states them\n\u2705 Catches amount/currency mix-ups, the receipt bugs customers actually notice\n\u274c Needs a one-line update if the receipt legitimately gains a new field later"
},
{
"label": "B) chargeId only",
"description": "\u2705 Proves the Stripe id is plumbed through to the receipt\n\u2705 Tolerates future receipt shape changes without edits\n\u274c amountCents and currency stay unguarded; wrong amount still passes"
},
{
"label": "C) Truthy only (as planned)",
"description": "\u2705 Cannot false-fail on any receipt shape change\n\u2705 Zero change from the plan as written\n\u274c An empty object or a wrong amount passes; this is a smoke test, not contract coverage"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 \u2014 Test 1 (successful charge): how deep should the receipt assertion go?\nProject/branch/task: main, adding unit coverage to the processPayment suite; ledger row D1.\nELI10: The plan's own contract says a 1000-cent USD charge must return exactly { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }. The planned test only checks that the receipt is not null, so a receipt with the wrong amount or currency would pass. This decides whether the test guards the contract or just proves the function returned something.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a receipt-mapping bug (wrong amount, wrong currency) ships with a green test suite and customers see wrong numbers.\nRecommendation: A because the plan already states the exact expected object; asserting it is one line and covers every mapped field.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=3/10\nNet: one toEqual line vs a test that cannot fail on the bugs that matter.": "A) Full receipt equality (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T12:36:43.590Z"
},
"savedPlan": "# Plan: Payment Processing \u2014 Test Coverage (CEO review, HOLD SCOPE)\n\nSource plan: `PLAN.md` on `main` (commit 86a8d2f). Reviewed by /plan-ceo-review on 2026-09-15.\nMode: HOLD SCOPE (explicit user instruction). /office-hours skipped by user instruction.\n\n## Context\n`processPayment()` already implements two contracts: a successful charge returns a receipt\ncopied from Stripe (`{ chargeId, amountCents, currency }`), and repeated 502s with\n`max_retries=1` produce exactly two charge attempts separated by one recorded 100 ms backoff,\nthen reject with `PaymentUnavailable`. Neither contract has direct unit coverage in the\nprocessPayment suite. This plan adds that coverage using the existing factory, Stripe mock and\nvirtual sleeper. Production code and all other tests stay unchanged.\n\n## Pre-review system audit\n- Repo contents: `PLAN.md`, `CLAUDE.md` only. No source, no test suite present in this checkout;\n the plan's claims about the factory, mock and sleeper are taken from the plan text and cannot\n be verified against code here (marked UNVERIFIED below).\n- Git: single commit `86a8d2f Seed review plan`, clean tree, no stash, no remote (platform\n unknown; base branch falls back to `main`).\n- TODO/FIXME/HACK grep: none. TODOS.md: absent. Design doc: none. Handoff note: none.\n- Prior learnings: 0. Brain digests: cold. Cross-project learnings config: unset (prompt\n deferred; plan mode blocks config writes).\n- Retrospective check: no prior review cycles on this branch.\n- Frontend/UI scope: none. DESIGN_SCOPE = false; Section 11 will be skipped.\n- Pending post-plan-mode action (D0 approved): append gstack skill-routing rules to\n `CLAUDE.md` and commit `chore: add gstack skill routing rules to CLAUDE.md`.\n\n### Landscape check (Layer 1/2/3)\n- Layer 1 (tried and true): retry tests inject a fake clock/sleeper and assert the attempt\n count and delay sequence, not only the terminal error.\n- Layer 2 (search, via WebSearch; Aside not installed): same guidance. \"Assert backend\n invocation count\", \"assert the delay sequence with a fake sleep\", \"define maxAttempts vs\n maxRetries explicitly because teams disagree whether the initial call counts.\"\n Sources: oneuptime.com 2026-08-14 deterministic retry testing; qaskills.sh retry-after /\n fake-timers guides.\n- Layer 3 (first principles): this factory already exposes call history and the sleeper record.\n A test that ignores both leaves the two most regression-prone numbers (attempt count, backoff\n duration) unguarded while the tooling to guard them is already wired in. No eureka; the\n conventional wisdom holds.\n\n## Step 0A. Premise challenge\n1. Right problem? Yes. Two documented contracts lack direct tests; adding them is the cheapest\n way to lock the behavior before anything touches retry or receipt code.\n2. Outcome: a regression in receipt mapping or retry count fails CI instead of reaching\n customers (double charges on a retry bug, wrong amount on a receipt bug). As written, the\n plan's assertions do NOT reach that outcome: `truthy` passes for any object, and\n `rejects with PaymentUnavailable` passes whether the code retried 0, 1 or 5 times.\n3. Do nothing: pain is real but latent. The contracts hold today; the risk is silent drift.\n\n## Step 0B. Existing code leverage (UNVERIFIED against source in this checkout)\n| Sub-problem | Existing code (per plan) | Reuse |\n|---|---|---|\n| Deterministic Stripe responses | payment test factory + Stripe mock | yes |\n| Observe attempts | mock call history exposed by factory | yes, currently unused by plan |\n| Observe backoff | injected virtual sleeper record | yes, currently unused by plan |\n| `max_retries=1` config | factory default | yes |\n| 502 then success | Stripe adapter suite | already covered, not duplicated |\n| Receipt-builder failures | own regression tests | already covered, not duplicated |\nNothing is rebuilt. No new helpers needed.\n\n## Step 0C. Dream state\n```\n CURRENT STATE THIS PLAN 12-MONTH IDEAL\n Contracts implemented, ---> Two direct tests in the ---> Every documented\n documented in prose only, processPayment suite processPayment contract\n guarded indirectly by pinning receipt shape and has a named test; retry\n adapter/builder suites retry count + backoff policy changes fail CI\n```\nMoves toward the ideal only if the tests assert the contracts, not just non-nullness.\n\n## Decision ledger\n| ID and owner | Contract and evidence | Current | Proposed | Status | Exact approval and scope |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| D0 (user) | gstack routing rules in CLAUDE.md | none | append routing section + commit | approved | AskUserQuestion D0 \u2192 \"Add routing rules\". Deferred until plan mode exits. |\n| D1 (user) | Test 1 assertion depth. Contract (plan \u00a7Existing behavior): receipt `{ charLine truncated
"savedPlanSha256": "00c1585cb9e75241ac1e858b1559604310940df19e19fe794fc94ad8b5b560b0",
"seed": "Please review this plan thoroughly in HOLD SCOPE mode. As you go, write your plan-mode plan to /tmp/gstack-owned-display-e9l650n8/gstack-paid-shard-YDSAa0/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-ceo-paired-XSSRdL/gstack-test-plan-ceo-paired.md (use Edit/Write to that exact path).\nProceed directly to the requested CEO review; skip the optional /office-hours prerequisite.\nFinish after this CEO review; I will handle subsequent reviews manually.\n\n# Plan: Payment Processing \u2014 Test Coverage\n\n## Existing coverage and test infrastructure retained\nThis changes unit tests only; processPayment() production behavior stays as-is.\nThe Stripe adapter suite already covers network timeouts, card declines (402),\nrate limits (429), and recovery when an initial 502 is followed by a successful\ncharge. Receipt-builder failure behavior has its own passing regression tests.\nThe payment test factory explicitly configures max_retries=1 and exposes the\nStripe mock call history. Its injected virtual sleeper records backoff without\nreal delays, so an exhausted 502 operation makes exactly two charge attempts.\nThese existing helpers and regression suites remain in use for this change.\n\n## Existing behavior retained\nA successful charge returns a receipt with chargeId copied from Stripe,\namountCents equal to the requested integer amount, and currency equal to\nthe requested currency. For a 1000-cent USD charge returning id ch_paid,\nthe receipt is { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }.\nOn repeated 502 responses, max_retries=1 means two total charge attempts\nseparated by one recorded 100 ms backoff, followed by PaymentUnavailable.\nThese contracts are already implemented; this plan adds their unit coverage.\n\n## Proposed tests\nAdd two tests in the existing processPayment suite using its current factory,\nStripe mock and virtual sleeper. Other tests and production code stay as-is.\n\n1. Successful charge: arrange the Stripe mock to return id ch_paid, call\n processPayment with amountCents=1000 and currency=USD, and assert only\n that the returned receipt is truthy. This is the complete planned assertion.\n2. Repeated 502: arrange two consecutive Stripe 502 responses, call\n processPayment, and assert only that it rejects with PaymentUnavailable.\n No assertion about the mock call history or virtual sleeper record\n is planned for this test.",
"seedSha256": "d10eb7533195ba4709a24d5b02ac543f88375680cd541c42200f177992a5b6a6",
"questionIssuedAt": "2026-09-15T12:36:41.580Z",
"successfulPriorMutations": [
{
"toolUseId": "toolu_01LnmAupSVQeSfo7fgz1737T",
"filePath": "/tmp/gstack-owned-display-e9l650n8/gstack-paid-shard-YDSAa0/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-ceo-paired-XSSRdL/gstack-test-plan-ceo-paired.md",
"completedAt": "2026-09-15T12:36:30.091Z",
"savedPlanSha256": "00c1585cb9e75241ac1e858b1559604310940df19e19fe794fc94ad8b5b560b0"
}
]
}
],
"originalOutcomes": "All three retained calls threw the unsupported-current-decision guard in their actual paid attempt; these free replays do not rejudge those outcomes.",
"noThinkingOrSignatures": true
}
test/fixtures/ceo-recorded-decisions-dacc95ea.json
Vendored
-206
View File
@@ -1,206 +0,0 @@
{
"source": "dacc95ea69dc73d7d0358165355969b6e4f10f6f",
"provenance": "Actual failed public native decisions and ACKs; saved plans reconstructed exactly from successful same-path Write/Edit inputs before each Ask. No hidden reasoning. Original paid attempts remain failed; these free cases provide no paid credit.",
"cases": [
{
"name": "five-first",
"call": {
"sessionId": "c5058fe5-160a-4330-adb1-e398ddac9fda",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01REYfnpbpZsKnsnxixbFLak",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D2 (ledger R1) \u2014 How should the new Stripe payment handler be routed?\nProject/branch/task: plan-count fixture on `main`; HOLD SCOPE CEO review of PLAN.md.\nELI10: Today a shared \"dispatcher\" hands each Stripe event to a handler and wraps it in the safety checks the plan relies on (signature already verified upstream, dedupe by event ID, per-user lock, unknown-user stop). The plan wants a new app-owned handler class AND wants to skip the dispatcher for \"clean namespace separation\". The name alone gives you the namespace. Skipping the dispatcher is a second change, and the plan never says where those safety checks actually live. If they live in the dispatcher, bypassing it drops them.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a missed guard on the new path means duplicate payment processing or an unlocked update, with no error and no alert (silent failure).\nRecommendation: A because it delivers the approved name and app ownership while inheriting every guard by construction, at the smallest diff.\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=6/10, C=8/10\nNet: A trades total module independence for guaranteed guard coverage; B trades guaranteed guard coverage for independence nobody asked for; C is smallest but leaves the approved class name unused.",
"header": "Routing",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Register with WebhookDispatcher (recommended)",
"description": "New Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler, routed by the existing dispatcher under the existing flag. Effort S (human ~1 day / CC ~10 min), risk low. \u2705 Signature, dedupe, lock, unknown-user, tracing all inherited without re-proving them. \u2705 Rollback is a registration swap; smallest diff; approved class name used. \u274c Handler still conforms to the dispatcher interface; plan's \"bypass\" wording must be rewritten."
},
{
"label": "B) Bypass WebhookDispatcher (as planned)",
"description": "New class wired to ingress directly. Effort M (human ~3 days / CC ~30 min), risk high. \u2705 Zero dependency on the dispatcher module; full namespace and module separation. \u2705 Future handlers could follow a dispatcher-free pattern if that is a real goal. \u274c Every \"retained\" guard must be independently proven on the new path; two routing paths to flag and maintain; a missed guard fails silently."
},
{
"label": "C) Reuse dispatcher, no new handler class",
"description": "Existing handler slot calls an app-owned service object (e.g. Payments::ProcessSucceededIntent). Effort S (human ~1 day / CC ~10 min), risk low. \u2705 Smallest surface; guards inherited; orchestration unit-testable in isolation. \u2705 No new routing or registration to keep in sync. \u274c Approved class name goes unused; ownership boundary sits inside the adapter call, less legible to the next engineer."
}
]
}
],
"answers": {
"D2 (ledger R1) \u2014 How should the new Stripe payment handler be routed?\nProject/branch/task: plan-count fixture on `main`; HOLD SCOPE CEO review of PLAN.md.\nELI10: Today a shared \"dispatcher\" hands each Stripe event to a handler and wraps it in the safety checks the plan relies on (signature already verified upstream, dedupe by event ID, per-user lock, unknown-user stop). The plan wants a new app-owned handler class AND wants to skip the dispatcher for \"clean namespace separation\". The name alone gives you the namespace. Skipping the dispatcher is a second change, and the plan never says where those safety checks actually live. If they live in the dispatcher, bypassing it drops them.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a missed guard on the new path means duplicate payment processing or an unlocked update, with no error and no alert (silent failure).\nRecommendation: A because it delivers the approved name and app ownership while inheriting every guard by construction, at the smallest diff.\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=6/10, C=8/10\nNet: A trades total module independence for guaranteed guard coverage; B trades guaranteed guard coverage for independence nobody asked for; C is smallest but leaves the approved class name unused.": "A) Register with WebhookDispatcher (recommended)"
},
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T11:28:00.820Z",
"unansweredQuestionIndices": []
},
"seed": "Please review this plan thoroughly in HOLD SCOPE mode. As you go, write your plan-mode plan to /tmp/gstack-owned-display-y9q732vy/gstack-paid-shard-9sisDA/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-ceo-beKbVR/gstack-test-plan-ceo.md (use Edit/Write to that exact path).\nProceed directly to the requested CEO review; skip the optional /office-hours prerequisite.\nFinish after this CEO review; I will handle subsequent reviews manually.\n\n# Plan: Payment Processing Integration\n\n## Existing contracts retained\nThe approved motivation is to move payment orchestration out of the prior\nlibrary-adapter handler into application-owned code while retaining the\nexisting payment and receipt product behavior. The shared dispatcher remains\navailable; the proposed bypass below is still an architectural choice to review.\nThe existing ingress middleware verifies the Stripe signature against the\nraw request body and rejects invalid signatures before invoking handlers.\nThe existing ingress forwards only `payment_intent.succeeded` events to\nthis handler; other Stripe event types are acknowledged without invoking it.\nThe existing payload adapter exposes `event.data.object.metadata.user_id`\nas `request.params.userId`. This params object is the parsed body-data map,\nnot URL query/path parameters; all users share one webhook URL.\nThe adapter acknowledges missing, nil, or empty user_id metadata with\nHTTP 200 and an event-correlated warning before invoking this handler.\nFor every nonempty external string it performs no SQL-format validation.\nThe adapter forwards that external string unchanged. It does not cast,\nescape, or SQL-sanitize it; a valid signature does not make it safe for SQL.\nUser IDs are opaque TEXT values, including punctuation and Unicode. The\nlookup has no integer/UUID cast or ID-format restriction; every nonempty\nstring is a valid identifier representation.\nAn existing ingress ownership guard checks the PaymentIntent ID against\nits stored opaque user-ID binding before invoking the handler. A mismatch\nis acknowledged with HTTP 200 and an event-correlated warning. This is an\nidentity comparison, not SQL-format validation; the adapter still forwards\nthe original string unchanged.\nThe existing webhook event guard deduplicates deliveries by Stripe event ID,\nand an existing per-user lock serializes payment updates.\nThe event guard acquires the existing per-user lock before checking the\ncommitted completion marker, and rechecks after any lock wait. It holds\nthat lock through the handler and completion bookkeeping; an overlapping\ncompleted duplicate does not invoke the handler.\nThe new handler runs inside those unchanged guards; this plan does not\nreplace signature verification, event deduplication, or update locking.\nThe existing user update assigns payment_status=paid and the payment intent\nID; it does not increment a balance or counter. Repeating the same payment\nintent assigns the same values, independently of the event-ID guard.\nThe existing lookup-result guard acknowledges unknown/deleted users with\nHTTP 200, logs the event, and stops before user updates or email fan-out.\nThe retained recipient-policy helper treats a nil or empty email address as\nskipped_missing_address: payment processing continues normally, and no mail\nclient call is attempted. It persists an event/user/PaymentIntent-correlated\nskip record, emits a structured warning, and increments the existing counter.\nThe existing notification runbook already covers that skip result: correct\nthe account address, then retry only its recorded notification using the\nsame PaymentIntent idempotency key. It never replays the payment for this case.\nThat recipient policy does not catch failures from sends to nonempty addresses;\nthe shared mail client still rethrows those exceptions to this handler.\nAccount deletion uses the same per-user lock. The handler holds it from\nlookup through update and inline email, so deletion either precedes lookup\n(the existing unknown/deleted-user path) or follows the handler; it cannot\nremove the user between lookup and update.\nThe ingress wrapper already logs event IDs, outcomes, and durations, with\nalerts for failed webhook processing. Those controls remain in place.\nThe existing DB and mail clients attach the adapter user ID and event ID\nto outcome traces, including update success and email delivery success or\nfailure. These shared clients rethrow exceptions unchanged; tracing does\nnot rescue email errors or change the inline email call below.\nThe shared mail client also publishes its delivery failure rate to the\nexisting dashboard and tested on-call alert, including caught exceptions.\nThe existing incident runbook uses the correlated DB and mail outcomes to\ndistinguish committed payments from failed notifications. It directs on-call\nto check provider status and retry only the failed notification through the\nexisting notification retry procedure, never replay the payment blindly.\nDB Line truncated
"savedPlan": "# CEO Review: Payment Processing Integration (HOLD SCOPE)\n\nGenerated by /plan-ceo-review on 2026-09-15\nRepo: gstack-plan-count-Q0ge2Y (fixture, no remote) | Branch: main | Base: main (fallback; no origin HEAD)\nPlan under review: `PLAN.md` (copied into CLAUDE.md as the session request)\nMode: HOLD SCOPE (explicit user instruction; no mode question asked)\n\n## Context\n\nThe approved motivation is to move Stripe payment orchestration out of the prior\nlibrary-adapter handler into application-owned code while keeping the existing\npayment and receipt behavior byte-for-byte. The plan proposes a new\n`Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler` (name already approved) that bypasses\n`WebhookDispatcher`, builds the user lookup from `request.params.userId` as a raw\nSQL fragment, updates the user and sends the receipt inline with no rescue on the\nmail leg, fetches orders in a per-order loop, and ships with no new tests.\n\nThis document is the review record. Findings are pending until a decision is\nrecorded in the ledger below. No code is changed by this review.\n\n## Queued follow-up (outside plan mode)\n\n- D1 = A: append the gstack skill-routing block to `CLAUDE.md` and commit\n `chore: add gstack skill routing rules to CLAUDE.md`. Deferred because plan mode\n forbids the edit and commit right now.\n\n## Pre-review system audit\n\n| Check | Result |\n|---|---|\n| Repo contents | `CLAUDE.md`, `PLAN.md` only. No application code to inspect. Every \"existing contract\" in the plan is unverifiable here and is treated as a stated claim. |\n| Git history | 1 commit (`f815b76 Seed review plan`). No prior review cycles, refactors, or reverts. Retrospective check: nothing to report. |\n| In flight | No stashes, no other branches, clean tree. |\n| TODO/FIXME/HACK | None. No TODOS.md. |\n| Design doc / handoff | None. `/office-hours` skipped per user instruction. |\n| Prior learnings | 0. Cross-project learnings config unset; not asked this session because there are zero learnings to search either way. |\n| Brain context | All four digests cold. |\n| Frontend/UI scope | None. Webhook handler only. Section 11 is a no-UI skip. |\n| Landscape (WebSearch; Aside absent) | Layer 1: verify signature against raw body, dedupe on `event.id`, commit before 2xx, parameterize DB access. Layer 2: 2026 guides say the same; the plan's retained guards already cover signature, dedup, and lock. Layer 3 (first principles): the plan asserts the new handler \"runs inside those unchanged guards\" while also bypassing `WebhookDispatcher`. If the dispatcher is what wires those guards around a handler, the bypass silently removes them. The plan does not say where the guards live. That is the single most important unknown in this review. |\n\n## Step 0A: Premise challenge\n\n1. Right problem? Yes, with a caveat. Ownership of payment orchestration belongs in\n the application, not a library adapter. But the stated goal (\"clean namespace\n separation\") is satisfied by the approved class name alone. Bypassing the\n dispatcher is a second, unrelated change that the plan presents as the same thing.\n2. Outcome. Business outcome is maintainability: future payment changes land in\n app code without touching adapter internals. Users should see zero difference.\n The plan reaches that outcome only if behavior is preserved, which makes \"no\n tests\" the loudest contradiction in the document.\n3. Do nothing? The prior handler keeps working behind the feature flag. Pain is\n real but internal (peacetime refactor). That lowers the tolerance for new risk:\n a refactor with no user-visible upside must not introduce user-visible downside.\n\n## Step 0B: Existing code leverage\n\n| Sub-problem | Existing code (per plan) | Plan's use |\n|---|---|---|\n| Signature verification | Ingress middleware, raw body | Retained (claimed) |\n| Event type filter | Ingress forwards only `payment_intent.succeeded` | Retained (claimed) |\n| user_id extraction | Payload adapter -> `request.params.userId` (opaque TEXT, unsanitized) | Read directly into raw SQL. Contradicts the plan's own contract line: \"a valid signature does not make it safe for SQL.\" |\n| Missing/empty user_id | Adapter returns 200 + warning before handler | Retained |\n| PaymentIntent ownership | Ingress ownership guard | Retained (claimed) |\n| Dedup + per-user lock | Event guard, lock held through handler + completion bookkeeping | Retained (claimed); wiring location unknown |\n| Unknown/deleted user | Lookup-result guard, 200 + log, stops before update/email | Retained |\n| Missing email address | Recipient-policy helper -> `skipped_missing_address` + skip record + counter | Retained |\n| Mail send | Shared mail client: PaymentIntent idempotency key, 1s deadline, `MailTimeout`, durable attempt record, rethrows | Called inline; exception rethrown out of handler with no rescue |\n| DB errors | Propagate to ingress wrapper -> 500 -> Stripe retry; dedup completion recorLine truncated
"questionIssuedAt": "2026-09-15T11:28:00.076Z",
"successfulPriorMutations": [
{
"id": "toolu_01SkqZi2NgAt1j6i52hj3EAA",
"tool": "Write",
"file": "/tmp/gstack-owned-display-y9q732vy/gstack-paid-shard-9sisDA/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-ceo-beKbVR/gstack-test-plan-ceo.md",
"completedAt": "2026-09-15T11:27:41.372Z"
}
],
"savedPlanSha256": "8f0a929598aac294ffadb883b4b9380a319a4a0227ff4bf9dede74897573b723",
"seedBuilderSha256": "a3de97b14e141dce64140f5ed3f2700062ce8d4dcf68da40921d2bc09a4396b7",
"publicProjectionSha256": "07f7cd43fecaebf175729c358651d7d3caff9953d34db42b03d21fb84c3ecdd4"
},
{
"name": "paired-first",
"call": {
"sessionId": "9cf042a2-0e4a-4543-a3db-62bfdb56cf11",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01D7M2PZFmAX63V5pBrCGmYy",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 \u2014 How deep should the successful-charge test assert?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-FoUPOz on main; two new processPayment unit tests, HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: The plan writes down exactly what a good receipt looks like ({ chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }) and then only checks that *something* came back. A test that passes when the receipt is `{}` or has the wrong amount is not protecting anything. The factory already exposes the Stripe mock's call history and the virtual sleeper, so checking the real contract costs a few lines, not new infrastructure.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a wrong-amount or wrong-currency receipt, or a double charge on the happy path, ships green.\nRecommendation: A because the evidence is already exposed by the existing helpers and the assertions are ~6 lines.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=3/10\nNet: trading a few lines of coupling to the mock's call-history shape against actually pinning the payment contract the plan itself documents.",
"header": "D1 Test 1",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Full happy-path contract (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Deep-equal receipt {ch_paid, 1000, USD}; exactly one charge call with the requested amount/currency; sleeper recorded no backoff. Catches malformed receipt, double-charge, stray retry.\n\u2705 Uses only helpers the plan says already exist (mock call history, virtual sleeper); ~6 lines, same file.\n\u274c Couples the test to the mock call-history API shape; the sleeper-empty check is inferred from the contract, not stated in the plan."
},
{
"label": "B) Receipt fields only",
"description": "\u2705 Pins the receipt contract exactly as the plan states it, with a single deep-equality assertion (~2 lines).\n\u2705 No dependence on mock internals, so helper API drift cannot break it.\n\u274c A double charge on success or a spurious backoff still passes; the retry loop stays unpinned on the happy path."
},
{
"label": "C) As planned: truthy only",
"description": "\u2705 Smallest possible diff (1 line) and immune to any helper API change.\n\u2705 Still proves processPayment resolves rather than throws on a 200.\n\u274c Passes for {}, a string, or a receipt with the wrong amount or currency; the test documents nothing about the payment contract."
}
]
}
],
"answers": {
"D1 \u2014 How deep should the successful-charge test assert?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-FoUPOz on main; two new processPayment unit tests, HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: The plan writes down exactly what a good receipt looks like ({ chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }) and then only checks that *something* came back. A test that passes when the receipt is `{}` or has the wrong amount is not protecting anything. The factory already exposes the Stripe mock's call history and the virtual sleeper, so checking the real contract costs a few lines, not new infrastructure.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a wrong-amount or wrong-currency receipt, or a double charge on the happy path, ships green.\nRecommendation: A because the evidence is already exposed by the existing helpers and the assertions are ~6 lines.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=3/10\nNet: trading a few lines of coupling to the mock's call-history shape against actually pinning the payment contract the plan itself documents.": "A) Full happy-path contract (recommended)"
},
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T11:27:02.170Z",
"unansweredQuestionIndices": []
},
"seed": "Please review this plan thoroughly in HOLD SCOPE mode. As you go, write your plan-mode plan to /tmp/gstack-owned-display-y9q732vy/gstack-paid-shard-9sisDA/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-ceo-paired-li8w5L/gstack-test-plan-ceo-paired.md (use Edit/Write to that exact path).\nProceed directly to the requested CEO review; skip the optional /office-hours prerequisite.\nFinish after this CEO review; I will handle subsequent reviews manually.\n\n# Plan: Payment Processing \u2014 Test Coverage\n\n## Existing coverage and test infrastructure retained\nThis changes unit tests only; processPayment() production behavior stays as-is.\nThe Stripe adapter suite already covers network timeouts, card declines (402),\nrate limits (429), and recovery when an initial 502 is followed by a successful\ncharge. Receipt-builder failure behavior has its own passing regression tests.\nThe payment test factory explicitly configures max_retries=1 and exposes the\nStripe mock call history. Its injected virtual sleeper records backoff without\nreal delays, so an exhausted 502 operation makes exactly two charge attempts.\nThese existing helpers and regression suites remain in use for this change.\n\n## Existing behavior retained\nA successful charge returns a receipt with chargeId copied from Stripe,\namountCents equal to the requested integer amount, and currency equal to\nthe requested currency. For a 1000-cent USD charge returning id ch_paid,\nthe receipt is { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }.\nOn repeated 502 responses, max_retries=1 means two total charge attempts\nseparated by one recorded 100 ms backoff, followed by PaymentUnavailable.\nThese contracts are already implemented; this plan adds their unit coverage.\n\n## Proposed tests\nAdd two tests in the existing processPayment suite using its current factory,\nStripe mock and virtual sleeper. Other tests and production code stay as-is.\n\n1. Successful charge: arrange the Stripe mock to return id ch_paid, call\n processPayment with amountCents=1000 and currency=USD, and assert only\n that the returned receipt is truthy. This is the complete planned assertion.\n2. Repeated 502: arrange two consecutive Stripe 502 responses, call\n processPayment, and assert only that it rejects with PaymentUnavailable.\n No assertion about the mock call history or virtual sleeper record\n is planned for this test.",
"savedPlan": "# Plan: Payment Processing \u2014 Test Coverage\n\nWorking plan for `/plan-ceo-review` (HOLD SCOPE). Source: `PLAN.md` @ b4c75e9 on `main`.\nBase branch: `main` (no remote; git-native fallback). Reviewed 2026-09-15.\n\n## Context\n\n`processPayment()` already implements two contracts that have no direct unit\ncoverage in its own suite: (1) a successful Stripe charge yields a receipt\n`{ chargeId, amountCents, currency }` copied from the request and Stripe id;\n(2) with `max_retries=1`, repeated 502s produce exactly two charge attempts\nseparated by one recorded 100 ms backoff, then `PaymentUnavailable`. The Stripe\nadapter suite covers timeouts, 402, 429 and 502-then-success; the receipt\nbuilder has its own regression tests. This plan adds two unit tests to the\nexisting `processPayment` suite. Production code stays as-is.\n\n## Existing coverage and test infrastructure retained\nThis changes unit tests only; processPayment() production behavior stays as-is.\nThe Stripe adapter suite already covers network timeouts, card declines (402),\nrate limits (429), and recovery when an initial 502 is followed by a successful\ncharge. Receipt-builder failure behavior has its own passing regression tests.\nThe payment test factory explicitly configures max_retries=1 and exposes the\nStripe mock call history. Its injected virtual sleeper records backoff without\nreal delays, so an exhausted 502 operation makes exactly two charge attempts.\nThese existing helpers and regression suites remain in use for this change.\n\n## Existing behavior retained\nA successful charge returns a receipt with chargeId copied from Stripe,\namountCents equal to the requested integer amount, and currency equal to\nthe requested currency. For a 1000-cent USD charge returning id ch_paid,\nthe receipt is { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }.\nOn repeated 502 responses, max_retries=1 means two total charge attempts\nseparated by one recorded 100 ms backoff, followed by PaymentUnavailable.\nThese contracts are already implemented; this plan adds their unit coverage.\n\n## Proposed tests (as submitted; assertion depth pending \u2014 see ledger)\nAdd two tests in the existing processPayment suite using its current factory,\nStripe mock and virtual sleeper. Other tests and production code stay as-is.\n\n1. Successful charge: arrange the Stripe mock to return id ch_paid, call\n processPayment with amountCents=1000 and currency=USD, and assert only\n that the returned receipt is truthy. This is the complete planned assertion.\n2. Repeated 502: arrange two consecutive Stripe 502 responses, call\n processPayment, and assert only that it rejects with PaymentUnavailable.\n No assertion about the mock call history or virtual sleeper record\n is planned for this test.\n\n---\n\n# CEO Review \u2014 Step 0 working notes\n\n## Pre-review system audit\n- Repo contains only `CLAUDE.md` and `PLAN.md` (fixture). No source, no TODOS.md,\n no architecture docs, no TODO/FIXME markers, no stashes, no in-flight branches.\n One commit (`b4c75e9 Seed review plan`).\n- No design doc, no CEO handoff note. `/office-hours` skipped per user instruction.\n- Prior learnings: none (`LEARNINGS: 0`). Brain digests: all cold.\n- Retrospective check: no prior review cycles in history.\n- Frontend/UI scope: none. Section 11 will be a no-UI skip.\n- Stated limits (record, do not change without approval):\n - `max_retries=1` (integer, factory-configured) \u2192 exactly 2 charge attempts on exhaustion.\n - Backoff: one recorded delay of 100 ms (virtual sleeper, no wall-clock).\n - Deliverables: 2 new tests, 1 existing suite file edited, 0 production files.\n- Source code is not present in this checkout, so every claim about helpers\n (factory, mock call history, virtual sleeper API) is taken from the plan text\n and marked **unverified in-repo**.\n\n## Landscape check (WebSearch; Aside unavailable)\n- Layer 1: retry tests inject a fake clock and assert exact backend call count\n plus recorded delay; success tests assert returned fields.\n- Layer 2: current guidance agrees (OneUptime 2026-08; QASkills retry/429 guides):\n \"assert the exact network-call count and confirm that no pending timer can\n trigger another request\"; assert policy decisions, never wall-clock sleep.\n- Layer 3: the plan already owns the injected sleeper and call history. It names\n three concrete contracts and then declines to assert any of them. Both planned\n tests stay green if retry is deleted or the receipt is malformed.\n\n## 0A. Premise Challenge\n1. Right problem? Yes: the two `processPayment` contracts have no direct unit\n coverage in the orchestrator's own suite; adapter and receipt-builder tests\n do not pin the orchestration (attempt count, backoff, receipt assembly).\n2. Outcome: a regression in the retry loop or receipt assembly fails CI before\n it fails a customer. As written, the tests reach a proxy (function returns\n Line truncated
"questionIssuedAt": "2026-09-15T11:27:00.725Z",
"successfulPriorMutations": [
{
"id": "toolu_01LEw6BYjG9WNgdicZfwwmPb",
"tool": "Write",
"file": "/tmp/gstack-owned-display-y9q732vy/gstack-paid-shard-9sisDA/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-ceo-paired-li8w5L/gstack-test-plan-ceo-paired.md",
"completedAt": "2026-09-15T11:26:23.160Z"
},
{
"id": "toolu_01MApcpJH41NVtisoz4sSdhH",
"tool": "Edit",
"file": "/tmp/gstack-owned-display-y9q732vy/gstack-paid-shard-9sisDA/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-ceo-paired-li8w5L/gstack-test-plan-ceo-paired.md",
"completedAt": "2026-09-15T11:26:46.684Z"
}
],
"savedPlanSha256": "1fddad8252962c4401b4674257a336c779819b04bc49acef3bdf6186f181c2ad",
"seedBuilderSha256": "fa23ce2b31ef41070c7e8a02ac4e6059f3b37bf2a3e8cff0fe087d0206ea594a",
"publicProjectionSha256": "4ac437093ae7a32bb69ee894070083da8c905b9df0a63cbf53f4f7a405024b14"
},
{
"name": "paired-retry",
"call": {
"sessionId": "cc4054dc-c743-4426-86d6-a499f49fa4f2",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01BXDDvCNCTwy3fFYUjUSL6e",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 \u2014 R1: How deep should the successful-charge test assert the receipt?\nProject/branch/task: main, CEO review of PLAN.md (payment test coverage), HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: Test 1 charges 1000 cents USD with a fake Stripe that answers ch_paid. The plan then only checks that \"something\" came back. The plan itself already spells out exactly what should come back: { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }. Checking the real shape costs one line and is the difference between a test that guards the contract and one that guards nothing.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a receipt with the wrong amount, wrong currency, or an undefined chargeId ships green; customers see wrong receipts and the suite says all is well.\nRecommendation: A because the expected value is already written in the plan and deep-equal is one line.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=9/10, C=3/10\nNet: trading one line of assertion for actual regression protection on all three receipt fields.",
"header": "R1 receipt",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Full receipt equality (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Pins chargeId, amountCents and currency in one deep-equal; a wrong field fails with the exact diff. \u2705 Doubles as executable documentation of the receipt contract stated in the plan. \u274c Must be updated if the receipt shape legitimately grows a new field later."
},
{
"label": "B) Three field assertions",
"description": "\u2705 Same protection for the three contract fields as A, with tolerance for additive receipt fields. \u2705 Each failure names the exact field that regressed. \u274c Silently accepts unexpected extra fields; three lines where one would do."
},
{
"label": "C) Truthy only (as planned)",
"description": "\u2705 Smallest possible diff and can never break on receipt shape changes. \u2705 Still catches processPayment returning undefined or throwing. \u274c Passes for {} or a receipt with the wrong amount or currency; verifies existence, not the contract."
}
]
}
],
"answers": {
"D1 \u2014 R1: How deep should the successful-charge test assert the receipt?\nProject/branch/task: main, CEO review of PLAN.md (payment test coverage), HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: Test 1 charges 1000 cents USD with a fake Stripe that answers ch_paid. The plan then only checks that \"something\" came back. The plan itself already spells out exactly what should come back: { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }. Checking the real shape costs one line and is the difference between a test that guards the contract and one that guards nothing.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a receipt with the wrong amount, wrong currency, or an undefined chargeId ships green; customers see wrong receipts and the suite says all is well.\nRecommendation: A because the expected value is already written in the plan and deep-equal is one line.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=9/10, C=3/10\nNet: trading one line of assertion for actual regression protection on all three receipt fields.": "A) Full receipt equality (recommended)"
},
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T11:30:06.021Z",
"unansweredQuestionIndices": []
},
"seed": "Please review this plan thoroughly in HOLD SCOPE mode. As you go, write your plan-mode plan to /tmp/gstack-owned-display-y9q732vy/gstack-paid-shard-9sisDA/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-ceo-paired-G5Hn9B/gstack-test-plan-ceo-paired.md (use Edit/Write to that exact path).\nProceed directly to the requested CEO review; skip the optional /office-hours prerequisite.\nFinish after this CEO review; I will handle subsequent reviews manually.\n\n# Plan: Payment Processing \u2014 Test Coverage\n\n## Existing coverage and test infrastructure retained\nThis changes unit tests only; processPayment() production behavior stays as-is.\nThe Stripe adapter suite already covers network timeouts, card declines (402),\nrate limits (429), and recovery when an initial 502 is followed by a successful\ncharge. Receipt-builder failure behavior has its own passing regression tests.\nThe payment test factory explicitly configures max_retries=1 and exposes the\nStripe mock call history. Its injected virtual sleeper records backoff without\nreal delays, so an exhausted 502 operation makes exactly two charge attempts.\nThese existing helpers and regression suites remain in use for this change.\n\n## Existing behavior retained\nA successful charge returns a receipt with chargeId copied from Stripe,\namountCents equal to the requested integer amount, and currency equal to\nthe requested currency. For a 1000-cent USD charge returning id ch_paid,\nthe receipt is { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }.\nOn repeated 502 responses, max_retries=1 means two total charge attempts\nseparated by one recorded 100 ms backoff, followed by PaymentUnavailable.\nThese contracts are already implemented; this plan adds their unit coverage.\n\n## Proposed tests\nAdd two tests in the existing processPayment suite using its current factory,\nStripe mock and virtual sleeper. Other tests and production code stay as-is.\n\n1. Successful charge: arrange the Stripe mock to return id ch_paid, call\n processPayment with amountCents=1000 and currency=USD, and assert only\n that the returned receipt is truthy. This is the complete planned assertion.\n2. Repeated 502: arrange two consecutive Stripe 502 responses, call\n processPayment, and assert only that it rejects with PaymentUnavailable.\n No assertion about the mock call history or virtual sleeper record\n is planned for this test.",
"savedPlan": "# Plan: Payment Processing \u2014 Test Coverage (CEO review, HOLD SCOPE)\n\nReviewed by /plan-ceo-review on 2026-09-15. Branch: main. Source plan: PLAN.md.\nMode: HOLD SCOPE (explicit user instruction). Production code is NOT changed.\n\n## Context\n\nprocessPayment() already implements two contracts: a successful charge returns\na receipt copied from Stripe, and repeated 502s exhaust max_retries=1 (two\nattempts, one 100 ms recorded backoff) and reject with PaymentUnavailable.\nNeither contract has direct unit coverage in the processPayment suite. This\nplan adds that coverage using the existing payment test factory, Stripe mock\nand virtual sleeper. Nothing else changes.\n\n## Pre-review system audit\n\n- Repo contents: CLAUDE.md, PLAN.md only. No processPayment source, factory,\n Stripe mock or test suite is checked in here. Every \"existing\" claim below\n is plan-stated, not code-verified in this repo. Marked UNVERIFIED in the ledger.\n- Git: one commit (45ac837 \"Seed review plan\"), clean tree, no stash, no remote,\n no TODOS.md, no TODO/FIXME comments, no design doc, no handoff note.\n- Prior review cycles: none. Learnings: none. Brain digests: cold.\n- Frontend/UI scope: none (DESIGN_SCOPE not set; Section 11 will be skipped).\n- Planned changed files: 1 (the existing processPayment test file). No new\n classes or services. Complexity check passes.\n\n## Decision ledger\n\n| ID and owner | Contract and evidence | Current | Proposed | Status | Exact approval and scope |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| R0 (user) | Review mode | HOLD SCOPE, from user request line 1 of PLAN.md | none | approved | \"review this plan thoroughly in HOLD SCOPE mode\" \u2014 governs whole review |\n| R1 (user) | Test 1 (successful charge) assertion depth. Contract: receipt = { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" } (PLAN.md lines 18-21, UNVERIFIED in repo) | Plan asserts only that the receipt is truthy | Assert the full receipt shape | unresolved | pending |\n| R2 (user) | Test 2 (repeated 502) assertion depth. Contract: 2 charge attempts, one 100 ms recorded backoff, then PaymentUnavailable (PLAN.md lines 22-23, UNVERIFIED in repo) | Plan asserts only rejection with PaymentUnavailable | Also assert mock call history length 2 and sleeper record [100] | unresolved | pending |\n\n## Step 0 observations (evidence, not approvals)\n\n### 0A Premise\n- Right problem: yes. Two implemented contracts with zero direct coverage is a\n real gap; a regression in receipt mapping or retry exhaustion would ship silently.\n- Outcome: a failing test when processPayment stops honoring either contract.\n The plan as written reaches only part of that outcome. A truthy check passes\n for `{}`, for a receipt with the wrong amount, or for a receipt copied from the\n wrong Stripe field. A bare PaymentUnavailable check passes if retries are\n silently disabled (1 attempt) or doubled (3 attempts), and if backoff is skipped.\n- Do nothing: contracts stay untested; pain is real but latent.\n\n### 0B Existing code leverage\n- Factory (max_retries=1), Stripe mock with call history, virtual sleeper with\n backoff record: all already exist per PLAN.md lines 12-14. The plan reuses\n them. Nothing is rebuilt. The expensive part of these tests is already paid for;\n the plan then declines to read the data those helpers expose.\n\n### 0C Dream state\n```\n CURRENT STATE THIS PLAN 12-MONTH IDEAL\n Contracts implemented, ---> Two tests in the ---> Every processPayment\n adapter suite covers processPayment suite contract pinned by a\n timeouts/402/429/502-then-ok, exercising happy path test that fails on the\n no direct processPayment and exhausted 502 exact field or count\n contract tests that regressed\n```\nDirection: toward the ideal. Assertion depth decides how far.\n\n### 0D Alternatives\nPending rows R1 and R2 are independently selectable (a reviewer can deepen one\ntest and leave the other as planned).\n\n#### R1 \u2014 Test 1 assertion depth (successful charge)\n\nOptions (all reuse the existing factory and Stripe mock; none touch production code):\n\n- **A) Full receipt equality.** Assert the receipt deep-equals\n { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }. Effort S\n (human: ~5 min / CC: ~1 min). Risk low. Pros: pins all three mapped fields;\n a wrong-field copy or unit slip (dollars vs cents) fails with the exact diff;\n reads as documentation of the contract. Cons: must be updated if the receipt\n shape legitimately grows (a good failure, but a failure).\n- **B) Field-by-field on the three named fields.** Assert chargeId, amountCents,\n currency individually; ignore any extra fields. Effort S. Risk low. Pros: same\n regression protection for the three contract fields; tolerant of additive\n receipt changes. Cons: silently acLine truncated
"questionIssuedAt": "2026-09-15T11:30:04.289Z",
"successfulPriorMutations": [
{
"id": "toolu_013WfvMS1udbqCpSd2nqZEeH",
"tool": "Write",
"file": "/tmp/gstack-owned-display-y9q732vy/gstack-paid-shard-9sisDA/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-ceo-paired-G5Hn9B/gstack-test-plan-ceo-paired.md",
"completedAt": "2026-09-15T11:29:26.964Z"
},
{
"id": "toolu_015GYQb1NC9MFTYxF15mZBM6",
"tool": "Edit",
"file": "/tmp/gstack-owned-display-y9q732vy/gstack-paid-shard-9sisDA/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-ceo-paired-G5Hn9B/gstack-test-plan-ceo-paired.md",
"completedAt": "2026-09-15T11:29:44.503Z"
}
],
"savedPlanSha256": "2788e14fc6dea24a09d683a2b93d66b18d07e3234bfa56ed961ab65e651429e9",
"seedBuilderSha256": "fa23ce2b31ef41070c7e8a02ac4e6059f3b37bf2a3e8cff0fe087d0206ea594a",
"publicProjectionSha256": "9c123c6f4428e3dcdfd8be70db13eaa0032032537daf94b0f25abebd32bcea56"
}
],
"unreconstructedCalls": [
{
"name": "five-retry",
"call": {
"sessionId": "62222f48-5a40-4fad-a4c9-77eb451ee35c",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01TWXGE1xJmFXDC7vmB9GUR8",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 (ledger row R1) \u2014 Should the new handler register with the existing WebhookDispatcher, or bypass it as planned?\nProject/branch/task: main, CEO review of PLAN.md (Payment Processing Integration), HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: Your app already has one front door (WebhookDispatcher) that decides which code handles each Stripe event, sits behind the feature flag, and stamps the handler name on every trace. The plan builds a second front door just for this handler so it does not touch the dispatcher. The stated reason is \"clean namespace separation\", but the approved class name `Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler` already gives you that separation without a second door.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Two routing paths means two places to keep the flag, guards, and trace identity in sync; the first drift shows up as a payment event handled by the wrong handler or a trace with no handler name.\nRecommendation: A because the bypass's only stated benefit (namespace) is already delivered by the approved class name, and a second routing path is pure maintenance cost.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: one routing path you already monitor vs a second one you would have to re-wire and re-verify for flag and trace identity.",
"header": "Routing",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Register with WebhookDispatcher (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Feature flag, guards, and handler-identity traces stay exactly where they are today (human: ~1h / CC: ~5 min)\n\u2705 Future app-owned handlers follow one obvious pattern instead of choosing between two\n\u274c New class keeps a dependency on the dispatcher module the plan wanted to avoid"
},
{
"label": "B) Standalone handler, bypass dispatcher (as planned)",
"description": "\u2705 Zero coupling to WebhookDispatcher internals; handler can evolve independently\n\u2705 Matches the plan text as written, no re-litigation of the ingress route\n\u274c Second routing path: flag switch point and trace handler-identity must be re-wired and verified (human: ~half day / CC: ~20 min)"
},
{
"label": "C) Dispatcher shim adapter",
"description": "\u2705 Dispatcher registration points at a one-line adapter, so the handler class stays dispatcher-agnostic\n\u2705 Explicit seam if you later remove the dispatcher entirely\n\u274c Extra indirection nobody calls today; a premature abstraction until a second consumer exists"
}
]
}
],
"answers": {
"D1 (ledger row R1) \u2014 Should the new handler register with the existing WebhookDispatcher, or bypass it as planned?\nProject/branch/task: main, CEO review of PLAN.md (Payment Processing Integration), HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: Your app already has one front door (WebhookDispatcher) that decides which code handles each Stripe event, sits behind the feature flag, and stamps the handler name on every trace. The plan builds a second front door just for this handler so it does not touch the dispatcher. The stated reason is \"clean namespace separation\", but the approved class name `Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler` already gives you that separation without a second door.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Two routing paths means two places to keep the flag, guards, and trace identity in sync; the first drift shows up as a payment event handled by the wrong handler or a trace with no handler name.\nRecommendation: A because the bypass's only stated benefit (namespace) is already delivered by the approved class name, and a second routing path is pure maintenance cost.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: one routing path you already monitor vs a second one you would have to re-wire and re-verify for flag and trace identity.": "A) Register with WebhookDispatcher (recommended)"
},
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T11:32:11.438Z",
"unansweredQuestionIndices": []
},
"sourceSnapshot": ".context/sep15-ship-consolidation/ceo-dacc95ea-monitor/plan-ceo-review-1789471715201-po1ySd-2026-09-15T11_32_15.452Z.json",
"sourceSnapshotSha256": "df73830e12bf1b77834d648885dd5f6bfbca116021e877545fb1c1778ba8420a",
"sourceObservationSha256": "032d993541107c5af26089c1074f57228d095b4f104401687e2303afe6d83e09",
"limitation": "Native call and ACK retained, but saved plan at question time was not retained before fixture cleanup. No synthesized plan or count credit."
}
]
}
test/fixtures/ceo-section-choice-ai.json
Vendored
-264
View File
@@ -1,264 +0,0 @@
{
"sourceCommit": "12faead4636b97305348e25fc12258a56fcf6868",
"sourceProjectionSHA256": "e07c4689f60afe88b7695e085c97fcc834a737777928a3aeddc4e0779cfd9e91",
"calls": [
{
"sessionId": "686b732f-ce5b-47d9-bd3c-3d59e0fcf536",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01V5tht3FfJYqPt7SAJ4LZzp",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D0 \u2014 Add gstack skill routing rules to CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: plan-count-W42Czh on main, reviewing the Stripe payment webhook plan.\nELI10: gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules, so that requests like \"review this diff\" automatically reach the right skill. This is a one-time setup prompt per project. Note: plan mode is active, so if you pick A the CLAUDE.md edit and commit happen after the review, once plan mode exits.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Low either way; skills still work when invoked manually.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules make skill invocation automatic with no downside.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: convenience of auto-routing versus keeping CLAUDE.md untouched.",
"header": "Routing",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Add routing rules (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Requests auto-route to the right gstack skill without typing slash commands. \u2705 Teammates get the same routing since CLAUDE.md is committed. \u274c Adds a section to CLAUDE.md and a commit after plan mode exits."
},
{
"label": "No thanks, manual",
"description": "\u2705 CLAUDE.md stays exactly as it is in this fixture repo. \u2705 Skills remain fully usable via explicit /skill-name invocation. \u274c You must remember which skill to call for each task."
}
]
}
],
"answers": [
"Add routing rules (recommended)"
],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T04:06:48.672Z",
"expectedFirstReview": false
},
{
"sessionId": "686b732f-ce5b-47d9-bd3c-3d59e0fcf536",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01URnAwJxvsGLw5TeD8KfGby",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 \u2014 Enable cross-project learnings search?\nProject/branch/task: plan-count-W42Czh on main, Stripe webhook plan review.\nELI10: gstack can search learnings saved from your other projects on this machine to spot patterns that apply here. Everything stays local; no data leaves the machine. Good for solo developers; skip if you work across client codebases where cross-contamination matters.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Low. Either way, this project's own learnings still get searched.\nRecommendation: A because local-only pattern reuse compounds review quality with no privacy cost for a single developer.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: broader pattern recall versus strict per-project isolation.",
"header": "Learnings",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Enable cross-project (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Past learnings from any local project inform this and future reviews. \u2705 Stays entirely on this machine, nothing is uploaded. \u274c Learnings from unrelated client codebases could surface where they do not apply."
},
{
"label": "Project-scoped only",
"description": "\u2705 Strict isolation; only this repo's learnings are ever consulted. \u2705 Safe default for consultants juggling multiple client codebases. \u274c Loses cross-pollination of pitfalls already solved elsewhere."
}
]
}
],
"answers": [
"Enable cross-project (recommended)"
],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T04:07:08.751Z",
"expectedFirstReview": false
},
{
"sessionId": "686b732f-ce5b-47d9-bd3c-3d59e0fcf536",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01MNF5u8T857AeX1on7THBqA",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D2 \u2014 Which implementation structure should the handler use?\nProject/branch/task: main, Stripe payment webhook plan (HOLD SCOPE review).\nELI10: The plan adds a new StripePaymentWebhookHandler class but says it bypasses the existing WebhookDispatcher for a \"clean namespace.\" The plan also says the handler runs inside the existing signature, dedup, and lock guards. If those guards live in or behind the dispatcher, bypassing it silently drops them. The structural question is where the new class plugs in.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A second routing path can lose dedup or locking on real payments, or drift when the guards change; nobody notices until a duplicate or unlocked update lands.\nRecommendation: B because it achieves the dedicated-class goal while reusing the existing routing and guards by construction, with the smallest correct diff and no speculative service layer.\nCompleteness: A=4/10, B=8/10, C=9/10\nNet: literal plan text with a parallel entry point, versus one dispatcher-routed class, versus that plus a service split that pays off only once a second payment event exists.",
"header": "Structure",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "B) Register in WebhookDispatcher (recommended)",
"description": "Completeness 8/10. (human: ~2h / CC: ~15min) \u2705 Guard chain (signature, dedup, per-user lock, ownership) wraps the handler automatically. \u2705 One routing table to read; handler testable through the dispatcher's existing test harness. \u274c Handler owns lookup/update/notify, so unit tests need a DB fixture or repository double."
},
{
"label": "A) Standalone handler, as written",
"description": "Completeness 4/10. (human: ~1h / CC: ~10min) \u2705 Fewest files touched; matches the current plan text literally. \u2705 No change to WebhookDispatcher registration. \u274c Two routing paths for Stripe events; must independently prove every guard still wraps it and re-prove on every guard change."
},
{
"label": "C) Dispatcher + PaymentSuccessService",
"description": "Completeness 9/10. (human: ~4h / CC: ~25min) \u2705 Domain logic unit-testable without HTTP or the dispatcher. \u2705 Ready-made seam for a second payment event type later. \u274c Second new class for one event type today, a premature abstraction until a second consumer exists."
}
]
}
],
"answers": [
"B) Register in WebhookDispatcher (recommended)"
],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T04:09:22.850Z",
"expectedFirstReview": false
},
{
"sessionId": "686b732f-ce5b-47d9-bd3c-3d59e0fcf536",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01SUpnsqV3dyC5GytaLkqBgu",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D3 \u2014 What is the per-order fetch in the handler for?\nProject/branch/task: main, Stripe payment webhook plan (HOLD SCOPE).\nELI10: The Performance section says each webhook looks up the user, then fetches each order in a loop, but nothing in the plan says what the orders are used for. The implementer will have to guess, and the guess decides whether this is a read for the email, a write that must sit inside the payment transaction, or dead work. I cannot see your domain, so this is your call.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Orders that should be marked paid stay unpaid, or the handler does N extra queries per webhook for nothing and slows toward Stripe's 10-second timeout.\nRecommendation: A because the notification email is the only other consumer of user data in the plan, and a read-only batch is the least risky interpretation; correct me if orders must change state.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: read-for-email versus write-in-transaction versus no consumer at all.",
"header": "Orders loop",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Orders feed the email (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Read-only; one batched SELECT by user_id, no transactional coupling with the payment update. \u2705 Failure of the read can share the notification rescue path without affecting payment state. \u274c If orders also need a status change, that write is silently missing."
},
{
"label": "B) Orders must be marked paid too",
"description": "\u2705 Order state stays consistent with the user payment status in one transaction. \u2705 Single batched UPDATE ... WHERE user_id = ? AND payment_intent_id = ? under the existing lock. \u274c Widens the transaction and the idempotency surface; must define which orders belong to this PaymentIntent."
},
{
"label": "C) No consumer, drop the loop",
"description": "\u2705 Removes N queries per webhook and the whole N+1 finding. \u2705 Smallest handler; nothing to test for orders. \u274c If a downstream feature relied on this fetch, it disappears without a trace."
}
]
}
],
"answers": [
"A) Orders feed the email (recommended)"
],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T04:11:20.976Z",
"expectedFirstReview": false
},
{
"sessionId": "686b732f-ce5b-47d9-bd3c-3d59e0fcf536",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01RdWLfMent2nPdCr4JMNqvc",
"questions": [
{
"question": "1A \u2014 Should the notification email be sent only after the user update commits?\nProject/branch/task: main, Stripe payment webhook plan (HOLD SCOPE), Section 1 Architecture.\nELI10: The plan says the user update and the email both happen inline, but not in which order relative to the database commit. If the email goes out while the transaction is still open and the commit then fails, the customer gets a \"you're paid\" email for a payment we did not record, and Stripe's retry sends a second one. Sequencing the send after the commit means the email only ever describes committed state.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Phantom confirmation emails and duplicate emails on retry, discovered by customers before on-call.\nRecommendation: A because \"explicit over clever\" applies: make the order commit, then read orders, then send, and assert that order in a test.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=3/10\nNet: a fixed, tested ordering versus leaving the ordering to the implementer.",
"header": "Email order",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Commit first, then email (recommended)",
"description": "Completeness 10/10. (human: ~30min / CC: ~5min) \u2705 Email content always reflects committed payment state; a failed commit sends nothing. \u2705 Test asserts the mail client is not invoked when the update raises before commit. \u274c Adds one explicit ordering constraint the handler comment must document."
},
{
"label": "B) Leave ordering unspecified",
"description": "Completeness 3/10. (human: 0 / CC: 0) \u2705 No change to the plan text. \u2705 Implementer keeps freedom to structure the method. \u274c A phantom confirmation email on commit failure becomes possible and untested."
}
]
}
],
"answers": [
"A) Commit first, then email (recommended)"
],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T04:12:08.732Z",
"expectedFirstReview": true
},
{
"sessionId": "686b732f-ce5b-47d9-bd3c-3d59e0fcf536",
"toolUseId": "toolu_016DTtpSCTFdSYzdo71ajPpD",
"questions": [
{
"question": "2A \u2014 How should the handler treat a failure on the email leg after the payment is committed?\nProject/branch/task: main, Stripe payment webhook plan (HOLD SCOPE), Section 2 Error map.\nELI10: Today the plan has no error handling on the email. Any mail provider hiccup becomes a 500, and Stripe redelivers the whole payment event for up to 72 hours. The payment is already saved, so each redelivery is a blind replay that your own runbook forbids, plus another email attempt. The mail client already reports failures to a dashboard and alert, and the runbook already retries only the notification. The handler just needs to let that machinery work instead of fighting it.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Payment replays on every mail blip, alert storms, duplicate emails, and on-call unable to tell a failed payment from a failed email.\nRecommendation: A because it names each exception, keeps the failure visible through the existing alert and traces, and matches the runbook's \"retry only the notification\" rule.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=2/10\nNet: named rescue with structured warning versus retry-then-rescue in the request path versus leaving the 500.",
"header": "Email rescue",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Rescue named mail errors, warn, return 200 (recommended)",
"description": "Completeness 10/10. (human: ~1h / CC: ~10min) \u2705 Rescues MailDeliveryError, MailTimeoutError, MailRateLimited, MailRenderError and the post-commit orders-read error by name; logs one structured warning with event_id, user_id, payment_intent_id, exception class. \u2705 Event completes; failure visible via mail failure-rate alert and outcome trace; test asserts user paid + 200 + warning when mail raises. \u274c Notification retry stays manual through the existing runbook procedure."
},
{
"label": "B) Retry email once inline, then rescue",
"description": "Completeness 6/10. (human: ~1.5h / CC: ~15min) \u2705 Transient provider blips self-heal without on-call. \u2705 Same named rescue and warning as A on the second failure. \u274c Adds mail latency twice inside Stripe's ~10s response budget and duplicates the mail client's own retry semantics if it has them."
},
{
"label": "C) Keep the plan: no handling, propagate",
"description": "Completeness 2/10. (human: 0 / CC: 0) \u2705 No new code in the handler. \u2705 Stripe retries do eventually resend the email. \u274c Every retry replays a committed payment, violating the runbook; alert storms; duplicate emails."
}
]
}
],
"answers": [
"A) Rescue named mail errors, warn, return 200 (recommended)"
],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T04:12:56.538Z",
"expectedFirstReview": true
},
{
"sessionId": "686b732f-ce5b-47d9-bd3c-3d59e0fcf536",
"toolUseId": "toolu_013TjkzQXpnKEStB6Sp4N7Wk",
"questions": [
{
"question": "3A \u2014 How should the handler look up the user from params.userId?\nProject/branch/task: main, Stripe payment webhook plan (HOLD SCOPE), Section 3 Security.\nELI10: The plan pastes the user ID string straight into a SQL fragment. Your own contract says that string arrives unsanitized, may contain punctuation and Unicode, and that a valid Stripe signature does not make it SQL-safe. A customer whose ID contains an apostrophe breaks the query, gets a 500, and Stripe retries the same broken event for 72 hours while alerts fire. A hostile value in PaymentIntent metadata does worse. Bound parameters make the string data, never code.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Arbitrary SQL against the users table in the worst case, and a guaranteed poison-event alert loop for ordinary IDs in the common case.\nRecommendation: A because parameterized queries through the existing DB client are the tried-and-true fix, cost a few lines, and the follow-on queries keyed by the internal primary key close the orders-scoping threat too.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=5/10, C=1/10\nNet: bound parameter plus internal-key follow-ons versus escaping the string versus the plan as written.",
"header": "SQL lookup",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Bound parameter via existing DB client (recommended)",
"description": "Completeness 10/10. (human: ~1h / CC: ~10min) \u2705 userId is passed as a bound value; update and orders read use the looked-up internal primary key. \u2705 Tests cover O'Brien, SQL-metacharacter, Unicode, 255-char, and missing IDs with zero DB errors; a DB error here still propagates to 500 as retained. \u274c Requires the DB client to expose a parameterized lookup helper, or adding one small one."
},
{
"label": "B) Escape/quote the string before interpolating",
"description": "Completeness 5/10. (human: ~30min / CC: ~5min) \u2705 Blocks the obvious apostrophe breakage. \u2705 Keeps the raw-fragment shape the plan describes. \u274c Escaping is driver- and encoding-specific; Unicode and multibyte edge cases have a history of bypasses, and it still deviates from the existing client pattern."
},
{
"label": "C) Keep raw SQL fragment as written",
"description": "Completeness 1/10. (human: 0 / CC: 0) \u2705 No change to the plan text. \u2705 Nothing new to review. \u274c Injection vector plus a deterministic 72-hour poison-event loop for any ID containing a quote."
}
]
}
],
"answers": [
"A) Bound parameter via existing DB client (recommended)"
],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T04:13:38.302Z",
"expectedFirstReview": true
},
{
"sessionId": "686b732f-ce5b-47d9-bd3c-3d59e0fcf536",
"toolUseId": "toolu_018xNjhW6LMGGnhTSwrnzTbr",
"questions": [
{
"question": "4A \u2014 Should the handler suppress the email when the user row already carries this PaymentIntent?\nProject/branch/task: main, Stripe payment webhook plan (HOLD SCOPE), Section 4 async ordering.\nELI10: The dedup guard only skips deliveries whose completion marker was written. If the email goes out and then the marker write fails, Stripe retries, the guard sees no marker, and the handler runs again. The user update is idempotent so the row is fine, but the customer gets a second \"you're paid\" email. The lookup already returns the row, so the handler can see that this PaymentIntent was recorded before and skip the send, using data that already exists.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Duplicate confirmation emails on every bookkeeping hiccup, and support tickets asking whether they were charged twice.\nRecommendation: A because it closes the only remaining duplicate-email schedule with zero new storage, and logs the suppression so on-call can see it happened.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=2/10\nNet: reuse the row as the sent-signal versus a mail-provider idempotency key versus accepting duplicates.",
"header": "Dup email",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Skip email if row already has this PI (recommended)",
"description": "Completeness 10/10. (human: ~45min / CC: ~10min) \u2705 Lookup result already exposes payment_status and payment_intent_id; no new table or marker. \u2705 Structured info log on suppression with event_id and payment_intent_id; test asserts exactly one mail call across two runs with the marker absent. \u274c A row that was already paid by the same PI before this handler ever ran also suppresses the email, which is the correct behavior but worth a comment."
},
{
"label": "B) Pass payment_intent_id as mail idempotency key",
"description": "Completeness 7/10. (human: ~1h / CC: ~10min) \u2705 Provider-side dedup even if two handler runs both attempt the send. \u2705 No handler branching on row state. \u274c Depends on the shared mail client and provider supporting idempotency keys, which the plan does not establish; still counts as a delivery attempt in the failure-rate metric."
},
{
"label": "C) Accept occasional duplicate emails",
"description": "Completeness 2/10. (human: 0 / CC: 0) \u2705 No new code. \u2705 Window is narrow (marker write must fail right after a successful send). \u274c A stated correctness gap left unhandled and untested; duplicates surface as customer confusion."
}
]
}
],
"answers": [
"A) Skip email if row already has this PI (recommended)"
],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T04:14:30.132Z",
"expectedFirstReview": true
},
{
"sessionId": "686b732f-ce5b-47d9-bd3c-3d59e0fcf536",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01EWhQ5zbtnibLPsdNMpSM9B",
"questions": [
{
"question": "6A \u2014 Should automated tests for the handler land in this branch, replacing \"None planned\"?\nProject/branch/task: main, Stripe payment webhook plan (HOLD SCOPE), Section 6 Tests.\nELI10: The plan says no tests, the existing integration suite will catch regressions. That suite has never heard of this handler, so it cannot fail when the handler is wrong. The manual staging replay checks one happy path by hand. Every fix agreed so far (commit before email, named mail rescue, bound-parameter lookup, duplicate-email suppression) is a behavior that only an automated assertion keeps true after the next refactor.\nStakes if we pick wrong: The SQL, email, and duplicate fixes silently regress; the first signal is a customer or an alert storm, not a red build.\nRecommendation: A because well-tested code is your stated non-negotiable, the suite is ~15 minutes of CC time, and the staging replay stays as the manual gate it already is.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=1/10\nNet: full unit plus integration matrix now, versus happy-path integration only, versus the plan as written.",
"header": "Tests",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Full matrix in this branch (recommended)",
"description": "Completeness 10/10. (human: ~1 day / CC: ~15min) \u2705 Unit tests with a mail double for every named rescue and the ordering assertion; DB-backed integration tests for routing, SQL-metacharacter and Unicode IDs, unknown user, zero orders, one-query orders read, duplicate suppression, and the two-delivery lock schedule. \u2705 Red build is the first signal for any regression of 1A/2A/3A/4A. \u274c Concurrency test needs controlled pause/release points to avoid flakiness."
},
{
"label": "B) Happy-path integration tests only",
"description": "Completeness 6/10. (human: ~2h / CC: ~5min) \u2705 Proves routing, lookup, update, and one email end to end. \u2705 Small, fast, no doubles. \u274c Leaves the SQL-metacharacter, mail-error, ordering, and duplicate cases unasserted; those are exactly the bugs this review found."
},
{
"label": "C) Keep \"None planned\"",
"description": "Completeness 1/10. (human: 0 / CC: 0) \u2705 Nothing to write or maintain. \u2705 Manual staging replay still runs before broad enablement. \u274c Contradicts the stated engineering preference; regressions in a payment path reach production first."
}
]
}
],
"answers": [
"A) Full matrix in this branch (recommended)"
],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T04:15:26.080Z",
"expectedFirstReview": true
}
]
}
test/fixtures/ceo-section-declarative-ar.json
Vendored
-164
View File
@@ -1,164 +0,0 @@
{
"provenance": {
"source": ".context/ship-source-ar-delta-paid-20260910-v1/ceo-paired-first-terminal-public-native-v1/observation.json",
"sha256": "e89aa36f3361e0134b6459bf366e6623cc31cbb5af13bc1b040286a4a795bf76",
"actualOutcome": "no_review_questions",
"actualStep0Count": 5,
"actualReviewCount": 0,
"scope": "Five exact owned completed public native calls; paid failure remains unchanged."
},
"calls": [
{
"sessionId": "55621667-26b1-4686-acda-4bb4447905aa",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01PVfgJJDy9jxRrqXQnMDH2M",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 \u2014 Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-kjptoZ on main, one-time gstack onboarding before the CEO review.\nELI10: gstack wants a short section in CLAUDE.md that maps request types (bugs, strategy, shipping) to its skills so future sessions route automatically. Without it you invoke skills by name every time. Because we are in plan mode, a Yes here is recorded now and the edit plus commit happen after plan mode ends.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Minor either way. Yes adds ~15 lines to a fixture CLAUDE.md; No means manual skill invocation, re-enableable any time.\nRecommendation: A because it is the gstack default and costs nothing beyond a small committed section.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Add routing rules (recommended)\n \u2705 Future sessions auto-route to the right skill without you naming it each time\n \u2705 One-time prompt; never asked again for this project once answered\n \u274c Adds a committed section to a review-fixture CLAUDE.md that may not need it\nB) No thanks, invoke manually\n \u2705 Keeps the fixture CLAUDE.md untouched and the git history minimal\n \u2705 Re-enable later with a single gstack-config command\n \u274c Every gstack skill needs an explicit slash command in future sessions\nNet: Convenience for future sessions versus keeping a test fixture pristine.",
"header": "Routing",
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Add routing rules (recommended)",
"description": "Append the gstack routing section to CLAUDE.md and commit it once plan mode ends."
},
{
"label": "B) No thanks, invoke manually",
"description": "Record routing_declined so this prompt never fires again for this project."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 \u2014 Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-kjptoZ on main, one-time gstack onboarding before the CEO review.\nELI10: gstack wants a short section in CLAUDE.md that maps request types (bugs, strategy, shipping) to its skills so future sessions route automatically. Without it you invoke skills by name every time. Because we are in plan mode, a Yes here is recorded now and the edit plus commit happen after plan mode ends.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Minor either way. Yes adds ~15 lines to a fixture CLAUDE.md; No means manual skill invocation, re-enableable any time.\nRecommendation: A because it is the gstack default and costs nothing beyond a small committed section.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Add routing rules (recommended)\n \u2705 Future sessions auto-route to the right skill without you naming it each time\n \u2705 One-time prompt; never asked again for this project once answered\n \u274c Adds a committed section to a review-fixture CLAUDE.md that may not need it\nB) No thanks, invoke manually\n \u2705 Keeps the fixture CLAUDE.md untouched and the git history minimal\n \u2705 Re-enable later with a single gstack-config command\n \u274c Every gstack skill needs an explicit slash command in future sessions\nNet: Convenience for future sessions versus keeping a test fixture pristine.": "A) Add routing rules (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T15:25:42.870Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "55621667-26b1-4686-acda-4bb4447905aa",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01HE86PMDBpbS2eFye8C3p4S",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D2 \u2014 Where do the two new processPayment tests live?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-kjptoZ on main, PLAN.md adds two unit tests for processPayment().\nELI10: The plan pins two already-shipped payment behaviors with unit tests. The question is structure only: drop them into the existing processPayment suite, start a new contract-test file, or build a table-driven runner. Whatever we pick, the assertions themselves get reviewed separately in the test section.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Low. A wrong structure means an extra file or an abstraction nobody needs; it never changes what the tests prove.\nRecommendation: A because it is the smallest diff that cleanly expresses the change and reuses the suite's existing factory, mock, and sleeper wiring with zero new files.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Inline in the existing processPayment suite (recommended) (human: ~30 min / CC: ~3 min)\n \u2705 Zero new files; the factory, Stripe mock, and virtual sleeper are already wired in this suite\n \u2705 Reads exactly like the neighbouring tests, so reviewers need no new mental model\n \u274c No structural marker that these two are contract-pinning tests versus ordinary cases\nB) New dedicated contract spec file (human: ~45 min / CC: ~5 min)\n \u2705 Contract tests are discoverable as a group and can grow independently of the main suite\n \u2705 Isolated setup means a future suite refactor cannot accidentally change these fixtures\n \u274c Duplicates factory wiring the existing suite already has, for only two tests\nC) Table-driven runner with shared expectReceipt helper (human: ~2 h / CC: ~10 min)\n \u2705 Adding a third or fourth contract scenario later is one table row, not a new test body\n \u2705 Forces every scenario through identical arrange/act/assert shape\n \u274c Abstraction over two cases; a single failing row is harder to read than a plain test\nNet: Plain tests in the existing suite versus structure we do not need yet.",
"header": "Approach",
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Inline in existing suite (recommended)",
"description": "Two it blocks beside the current processPayment tests, reusing the factory, Stripe mock, and virtual sleeper as PLAN.md describes."
},
{
"label": "B) New contract spec file",
"description": "Same two tests in a new processPayment contract test file with its own factory setup."
},
{
"label": "C) Table-driven runner",
"description": "Parameterized scenarios plus a shared receipt assertion helper."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D2 \u2014 Where do the two new processPayment tests live?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-kjptoZ on main, PLAN.md adds two unit tests for processPayment().\nELI10: The plan pins two already-shipped payment behaviors with unit tests. The question is structure only: drop them into the existing processPayment suite, start a new contract-test file, or build a table-driven runner. Whatever we pick, the assertions themselves get reviewed separately in the test section.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Low. A wrong structure means an extra file or an abstraction nobody needs; it never changes what the tests prove.\nRecommendation: A because it is the smallest diff that cleanly expresses the change and reuses the suite's existing factory, mock, and sleeper wiring with zero new files.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Inline in the existing processPayment suite (recommended) (human: ~30 min / CC: ~3 min)\n \u2705 Zero new files; the factory, Stripe mock, and virtual sleeper are already wired in this suite\n \u2705 Reads exactly like the neighbouring tests, so reviewers need no new mental model\n \u274c No structural marker that these two are contract-pinning tests versus ordinary cases\nB) New dedicated contract spec file (human: ~45 min / CC: ~5 min)\n \u2705 Contract tests are discoverable as a group and can grow independently of the main suite\n \u2705 Isolated setup means a future suite refactor cannot accidentally change these fixtures\n \u274c Duplicates factory wiring the existing suite already has, for only two tests\nC) Table-driven runner with shared expectReceipt helper (human: ~2 h / CC: ~10 min)\n \u2705 Adding a third or fourth contract scenario later is one table row, not a new test body\n \u2705 Forces every scenario through identical arrange/act/assert shape\n \u274c Abstraction over two cases; a single failing row is harder to read than a plain test\nNet: Plain tests in the existing suite versus structure we do not need yet.": "A) Inline in existing suite (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T15:26:38.602Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "55621667-26b1-4686-acda-4bb4447905aa",
"toolUseId": "toolu_019Sdpk3Eiq9Wy9ocTGQY16i",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D3 \u2014 Section 6, finding 1: the success test asserts only that the receipt is truthy\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-kjptoZ on main, PLAN.md test 1 (successful charge).\nELI10: PLAN.md states the contract exactly: a 1000-cent USD charge with Stripe id ch_paid returns { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }. The planned assertion is just \"receipt is truthy\". An empty object, a receipt with chargeId undefined, amountCents 0, or currency EUR all pass that check. The test is green while proving none of the contract it exists to cover.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A regression that drops chargeId, mangles the amount, or swaps currency ships with a passing suite. Support sees wrong receipts; finance reconciles against a missing charge id.\nRecommendation: A because well-tested code is non-negotiable and the exact receipt is already written down in PLAN.md; asserting it is one line and rejects every wrong-shape receipt.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=3/10\nPros / cons:\nA) Assert deep equality with the stated receipt (recommended) (human: ~5 min / CC: ~1 min)\n \u2705 Rejects a missing chargeId, a wrong amountCents, a wrong currency, and any extra field in one assertion\n \u2705 Failure output shows the full expected-versus-actual receipt, so the regression is obvious at a glance\n \u274c Adding a new receipt field later fails this test on purpose, so the contract line in PLAN.md must be updated too\nB) Assert the three fields individually, allow extra fields (human: ~5 min / CC: ~1 min)\n \u2705 Still rejects wrong chargeId, amount, or currency values\n \u2705 Tolerates additive receipt fields without a test change\n \u274c Silently accepts unplanned fields leaking into the receipt, so the contract drifts unnoticed\nC) Keep truthy-only as planned (human: 0 / CC: 0)\n \u2705 Zero extra work and the test can never fail on receipt shape\n \u2705 Matches PLAN.md text verbatim\n \u274c Proves nothing about chargeId, amountCents, or currency; a receipt of {} passes\nNet: An exact contract pin versus a test that only checks the function returned something.",
"header": "Test 1 assert",
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Deep-equal exact receipt (recommended)",
"description": "expect(receipt).toEqual({ chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }); update PLAN.md test 1 accordingly."
},
{
"label": "B) Three field assertions",
"description": "Assert chargeId, amountCents, currency individually; extra fields tolerated."
},
{
"label": "C) Keep truthy only",
"description": "Leave PLAN.md test 1 as written; gap recorded as accepted risk."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D3 \u2014 Section 6, finding 1: the success test asserts only that the receipt is truthy\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-kjptoZ on main, PLAN.md test 1 (successful charge).\nELI10: PLAN.md states the contract exactly: a 1000-cent USD charge with Stripe id ch_paid returns { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }. The planned assertion is just \"receipt is truthy\". An empty object, a receipt with chargeId undefined, amountCents 0, or currency EUR all pass that check. The test is green while proving none of the contract it exists to cover.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A regression that drops chargeId, mangles the amount, or swaps currency ships with a passing suite. Support sees wrong receipts; finance reconciles against a missing charge id.\nRecommendation: A because well-tested code is non-negotiable and the exact receipt is already written down in PLAN.md; asserting it is one line and rejects every wrong-shape receipt.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=3/10\nPros / cons:\nA) Assert deep equality with the stated receipt (recommended) (human: ~5 min / CC: ~1 min)\n \u2705 Rejects a missing chargeId, a wrong amountCents, a wrong currency, and any extra field in one assertion\n \u2705 Failure output shows the full expected-versus-actual receipt, so the regression is obvious at a glance\n \u274c Adding a new receipt field later fails this test on purpose, so the contract line in PLAN.md must be updated too\nB) Assert the three fields individually, allow extra fields (human: ~5 min / CC: ~1 min)\n \u2705 Still rejects wrong chargeId, amount, or currency values\n \u2705 Tolerates additive receipt fields without a test change\n \u274c Silently accepts unplanned fields leaking into the receipt, so the contract drifts unnoticed\nC) Keep truthy-only as planned (human: 0 / CC: 0)\n \u2705 Zero extra work and the test can never fail on receipt shape\n \u2705 Matches PLAN.md text verbatim\n \u274c Proves nothing about chargeId, amountCents, or currency; a receipt of {} passes\nNet: An exact contract pin versus a test that only checks the function returned something.": "A) Deep-equal exact receipt (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T15:27:36.367Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "55621667-26b1-4686-acda-4bb4447905aa",
"toolUseId": "toolu_018heD87aUbkMno4eA8rMH2e",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D4 \u2014 Section 6, finding 2: the repeated-502 test never checks the retry count or the backoff\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-kjptoZ on main, PLAN.md test 2 (repeated 502).\nELI10: PLAN.md's contract says: with max_retries=1, repeated 502s cause exactly two charge attempts, one recorded 100 ms backoff between them, then PaymentUnavailable. The planned test asserts only the rejection. An implementation that gives up after one attempt, one that retries five times, or one that sleeps zero milliseconds all still reject with PaymentUnavailable and pass. The factory already exposes the Stripe mock call history and the sleeper record, so the missing checks are two lines against data the test already has.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A regression that drops the retry (customers fail on a single blip) or over-retries (extra Stripe calls, slower failures) ships green. Nobody notices until Stripe metrics or customers do.\nRecommendation: A because the contract names exact counts (two attempts, one 100 ms backoff) and the plan must translate them exactly; a lower bound or a reject-only check would weaken a stated requirement.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=3/10\nPros / cons:\nA) Assert PaymentUnavailable, exactly 2 charge calls, sleeper record exactly [100] (recommended) (human: ~10 min / CC: ~2 min)\n \u2705 Rejects no-retry, over-retry, wrong backoff duration, and extra sleeps in one test\n \u2705 Uses the mock call history and sleeper record the factory already exposes; no new helpers\n \u274c Changing max_retries or the backoff constant later must update this test and PLAN.md together\nB) Assert PaymentUnavailable and exactly 2 charge calls, skip the sleeper check (human: ~5 min / CC: ~1 min)\n \u2705 Catches the highest-impact regression: retry dropped or multiplied\n \u2705 One fewer coupling to the sleeper record's shape\n \u274c Leaves the 100 ms backoff unverified; a zero-delay hammer or a 10 s stall both pass\nC) Keep reject-only as planned (human: 0 / CC: 0)\n \u2705 No extra work and no coupling to mock or sleeper internals\n \u2705 Matches PLAN.md text verbatim\n \u274c A single-attempt implementation with no retry passes; the retry contract is untested\nNet: Pin the whole retry contract the plan already states, or only prove the final error type.",
"header": "Test 2 assert",
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Reject + 2 calls + [100] backoff (recommended)",
"description": "await expect(...).rejects.toBeInstanceOf(PaymentUnavailable); expect(stripe.calls).toHaveLength(2); expect(sleeper.record).toEqual([100]). Update PLAN.md test 2."
},
{
"label": "B) Reject + 2 calls only",
"description": "Assert rejection and exact call count; leave backoff duration unasserted."
},
{
"label": "C) Keep reject only",
"description": "Leave PLAN.md test 2 as written; gap recorded as accepted risk."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D4 \u2014 Section 6, finding 2: the repeated-502 test never checks the retry count or the backoff\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-kjptoZ on main, PLAN.md test 2 (repeated 502).\nELI10: PLAN.md's contract says: with max_retries=1, repeated 502s cause exactly two charge attempts, one recorded 100 ms backoff between them, then PaymentUnavailable. The planned test asserts only the rejection. An implementation that gives up after one attempt, one that retries five times, or one that sleeps zero milliseconds all still reject with PaymentUnavailable and pass. The factory already exposes the Stripe mock call history and the sleeper record, so the missing checks are two lines against data the test already has.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A regression that drops the retry (customers fail on a single blip) or over-retries (extra Stripe calls, slower failures) ships green. Nobody notices until Stripe metrics or customers do.\nRecommendation: A because the contract names exact counts (two attempts, one 100 ms backoff) and the plan must translate them exactly; a lower bound or a reject-only check would weaken a stated requirement.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=3/10\nPros / cons:\nA) Assert PaymentUnavailable, exactly 2 charge calls, sleeper record exactly [100] (recommended) (human: ~10 min / CC: ~2 min)\n \u2705 Rejects no-retry, over-retry, wrong backoff duration, and extra sleeps in one test\n \u2705 Uses the mock call history and sleeper record the factory already exposes; no new helpers\n \u274c Changing max_retries or the backoff constant later must update this test and PLAN.md together\nB) Assert PaymentUnavailable and exactly 2 charge calls, skip the sleeper check (human: ~5 min / CC: ~1 min)\n \u2705 Catches the highest-impact regression: retry dropped or multiplied\n \u2705 One fewer coupling to the sleeper record's shape\n \u274c Leaves the 100 ms backoff unverified; a zero-delay hammer or a 10 s stall both pass\nC) Keep reject-only as planned (human: 0 / CC: 0)\n \u2705 No extra work and no coupling to mock or sleeper internals\n \u2705 Matches PLAN.md text verbatim\n \u274c A single-attempt implementation with no retry passes; the retry contract is untested\nNet: Pin the whole retry contract the plan already states, or only prove the final error type.": "A) Reject + 2 calls + [100] backoff (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T15:27:56.970Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "55621667-26b1-4686-acda-4bb4447905aa",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01PizTBFvMwaq4TTQ4gyFpms",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D5 \u2014 Section 6, finding 3: the success test does not prove Stripe was charged exactly once\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-kjptoZ on main, PLAN.md test 1 (successful charge).\nELI10: processPayment() owns a retry loop. The worst payment bug is that loop firing after a success, which charges the customer twice and still returns a valid receipt. PLAN.md's written success contract covers the receipt shape only, so D3 alone would not catch a double charge. The Stripe mock call history is already in the factory, so the check is one line. This is beyond the letter of PLAN.md's contract, which is why it is its own decision rather than folded into D3.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A regression that double-charges on the happy path passes the whole suite. Customers see two charges; refunds and disputes follow.\nRecommendation: A because it guards the single highest-impact failure mode of the code under test at the cost of one assertion against data the test already holds, and it stays inside the planned test rather than adding a new one.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10\nPros / cons:\nA) Also assert exactly one Stripe charge call and an empty sleeper record in test 1 (recommended) (human: ~5 min / CC: ~1 min)\n \u2705 Rejects a double charge and a spurious backoff on the happy path, the two worst silent retry-loop regressions\n \u2705 Reuses the same mock call history and sleeper record D4 already relies on; no new fixtures\n \u274c Extends the written success contract in PLAN.md, so the contract text must be updated to say \"one attempt, no backoff\"\nB) Keep test 1 to the receipt contract only (human: 0 / CC: 0)\n \u2705 Holds exactly to PLAN.md's stated success contract; no scope drift\n \u2705 The adapter suite's 502-then-success case already exercises single-success retry handling at the adapter layer\n \u274c A double charge from processPayment()'s own loop would pass with a perfect receipt; adapter coverage does not prove this caller's path\nNet: One extra assertion against an existing probe, or hold strictly to the receipt-only contract as written.",
"header": "Single charge",
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Add 1-call + no-backoff check (recommended)",
"description": "expect(stripe.calls).toHaveLength(1); expect(sleeper.record).toEqual([]); update PLAN.md's success contract line."
},
{
"label": "B) Receipt contract only",
"description": "Leave test 1 at the D3 deep-equal receipt assertion; record the double-charge gap as accepted."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D5 \u2014 Section 6, finding 3: the success test does not prove Stripe was charged exactly once\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-kjptoZ on main, PLAN.md test 1 (successful charge).\nELI10: processPayment() owns a retry loop. The worst payment bug is that loop firing after a success, which charges the customer twice and still returns a valid receipt. PLAN.md's written success contract covers the receipt shape only, so D3 alone would not catch a double charge. The Stripe mock call history is already in the factory, so the check is one line. This is beyond the letter of PLAN.md's contract, which is why it is its own decision rather than folded into D3.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A regression that double-charges on the happy path passes the whole suite. Customers see two charges; refunds and disputes follow.\nRecommendation: A because it guards the single highest-impact failure mode of the code under test at the cost of one assertion against data the test already holds, and it stays inside the planned test rather than adding a new one.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10\nPros / cons:\nA) Also assert exactly one Stripe charge call and an empty sleeper record in test 1 (recommended) (human: ~5 min / CC: ~1 min)\n \u2705 Rejects a double charge and a spurious backoff on the happy path, the two worst silent retry-loop regressions\n \u2705 Reuses the same mock call history and sleeper record D4 already relies on; no new fixtures\n \u274c Extends the written success contract in PLAN.md, so the contract text must be updated to say \"one attempt, no backoff\"\nB) Keep test 1 to the receipt contract only (human: 0 / CC: 0)\n \u2705 Holds exactly to PLAN.md's stated success contract; no scope drift\n \u2705 The adapter suite's 502-then-success case already exercises single-success retry handling at the adapter layer\n \u274c A double charge from processPayment()'s own loop would pass with a perfect receipt; adapter coverage does not prove this caller's path\nNet: One extra assertion against an existing probe, or hold strictly to the receipt-only contract as written.": "A) Add 1-call + no-backoff check (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T15:28:19.088Z"
}
]
}
test/fixtures/ceo-section-finding-an.json
Vendored
-379
View File
@@ -1,379 +0,0 @@
{
"fingerprints": [
{
"signature": "a0f2c627-13be-4a64-9026-ed17f0cc17ed:toolu_01D9su5tRRKrDbTnUhrueEfL",
"promptSnippet": "Routing D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md? Project/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-tzzxss on main, CEO review of the Stripe payment webhook plan. ELI10: gstack works best when the project's CLAUDE.md tells Claud",
"options": [
{
"index": 1,
"label": "No thanks, invoke manually (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md"
},
{
"index": 1,
"label": "Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "Keep learnings project-scoped"
}
],
"observedAtMs": 110012,
"preReview": true,
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "a0f2c627-13be-4a64-9026-ed17f0cc17ed",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01D9su5tRRKrDbTnUhrueEfL",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-tzzxss on main, CEO review of the Stripe payment webhook plan.\nELI10: gstack works best when the project's CLAUDE.md tells Claude which slash skill to reach for (bugs → /investigate, ship → /ship, and so on). This is a one-time onboarding prompt. Note: plan mode is active, so if you say yes the CLAUDE.md edit and commit happen after this review exits plan mode, not now.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Low either way. Without routing you invoke skills by hand; with it you get an extra section in CLAUDE.md in a fixture repo.\nRecommendation: B because this repo is a review fixture whose CLAUDE.md is purpose-built for the plan under review, and adding routing rules here adds noise without benefit.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: convenience routing vs keeping a fixture CLAUDE.md untouched.",
"header": "Routing",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "No thanks, invoke manually (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Keeps the fixture CLAUDE.md focused on the plan under review, nothing extra committed\n✅ Records routing_declined so this prompt never fires again for this project\n❌ You type skill names yourself instead of Claude auto-routing to them"
},
{
"label": "Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md",
"description": "✅ Claude auto-selects /investigate, /ship, /plan-eng-review etc. from natural requests\n✅ Standard gstack setup, matches other projects you may have configured\n❌ Edit and commit must wait until plan mode exits; adds a section to a fixture file"
}
]
},
{
"question": "D2 — Enable cross-project learnings search on this machine?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-tzzxss on main, CEO review of the Stripe payment webhook plan.\nELI10: gstack can search learnings it saved from your other projects on this machine to spot patterns that apply here. Everything stays local; no data leaves the machine. Good for solo developers; skip if you work on multiple client codebases where mixing insights would be a concern.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Low. Either a few missed hints from other repos, or a hint from one client's project surfacing while working on another's.\nRecommendation: A because a single-developer machine gains compounding insight with no privacy cost, and it can be turned off any time with gstack-config.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: broader local recall vs strict per-project isolation.",
"header": "Learnings",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Findings from your other repos surface here when a pattern matches this plan\n✅ Fully local; nothing is uploaded and the setting is reversible any time\n❌ On a shared or multi-client machine, one project's insight may appear in another"
},
{
"label": "Keep learnings project-scoped",
"description": "✅ Strict isolation, right choice for consultants working across client codebases\n✅ No chance of cross-contaminating context between unrelated projects\n❌ Loses compounding recall from patterns already learned in other repos"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-tzzxss on main, CEO review of the Stripe payment webhook plan.\nELI10: gstack works best when the project's CLAUDE.md tells Claude which slash skill to reach for (bugs → /investigate, ship → /ship, and so on). This is a one-time onboarding prompt. Note: plan mode is active, so if you say yes the CLAUDE.md edit and commit happen after this review exits plan mode, not now.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Low either way. Without routing you invoke skills by hand; with it you get an extra section in CLAUDE.md in a fixture repo.\nRecommendation: B because this repo is a review fixture whose CLAUDE.md is purpose-built for the plan under review, and adding routing rules here adds noise without benefit.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: convenience routing vs keeping a fixture CLAUDE.md untouched.": "No thanks, invoke manually (recommended)",
"D2 — Enable cross-project learnings search on this machine?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-tzzxss on main, CEO review of the Stripe payment webhook plan.\nELI10: gstack can search learnings it saved from your other projects on this machine to spot patterns that apply here. Everything stays local; no data leaves the machine. Good for solo developers; skip if you work on multiple client codebases where mixing insights would be a concern.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Low. Either a few missed hints from other repos, or a hint from one client's project surfacing while working on another's.\nRecommendation: A because a single-developer machine gains compounding insight with no privacy cost, and it can be turned off any time with gstack-config.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: broader local recall vs strict per-project isolation.": "Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T10:43:50.344Z"
}
},
{
"signature": "a0f2c627-13be-4a64-9026-ed17f0cc17ed:toolu_01RNArBfKVnWP1PK6Ztqt6S6",
"promptSnippet": "Approach D3 — Which implementation structure should the handler use? Project/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-tzzxss on main, CEO review of the Stripe payment webhook plan (0C-bis approach approval). ELI10: The plan proposes a brand-new handl",
"options": [
{
"index": 1,
"label": "A) Dispatcher-registered handler (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "B) Standalone handler bypassing dispatcher"
},
{
"index": 3,
"label": "C) Modify the prior handler in place"
}
],
"observedAtMs": 294441,
"preReview": true,
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "a0f2c627-13be-4a64-9026-ed17f0cc17ed",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01RNArBfKVnWP1PK6Ztqt6S6",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D3 — Which implementation structure should the handler use?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-tzzxss on main, CEO review of the Stripe payment webhook plan (0C-bis approach approval).\nELI10: The plan proposes a brand-new handler class that bypasses the existing WebhookDispatcher. But the plan also promises the handler \"runs inside those unchanged guards\" (signature check, dedup, per-user lock, ownership, unknown-user). If the dispatcher is how those guards reach a handler, bypassing it means re-wiring or duplicating them, and any one missed silently weakens payment safety. The already-approved name Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler gives you namespace separation without a separate call path.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A duplicate guard chain drifts from the original and a missed guard lets a replayed or mis-owned payment through; or (approach C) you lose the tested flag rollback and every change goes to 100% of traffic.\nRecommendation: A because it is the smallest diff that satisfies the plan's own \"runs inside unchanged guards\" invariant and keeps the flag rollback intact.\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=6/10, C=7/10\nNet: one wiring path with the guards applied by construction, versus independence you pay for with duplicated safety code or lost rollback.",
"header": "Approach",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Dispatcher-registered handler (recommended)",
"description": "Completeness 9/10. Register Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler with the existing WebhookDispatcher for payment_intent.succeeded, selected by the existing feature flag. (human ~1 day / CC ~30 min)\n✅ Every retained guard (signature, dedup, lock, ownership, unknown-user) applies by construction\n✅ Flag rollback to the prior handler is unchanged; smallest diff; single wiring path to test\n❌ Handler interface is bound by the dispatcher contract; \"separation\" is namespace-only"
},
{
"label": "B) Standalone handler bypassing dispatcher",
"description": "Completeness 6/10. New class with its own entry point, re-wiring or shimming the guard chain around it, as the plan currently says. (human ~3 days / CC ~1.5 h)\n✅ Fully independent call path that can evolve without touching WebhookDispatcher\n✅ Matches the plan text as written, no dispatcher registration change needed\n❌ Duplicates the guard chain; a missed guard is a silent payment-safety hole; two rollout paths to keep in sync"
},
{
"label": "C) Modify the prior handler in place",
"description": "Completeness 7/10. Fix lookup, notify, order load and tests inside the existing handler; no new class. (human ~1 day / CC ~30 min)\n✅ No new class and no dispatcher change; reuses everything the prior handler already uses\n✅ Fewest moving parts if the flag rollback is judged unnecessary\n❌ Destroys the flag-based rollback path; the settled class name goes unused; ships to 100% at once"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D3 — Which implementation structure should the handler use?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-tzzxss on main, CEO review of the Stripe payment webhook plan (0C-bis approach approval).\nELI10: The plan proposes a brand-new handler class that bypasses the existing WebhookDispatcher. But the plan also promises the handler \"runs inside those unchanged guards\" (signature check, dedup, per-user lock, ownership, unknown-user). If the dispatcher is how those guards reach a handler, bypassing it means re-wiring or duplicating them, and any one missed silently weakens payment safety. The already-approved name Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler gives you namespace separation without a separate call path.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A duplicate guard chain drifts from the original and a missed guard lets a replayed or mis-owned payment through; or (approach C) you lose the tested flag rollback and every change goes to 100% of traffic.\nRecommendation: A because it is the smallest diff that satisfies the plan's own \"runs inside unchanged guards\" invariant and keeps the flag rollback intact.\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=6/10, C=7/10\nNet: one wiring path with the guards applied by construction, versus independence you pay for with duplicated safety code or lost rollback.": "A) Dispatcher-registered handler (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T10:46:54.269Z"
}
},
{
"signature": "a0f2c627-13be-4a64-9026-ed17f0cc17ed:toolu_015eSQoG8ip1Zbcu6XS1Vhur",
"promptSnippet": "Motivation D4 — The plan never says why the prior handler is being replaced. Record the motivation and acceptance criterion? Project/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-tzzxss on main, CEO review of the Stripe payment webhook plan (Step 0A premi",
"options": [
{
"index": 1,
"label": "A) Add a Context block with an open placeholder (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "B) I'll supply the reason now (type it in Other)"
},
{
"index": 3,
"label": "C) Leave it out"
}
],
"observedAtMs": 348278,
"preReview": true,
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "a0f2c627-13be-4a64-9026-ed17f0cc17ed",
"toolUseId": "toolu_015eSQoG8ip1Zbcu6XS1Vhur",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D4 — The plan never says why the prior handler is being replaced. Record the motivation and acceptance criterion?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-tzzxss on main, CEO review of the Stripe payment webhook plan (Step 0A premise / 0E hour-1).\nELI10: A tested prior handler already exists behind the feature flag. The plan introduces a new one but gives no reason: no bug, no missing behavior, no deprecation. Without a stated \"why\", the implementer cannot tell when the new handler is done, and the eng reviewer cannot tell whether the new one may be turned off again. Every other retained contract is spelled out; this one is missing.\nStakes if we pick wrong: The flag gets flipped to a handler nobody can justify, and if the prior one had a defect, nobody verifies the new one actually fixes it.\nRecommendation: A because a plan with fifty lines of retained contracts and zero lines of motivation is a plan the implementer will second-guess; a two-line Context block costs nothing.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: a small writing task now versus an unexplained payment-path swap that the eng review has to reverse-engineer.",
"header": "Motivation",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Add a Context block with an open placeholder (recommended)",
"description": "Plan gains a Context section stating the goal (paid once, one receipt, on-call can separate payment from notification failure) and an explicit UNRESOLVED marker: \"reason the prior handler is replaced: <author fills in before eng review>\". (human ~10 min / CC ~1 min)\n✅ Makes the missing motivation visible instead of buried; eng review sees exactly what is unknown\n✅ Gives the implementer a concrete done-criterion independent of the missing reason\n❌ The reason itself still has to come from the plan author; this review cannot invent it"
},
{
"label": "B) I'll supply the reason now (type it in Other)",
"description": "You state the motivating defect or requirement and it is written into the plan verbatim as the acceptance criterion.\n✅ Closes the gap completely in this review; no placeholder survives into eng review\n✅ Lets later sections check whether the proposed changes actually address that reason\n❌ Requires context only you have; if unsure, prefer A"
},
{
"label": "C) Leave it out",
"description": "Plan ships without stating why the handler is being replaced.\n✅ Zero effort; the retained-contracts list already describes the behavior\n✅ Fine if this is a pure fixture and the motivation is irrelevant to the exercise\n❌ Implementer and eng reviewer have no acceptance criterion; the swap is unexplained"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D4 — The plan never says why the prior handler is being replaced. Record the motivation and acceptance criterion?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-tzzxss on main, CEO review of the Stripe payment webhook plan (Step 0A premise / 0E hour-1).\nELI10: A tested prior handler already exists behind the feature flag. The plan introduces a new one but gives no reason: no bug, no missing behavior, no deprecation. Without a stated \"why\", the implementer cannot tell when the new handler is done, and the eng reviewer cannot tell whether the new one may be turned off again. Every other retained contract is spelled out; this one is missing.\nStakes if we pick wrong: The flag gets flipped to a handler nobody can justify, and if the prior one had a defect, nobody verifies the new one actually fixes it.\nRecommendation: A because a plan with fifty lines of retained contracts and zero lines of motivation is a plan the implementer will second-guess; a two-line Context block costs nothing.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: a small writing task now versus an unexplained payment-path swap that the eng review has to reverse-engineer.": "A) Add a Context block with an open placeholder (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T10:47:38.034Z"
}
},
{
"signature": "a0f2c627-13be-4a64-9026-ed17f0cc17ed:toolu_01JT9XefYZvahB143XSMa4iE",
"promptSnippet": "Order scope D5 — Which orders belong in the receipt summary, and is the list bounded? Project/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-tzzxss on main, CEO review of the Stripe payment webhook plan (Step 0E hour-1). ELI10: The plan says the receipt in",
"options": [
{
"index": 1,
"label": "A) Orders tied to this PaymentIntent (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "B) All user orders, newest first, hard cap with truncation note"
},
{
"index": 3,
"label": "C) All user orders, unbounded, as the plan implies"
}
],
"observedAtMs": 352294,
"preReview": true,
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "a0f2c627-13be-4a64-9026-ed17f0cc17ed",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01JT9XefYZvahB143XSMa4iE",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D5 — Which orders belong in the receipt summary, and is the list bounded?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-tzzxss on main, CEO review of the Stripe payment webhook plan (Step 0E hour-1).\nELI10: The plan says the receipt includes \"a summary of the user orders\" and the Performance section fetches \"each order in a loop\". It never says which orders: the ones this PaymentIntent paid for, or every order the user has ever placed. A long-time customer with thousands of orders would blow the 2-second DB budget, fail the webhook, and get retried by Stripe into the same failure for 72 hours. The implementer will have to decide this on hour one either way.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Either receipts list unrelated old orders, or a heavy user's payment is marked failed at Stripe over and over while the DB deadline trips each time.\nRecommendation: A because a receipt is about what was just paid; scoping to this PaymentIntent is naturally bounded, needs no arbitrary cap, and matches \"one receipt per PaymentIntent\".\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=8/10, C=4/10\nNet: a naturally bounded, semantically right list versus an unbounded query you then have to cap and explain.",
"header": "Order scope",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Orders tied to this PaymentIntent (recommended)",
"description": "Completeness 10/10. Summary = orders whose payment_intent_id matches the event. Zero orders still sends one receipt with an empty summary (retained). (human ~1 h / CC ~5 min)\n✅ Naturally bounded; a single indexed query; no arbitrary cap or truncation notice needed\n✅ Matches the retained \"one receipt per PaymentIntent\" contract and what a customer expects a receipt to show\n❌ If orders are not yet linked to payment_intent_id in the schema, that link must exist or be added"
},
{
"label": "B) All user orders, newest first, hard cap with truncation note",
"description": "Completeness 8/10. Summary = the user's orders ordered by created_at desc, LIMIT N (e.g. 50), with \"and M more\" in the template when truncated. (human ~2 h / CC ~10 min)\n✅ Works even if orders are not linked to a PaymentIntent in the schema\n✅ Bounded query keeps the 2-second DB deadline safe for heavy users\n❌ Receipt shows unrelated history; needs a cap value decision and a template change for truncation"
},
{
"label": "C) All user orders, unbounded, as the plan implies",
"description": "Completeness 4/10. Load every order for the user.\n✅ No schema or template change; literally what the plan text says\n✅ Correct for users with a handful of orders\n❌ Heavy users trip the 2-second DB deadline, get HTTP 500, and Stripe retries into the same failure for 72 hours"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D5 — Which orders belong in the receipt summary, and is the list bounded?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-tzzxss on main, CEO review of the Stripe payment webhook plan (Step 0E hour-1).\nELI10: The plan says the receipt includes \"a summary of the user orders\" and the Performance section fetches \"each order in a loop\". It never says which orders: the ones this PaymentIntent paid for, or every order the user has ever placed. A long-time customer with thousands of orders would blow the 2-second DB budget, fail the webhook, and get retried by Stripe into the same failure for 72 hours. The implementer will have to decide this on hour one either way.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Either receipts list unrelated old orders, or a heavy user's payment is marked failed at Stripe over and over while the DB deadline trips each time.\nRecommendation: A because a receipt is about what was just paid; scoping to this PaymentIntent is naturally bounded, needs no arbitrary cap, and matches \"one receipt per PaymentIntent\".\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=8/10, C=4/10\nNet: a naturally bounded, semantically right list versus an unbounded query you then have to cap and explain.": "A) Orders tied to this PaymentIntent (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T10:47:52.126Z"
}
},
{
"signature": "a0f2c627-13be-4a64-9026-ed17f0cc17ed:toolu_01CoCF8WSWKxYFAHschZJq4p",
"promptSnippet": "SQL binding D6 — Section 2 finding 1: the lookup reads request.params.userId into a raw SQL fragment. Bind it as a parameter? Project/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-tzzxss on main, CEO review of the Stripe payment webhook plan. ELI10: User ",
"options": [
{
"index": 1,
"label": "A) Bound parameters for lookup and orders queries (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "B) Escape the string before interpolating"
},
{
"index": 3,
"label": "C) Keep the raw fragment as planned"
}
],
"observedAtMs": 448898,
"preReview": true,
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "a0f2c627-13be-4a64-9026-ed17f0cc17ed",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01CoCF8WSWKxYFAHschZJq4p",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D6 — Section 2 finding 1: the lookup reads request.params.userId into a raw SQL fragment. Bind it as a parameter?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-tzzxss on main, CEO review of the Stripe payment webhook plan.\nELI10: User IDs are opaque text that may contain quotes, semicolons or Unicode, and the adapter forwards them unchanged with no SQL escaping. Interpolated into a raw fragment, an ID like O'Brien is a SQL syntax error: the DB raises, the wrapper returns 500, Stripe retries the same event into the same error for 72 hours, and a customer who paid is never marked paid. The same fragment is an injection point if an ID ever carries attacker-shaped text, since the plan itself says a valid signature does not make the string safe for SQL. The orders query added by D5 has the identical exposure.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Paying customers with punctuation in their IDs are silently never marked paid, and the payment lookup is an injection surface in a signed but unsanitized path.\nRecommendation: A because bound parameters make the whole class of failure unreachable, need no validation rules for an opaque identifier, and the plan's own contract says no format restriction may be added.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=2/10\nNet: prepared statements eliminate the failure class; escaping or allow-listing narrows it and contradicts the opaque-ID contract.",
"header": "SQL binding",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Bound parameters for lookup and orders queries (recommended)",
"description": "Completeness 10/10. Both the user lookup and the D5 orders query use the DB client's bind-parameter / prepared-statement form; the string is never concatenated into SQL. Tests: O'Brien, '; DROP TABLE users;--, 4-byte Unicode, a 1000-char ID each resolve to the exact user or the retained unknown-user path, never an exception. Failure visibility: a syntax error in tests fails the suite; in prod the existing DB trace carries event id and user id. (human ~1 h / CC ~5 min)\n✅ Removes SQL syntax errors and injection for every possible opaque ID with no format rule\n✅ Honors the retained contract that no cast, escape, or ID restriction is added upstream\n❌ None of substance; requires using the client's parameterized API rather than string SQL"
},
{
"label": "B) Escape the string before interpolating",
"description": "Completeness 6/10. Keep the raw fragment but run the ID through the DB client's quote/escape helper. (human ~30 min / CC ~3 min)\n✅ Small change to the fragment as written; handles the quote case\n✅ No change to query shape\n❌ Escaping is per-dialect and per-encoding; historically the source of bypasses; still string SQL"
},
{
"label": "C) Keep the raw fragment as planned",
"description": "Completeness 2/10. Rely on signature verification and the ownership guard.\n✅ Zero change to the plan text\n✅ The ownership guard does limit which strings reach the handler\n❌ The plan's own contract says signature and ownership are not SQL safety; legitimate IDs with quotes break and are retried for 72 hours"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D6 — Section 2 finding 1: the lookup reads request.params.userId into a raw SQL fragment. Bind it as a parameter?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-tzzxss on main, CEO review of the Stripe payment webhook plan.\nELI10: User IDs are opaque text that may contain quotes, semicolons or Unicode, and the adapter forwards them unchanged with no SQL escaping. Interpolated into a raw fragment, an ID like O'Brien is a SQL syntax error: the DB raises, the wrapper returns 500, Stripe retries the same event into the same error for 72 hours, and a customer who paid is never marked paid. The same fragment is an injection point if an ID ever carries attacker-shaped text, since the plan itself says a valid signature does not make the string safe for SQL. The orders query added by D5 has the identical exposure.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Paying customers with punctuation in their IDs are silently never marked paid, and the payment lookup is an injection surface in a signed but unsanitized path.\nRecommendation: A because bound parameters make the whole class of failure unreachable, need no validation rules for an opaque identifier, and the plan's own contract says no format restriction may be added.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=2/10\nNet: prepared statements eliminate the failure class; escaping or allow-listing narrows it and contradicts the opaque-ID contract.": "A) Bound parameters for lookup and orders queries (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T10:49:12.120Z"
}
},
{
"signature": "a0f2c627-13be-4a64-9026-ed17f0cc17ed:toolu_01JVSQCPgeMZAiqg4sYPdTcq",
"promptSnippet": "Mail rescue D7 — Section 2 finding 2: the receipt email has \"no error handling\". When the mail client raises after the payment update committed, what should the handler do? Project/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-tzzxss on main, CEO review o",
"options": [
{
"index": 1,
"label": "A) Commit first, then rescue only the named mail exceptions and acknowledge (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "B) Keep rethrowing; let Stripe's retry resend the email"
},
{
"index": 3,
"label": "C) Rescue StandardError around the whole handler"
}
],
"observedAtMs": 448898,
"preReview": true,
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "a0f2c627-13be-4a64-9026-ed17f0cc17ed",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01JVSQCPgeMZAiqg4sYPdTcq",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D7 — Section 2 finding 2: the receipt email has \"no error handling\". When the mail client raises after the payment update committed, what should the handler do?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-tzzxss on main, CEO review of the Stripe payment webhook plan.\nELI10: The shared mail client has a 1-second deadline and rethrows MailTimeout or its delivery-failure error to the handler, after first durably recording the attempt for the existing notification retry procedure. If the handler lets that exception escape, the ingress wrapper returns 500 and Stripe treats a payment you already committed as a failed delivery: it retries for 72 hours, the failed-webhook alert pages on-call, and the Stripe dashboard shows the endpoint failing. The runbook already says: retry only the notification, never replay the payment. A bare rethrow does the opposite. The remedy must also fix ordering: send only after the DB transaction commits, so a rolled-back payment never emails a receipt.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Either committed payments page on-call as webhook failures during every mail-provider blip, or (if swallowed too broadly) a real DB failure gets hidden behind a 200.\nRecommendation: A because it matches the retained runbook contract exactly: payment committed means acknowledge; the durable retry record and failed-notification alert already own recovery of the receipt.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=3/10\nNet: name the two mail exceptions and acknowledge, versus letting Stripe's retry loop double as your email retry at the cost of false failure signals.",
"header": "Mail rescue",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Commit first, then rescue only the named mail exceptions and acknowledge (recommended)",
"description": "Completeness 10/10. Handler order: lookup → load orders → existing update in one transaction → commit → send receipt. Rescue exactly MailTimeout and the mail client's named delivery-failure class (never StandardError). On rescue: structured warning with event id, PaymentIntent id, user id, handler identity, exception class, and a note that the durable retry record exists; return success so the dispatcher records completion and Stripe gets 200. DB exceptions keep propagating to 500. Tests: MailTimeout after commit → 200-equivalent, marker recorded, retry record asserted, warning logged; mail success → one send; DB update error → exception propagates, no send. (human ~2 h / CC ~10 min)\n✅ Committed payments are never reported to Stripe as failures; runbook's notification-only retry path is the single recovery path\n✅ Ordering rule guarantees no receipt for a rolled-back payment; DB failures remain loud\n❌ Receipt recovery depends on the retained retry procedure being run; a missed retry record would be the only silent path (mitigated by the failed-notification age alert)"
},
{
"label": "B) Keep rethrowing; let Stripe's retry resend the email",
"description": "Completeness 6/10. No rescue. Stripe retries the event; the idempotent update re-assigns the same values; the provider key suppresses a duplicate successful send. (human ~0 / CC ~0)\n✅ Zero code; Stripe's 72-hour retry acts as a free email retry\n✅ Duplicate receipts are suppressed by the provider idempotency key\n❌ Every mail blip pages on-call as a webhook failure and shows the endpoint failing at Stripe; contradicts the runbook's \"never replay the payment\""
},
{
"label": "C) Rescue StandardError around the whole handler",
"description": "Completeness 3/10. Catch everything, log, return 200.\n✅ Nothing ever 500s\n✅ Simplest possible code\n❌ Hides DB failures behind a 200 so Stripe never retries a lost payment update; catch-all is a named smell in this review's rules"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D7 — Section 2 finding 2: the receipt email has \"no error handling\". When the mail client raises after the payment update committed, what should the handler do?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-tzzxss on main, CEO review of the Stripe payment webhook plan.\nELI10: The shared mail client has a 1-second deadline and rethrows MailTimeout or its delivery-failure error to the handler, after first durably recording the attempt for the existing notification retry procedure. If the handler lets that exception escape, the ingress wrapper returns 500 and Stripe treats a payment you already committed as a failed delivery: it retries for 72 hours, the failed-webhook alert pages on-call, and the Stripe dashboard shows the endpoint failing. The runbook already says: retry only the notification, never replay the payment. A bare rethrow does the opposite. The remedy must also fix ordering: send only after the DB transaction commits, so a rolled-back payment never emails a receipt.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Either committed payments page on-call as webhook failures during every mail-provider blip, or (if swallowed too broadly) a real DB failure gets hidden behind a 200.\nRecommendation: A because it matches the retained runbook contract exactly: payment committed means acknowledge; the durable retry record and failed-notification alert already own recovery of the receipt.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=3/10\nNet: name the two mail exceptions and acknowledge, versus letting Stripe's retry loop double as your email retry at the cost of false failure signals.": "A) Commit first, then rescue only the named mail exceptions and acknowledge (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T10:49:28.228Z"
}
},
{
"signature": "a0f2c627-13be-4a64-9026-ed17f0cc17ed:toolu_01LabN1DUHy5M4QMhDFX3xMB",
"promptSnippet": "Orders scope D8 — Section 3 finding: scope the receipt's orders query to both the PaymentIntent and the looked-up user? Project/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-tzzxss on main, CEO review of the Stripe payment webhook plan. ELI10: D5 loads or",
"options": [
{
"index": 1,
"label": "A) Scope by payment_intent_id AND user_id (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "B) Query by payment_intent_id only, as D5 says"
}
],
"observedAtMs": 531063,
"preReview": true,
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "a0f2c627-13be-4a64-9026-ed17f0cc17ed",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01LabN1DUHy5M4QMhDFX3xMB",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D8 — Section 3 finding: scope the receipt's orders query to both the PaymentIntent and the looked-up user?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-tzzxss on main, CEO review of the Stripe payment webhook plan.\nELI10: D5 loads orders where payment_intent_id matches the event. The ownership guard already proves the PaymentIntent belongs to this user, so in a healthy database those orders are theirs. But the orders table is a second place the link is stored. If an order ever gets attached to the wrong PaymentIntent by a bug or a bad backfill, the receipt would list someone else's purchases in an email. Adding AND user_id = <the user we just looked up> costs one predicate and makes that leak impossible regardless of data quality.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Another customer's order details land in a receipt email; low likelihood, but it is PII leaving the system with no way to recall it.\nRecommendation: A because it is one predicate and one test, and the review's rules say security is not optional for new data access.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10\nNet: one extra predicate and one test versus trusting that two tables never disagree.",
"header": "Orders scope",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Scope by payment_intent_id AND user_id (recommended)",
"description": "Completeness 10/10. Orders query binds both the event's PaymentIntent id and the looked-up user's id. Test: an order fixture with the right PaymentIntent but a different user_id is excluded from the summary. If both predicates are present, the D5 index should cover (payment_intent_id, user_id) or the existing user_id index plus the PI predicate. (human ~20 min / CC ~2 min)\n✅ A mis-linked order can never appear in another user's receipt, independent of data quality\n✅ One predicate, one bound parameter, one test; no schema change beyond the D5 link\n❌ Marginally redundant with the ownership guard when the data is healthy"
},
{
"label": "B) Query by payment_intent_id only, as D5 says",
"description": "Completeness 7/10. Trust the ownership guard's PI ↔ user binding.\n✅ Simplest query; matches the D5 text exactly\n✅ Correct whenever the orders table agrees with the binding table\n❌ A bad backfill or bug that mislinks an order sends that order's details to the wrong customer by email"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D8 — Section 3 finding: scope the receipt's orders query to both the PaymentIntent and the looked-up user?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-tzzxss on main, CEO review of the Stripe payment webhook plan.\nELI10: D5 loads orders where payment_intent_id matches the event. The ownership guard already proves the PaymentIntent belongs to this user, so in a healthy database those orders are theirs. But the orders table is a second place the link is stored. If an order ever gets attached to the wrong PaymentIntent by a bug or a bad backfill, the receipt would list someone else's purchases in an email. Adding AND user_id = <the user we just looked up> costs one predicate and makes that leak impossible regardless of data quality.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Another customer's order details land in a receipt email; low likelihood, but it is PII leaving the system with no way to recall it.\nRecommendation: A because it is one predicate and one test, and the review's rules say security is not optional for new data access.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10\nNet: one extra predicate and one test versus trusting that two tables never disagree.": "A) Scope by payment_intent_id AND user_id (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T10:50:50.889Z"
}
}
],
"actualState": "in_progress",
"actualReviewCount": 0,
"actualSetupCount": 7
}
test/fixtures/ceo-section-ordering-aq.json
Vendored
-250
View File
@@ -1,250 +0,0 @@
{
"provenance": {
"source": "owned public CEO distinct retry terminal observation",
"path": ".context/ship-source-aq-delta-paid-20260910-v1/ceo-distinct-retry-terminal-public-ledger-v1/observation.json",
"sha256": "55faac09a8b093e2f20c5df8e83f620517783d7d24392d49ca6e04909f458994",
"sessionId": "a3a1839d-1727-443b-b8ee-53c7cdc100e0",
"actualOutcome": "no_review_questions",
"actualSetup": 7,
"actualReview": 0,
"noPrivateReasoning": true
},
"calls": [
{
"sessionId": "a3a1839d-1727-443b-b8ee-53c7cdc100e0",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01ADaTTZFcDAnJ1ySsUrgs7Y",
"questions": [
{
"question": "gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules (one-time setup prompt from skill-start). Should I add them? Note: plan mode is active, so the CLAUDE.md edit and commit would happen after this review exits plan mode.",
"header": "Routing",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (recommended)",
"description": "Appends a '## Skill routing' section mapping request types to /office-hours, /plan-ceo-review, /investigate, /ship, etc., then commits it. Deferred until plan mode ends."
},
{
"label": "No thanks, I'll invoke skills manually",
"description": "Records routing_declined=true in gstack config. Re-enable later with gstack-config set routing_declined false."
}
]
},
{
"question": "gstack can search learnings from your other projects on this machine to find patterns that might apply here. This stays local (no data leaves your machine). Recommended for solo developers; skip if you work on multiple client codebases where cross-contamination is a concern. Enable cross-project learnings?",
"header": "Learnings",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)",
"description": "Sets cross_project_learnings=true in ~/.gstack config. Future reviews surface patterns learned in your other local projects."
},
{
"label": "Keep learnings project-scoped only",
"description": "Sets cross_project_learnings=false. Only this project's learnings are searched."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules (one-time setup prompt from skill-start). Should I add them? Note: plan mode is active, so the CLAUDE.md edit and commit would happen after this review exits plan mode.": "Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (recommended)",
"gstack can search learnings from your other projects on this machine to find patterns that might apply here. This stays local (no data leaves your machine). Recommended for solo developers; skip if you work on multiple client codebases where cross-contamination is a concern. Enable cross-project learnings?": "Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T14:31:18.887Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "a3a1839d-1727-443b-b8ee-53c7cdc100e0",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01LoAPJSTyHbndf7WCLGHFT2",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D3 — Where does the new payment handler live relative to WebhookDispatcher?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, Stripe payment_intent.succeeded handler plan.\nELI10: The plan promises the handler runs inside the existing signature, dedup, and lock guards, but also says it bypasses WebhookDispatcher, the module that routes events to handlers. If the dispatcher is how handlers get wrapped in those guards, bypassing it means a second entry point that can drift from the guards over time. The plan itself lists 'separate class vs reuse WebhookDispatcher' as open.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a second Stripe entry point that silently skips dedup or locking on a future refactor, or a monolithic dispatcher that becomes the dumping ground for payment logic.\nRecommendation: B because it keeps the approved Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler name and namespace while keeping exactly one guarded entry point (explicit over clever, right-sized diff).\nCompleteness: A=7/10, B=10/10, C=5/10\nNet: namespace separation is fine; a separate ingress path is not. Register the class, do not bypass the router.",
"header": "Approach",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "B) Separate class registered via dispatcher (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler holds only payment logic; WebhookDispatcher registers it for payment_intent.succeeded, so guards, tracing, and handler-identity attribution apply unchanged. ✅ Isolated class is unit-testable without ingress plumbing. ❌ Requires a small dispatcher registration edit plus the feature-flag switch between prior and new handler. Effort: human ~half day / CC ~20 min."
},
{
"label": "A) Reuse WebhookDispatcher inline (minimal)",
"description": "✅ Smallest diff: add the payment_intent.succeeded branch inside the dispatcher module with no new class. ✅ Zero risk of a second entry point. ❌ Payment lookup, update, and email logic lands in the router module, growing its responsibilities and making unit tests need dispatcher setup. Completeness 7/10. Effort: human ~2h / CC ~10 min."
},
{
"label": "C) Separate class bypassing dispatcher (plan as written)",
"description": "✅ Cleanest namespace separation; no dispatcher edit at all. ✅ Matches the current plan text exactly. ❌ Creates a second ingress path whose guard coverage must be re-proven on every change; contradicts the plan's own 'runs inside those unchanged guards' contract unless the guards live in middleware only. Completeness 5/10. Effort: human ~half day / CC ~20 min."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D3 — Where does the new payment handler live relative to WebhookDispatcher?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, Stripe payment_intent.succeeded handler plan.\nELI10: The plan promises the handler runs inside the existing signature, dedup, and lock guards, but also says it bypasses WebhookDispatcher, the module that routes events to handlers. If the dispatcher is how handlers get wrapped in those guards, bypassing it means a second entry point that can drift from the guards over time. The plan itself lists 'separate class vs reuse WebhookDispatcher' as open.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a second Stripe entry point that silently skips dedup or locking on a future refactor, or a monolithic dispatcher that becomes the dumping ground for payment logic.\nRecommendation: B because it keeps the approved Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler name and namespace while keeping exactly one guarded entry point (explicit over clever, right-sized diff).\nCompleteness: A=7/10, B=10/10, C=5/10\nNet: namespace separation is fine; a separate ingress path is not. Register the class, do not bypass the router.": "B) Separate class registered via dispatcher (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T14:33:10.890Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "a3a1839d-1727-443b-b8ee-53c7cdc100e0",
"toolUseId": "toolu_012uXT9G2xvn3ELoJ9anfaZ6",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D4 — Section 1 (Architecture), issue 1: where does the inline email sit relative to the database commit?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, payment handler plan.\nELI10: The plan says update the user and send the email 'both inline' but never says whether the email runs inside the database transaction or after it commits. The mail client has a one-second deadline and raises MailTimeout. If the email is inside the transaction, every mail outage rolls back the payment update too, so a user who paid is never marked paid until mail recovers. The retained runbook assumes the opposite: committed payment, failed notification.\nStakes if we pick wrong: during a mail-provider outage, paid users stay unpaid and Stripe retries for 72 hours, while on-call sees 'failed webhook processing' instead of 'failed notification'.\nRecommendation: 1A because the runbook, retry record, and dedup-after-commit contracts all presuppose commit-then-notify (explicit over clever; zero silent failures).\nCompleteness: 1A=10/10, 1B=4/10\nNet: the transaction protects the payment write; the email must never be able to undo it.",
"header": "Txn boundary",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "1A) Commit the user update, then send email (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Load user and orders, assign payment_status=paid and PaymentIntent ID, COMMIT, then call the mail client, all while the per-user lock (separate from the transaction) stays held as the contract requires. ✅ Mail failure can never roll back a committed payment; the runbook's 'committed payment, failed notification' path is reachable. Verify: integration test that stubs MailTimeout and asserts the user row is still paid. ❌ Adds an explicit commit boundary the sketch left implicit. Effort: human ~1h / CC ~5 min."
},
{
"label": "1B) Keep email inside the transaction",
"description": "✅ Single block of code, no explicit commit call. ✅ All-or-nothing semantics are simple to read. ❌ A one-second MailTimeout rolls back the payment; paid users stay unpaid across the whole mail outage and every Stripe retry repeats the rollback. Completeness 4/10. Effort: human ~0 / CC ~0."
},
{
"label": "1C) Leave unspecified in the plan",
"description": "✅ No plan edit now. ✅ Implementer decides at build time. ❌ The single most consequential ordering decision in the handler is left to a coin flip; the temporal interrogation exists to prevent exactly this. Completeness 2/10."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D4 — Section 1 (Architecture), issue 1: where does the inline email sit relative to the database commit?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, payment handler plan.\nELI10: The plan says update the user and send the email 'both inline' but never says whether the email runs inside the database transaction or after it commits. The mail client has a one-second deadline and raises MailTimeout. If the email is inside the transaction, every mail outage rolls back the payment update too, so a user who paid is never marked paid until mail recovers. The retained runbook assumes the opposite: committed payment, failed notification.\nStakes if we pick wrong: during a mail-provider outage, paid users stay unpaid and Stripe retries for 72 hours, while on-call sees 'failed webhook processing' instead of 'failed notification'.\nRecommendation: 1A because the runbook, retry record, and dedup-after-commit contracts all presuppose commit-then-notify (explicit over clever; zero silent failures).\nCompleteness: 1A=10/10, 1B=4/10\nNet: the transaction protects the payment write; the email must never be able to undo it.": "1A) Commit the user update, then send email (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T14:34:39.689Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "a3a1839d-1727-443b-b8ee-53c7cdc100e0",
"toolUseId": "toolu_017RppuYzn6yPJiiXSkbAJ28",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D5 — Section 2 (Error & Rescue Map), issue 2: the email leg has no error handling; MailTimeout and the mail client's delivery-failure exception propagate out of the handler.\nProject/branch/task: main branch, payment handler plan.\nELI10: After the payment is committed (per 1A), the mail client can raise MailTimeout (one-second deadline) or its named delivery-failure error. The plan says 'no error handling on the email leg', so that exception reaches the ingress wrapper, which returns HTTP 500 and fires the 'failed webhook processing' alert. Stripe then re-delivers the event for up to 72 hours. The payment write is idempotent so data stays correct, but on-call is told a webhook failed when really a receipt failed, and the same receipt is now retried by two independent paths (Stripe replay and the runbook's retry procedure). The runbook explicitly says never replay the payment blindly.\nStakes if we pick wrong: alert misattribution during every mail outage, a 72-hour retry storm per paid user, and a runbook that no longer matches system behavior.\nRecommendation: 2A because the shared mail client already durably records the failed attempt for the retry procedure and already publishes caught exceptions to the failure-rate alert, so rescuing by name is the path that keeps every failure visible (every error has a name; zero silent failures).\nCompleteness: 2A=10/10, 2B=6/10\nNet: rescue exactly the named mail exceptions after commit, log with full correlation, return 200. Never a catch-all.",
"header": "Mail rescue",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "2A) Rescue named mail exceptions post-commit, log, return 200 (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Handler rescues only MailTimeout and the mail client's named delivery-failure class (read the exact class from the client during implementation; no StandardError catch-all), logs event ID, user ID, PaymentIntent ID, handler identity, and exception class at WARN, and returns normally so ingress replies 200 and the dedup marker records completion. ✅ Failure stays visible through the mail client's durable retry record plus the existing failure-rate and backlog alerts; runbook path is exact. Verify: unit test stubs MailTimeout, asserts user row paid, 200 returned, warning logged with event ID; second test asserts a DB exception is NOT rescued. ❌ Ingress 'failed webhook processing' alert no longer fires for mail-only failures, by design. Effort: human ~2h / CC ~10 min."
},
{
"label": "2B) Let the mail exception propagate (500, Stripe retries)",
"description": "✅ Zero rescue code; Stripe's retry eventually delivers the receipt once mail recovers. ✅ Ingress alert fires, so the failure is not silent. ❌ Contradicts the runbook's 'never replay the payment blindly', double-retries the same receipt via two paths, and misattributes mail outages as webhook failures for 72 hours per event. Completeness 6/10. Effort: human ~0 / CC ~0."
},
{
"label": "2C) Rescue with a catch-all and continue",
"description": "✅ Guarantees a 200 regardless of what the mail leg throws. ✅ One-line change. ❌ Swallows programming errors (nil method, wrong argument) alongside provider failures; the review's Prime Directive names catch-all rescue as a defect. Completeness 3/10."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D5 — Section 2 (Error & Rescue Map), issue 2: the email leg has no error handling; MailTimeout and the mail client's delivery-failure exception propagate out of the handler.\nProject/branch/task: main branch, payment handler plan.\nELI10: After the payment is committed (per 1A), the mail client can raise MailTimeout (one-second deadline) or its named delivery-failure error. The plan says 'no error handling on the email leg', so that exception reaches the ingress wrapper, which returns HTTP 500 and fires the 'failed webhook processing' alert. Stripe then re-delivers the event for up to 72 hours. The payment write is idempotent so data stays correct, but on-call is told a webhook failed when really a receipt failed, and the same receipt is now retried by two independent paths (Stripe replay and the runbook's retry procedure). The runbook explicitly says never replay the payment blindly.\nStakes if we pick wrong: alert misattribution during every mail outage, a 72-hour retry storm per paid user, and a runbook that no longer matches system behavior.\nRecommendation: 2A because the shared mail client already durably records the failed attempt for the retry procedure and already publishes caught exceptions to the failure-rate alert, so rescuing by name is the path that keeps every failure visible (every error has a name; zero silent failures).\nCompleteness: 2A=10/10, 2B=6/10\nNet: rescue exactly the named mail exceptions after commit, log with full correlation, return 200. Never a catch-all.": "2A) Rescue named mail exceptions post-commit, log, return 200 (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T14:35:05.906Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "a3a1839d-1727-443b-b8ee-53c7cdc100e0",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01NuWzqF3fK3w2kjcKc3ySTk",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D6 — Section 3 (Security), issue 3: request.params.userId is interpolated into a raw SQL fragment for the user lookup.\nProject/branch/task: main branch, payment handler plan.\nELI10: The plan reads the user_id from Stripe metadata straight into SQL text. The plan's own contracts say this string is forwarded unchanged, is never SQL-escaped, is opaque TEXT that legitimately contains punctuation and Unicode, and that a valid Stripe signature does not make it safe. So a user ID containing an apostrophe breaks the query for a real customer, and anyone who can set metadata on a PaymentIntent (or a compromised integration) gets SQL injection into the payments database. Threat: SQL injection and query breakage. Likelihood: High (punctuation IDs are valid by contract). Impact: High (payments DB). Plan mitigates: No.\nStakes if we pick wrong: data exfiltration or destruction from the payments database, plus paid users with punctuation in their IDs never getting marked paid.\nRecommendation: 3A because binding the value is the only fix compatible with 'every nonempty string is a valid identifier' (security is not optional; explicit over clever).\nCompleteness: 3A=10/10, 3B=5/10\nNet: bind the parameter, never build SQL text from it, and prove it with an adversarial ID in the tests.",
"header": "SQL injection",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "3A) Parameterized lookup via existing finder, adversarial-ID test (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Reuse the finder the prior handler already uses for user lookup, or a bound-parameter query (ORM find_by / bind variable) when no finder exists; the external string is never concatenated into SQL. ✅ Verify with unit tests for IDs containing a single quote, a semicolon-plus-DROP payload, and multi-byte Unicode, asserting the correct user or nil comes back with no DB exception; unknown IDs still take the retained lookup-result guard (200, logged). ❌ Requires the implementer to locate the existing finder rather than write a one-line SQL string. Effort: human ~1h / CC ~5 min."
},
{
"label": "3B) Keep raw SQL but escape or validate the ID format",
"description": "✅ Smaller conceptual change from the sketch. ✅ Escaping blocks the common injection payloads. ❌ Format validation contradicts the retained contract that every nonempty string is a valid identifier, and hand escaping is exactly how injection bugs recur on the next edit. Completeness 5/10. Effort: human ~1h / CC ~5 min."
},
{
"label": "3C) Keep the plan as written",
"description": "✅ No change. ✅ Signature verification and the ownership guard limit who can reach it. ❌ The contract says explicitly that a valid signature does not make the string safe for SQL; legitimate punctuation IDs will crash the lookup. Completeness 1/10."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D6 — Section 3 (Security), issue 3: request.params.userId is interpolated into a raw SQL fragment for the user lookup.\nProject/branch/task: main branch, payment handler plan.\nELI10: The plan reads the user_id from Stripe metadata straight into SQL text. The plan's own contracts say this string is forwarded unchanged, is never SQL-escaped, is opaque TEXT that legitimately contains punctuation and Unicode, and that a valid Stripe signature does not make it safe. So a user ID containing an apostrophe breaks the query for a real customer, and anyone who can set metadata on a PaymentIntent (or a compromised integration) gets SQL injection into the payments database. Threat: SQL injection and query breakage. Likelihood: High (punctuation IDs are valid by contract). Impact: High (payments DB). Plan mitigates: No.\nStakes if we pick wrong: data exfiltration or destruction from the payments database, plus paid users with punctuation in their IDs never getting marked paid.\nRecommendation: 3A because binding the value is the only fix compatible with 'every nonempty string is a valid identifier' (security is not optional; explicit over clever).\nCompleteness: 3A=10/10, 3B=5/10\nNet: bind the parameter, never build SQL text from it, and prove it with an adversarial ID in the tests.": "3A) Parameterized lookup via existing finder, adversarial-ID test (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T14:35:26.602Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "a3a1839d-1727-443b-b8ee-53c7cdc100e0",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01N6WEAyzNmboptuCe7mt8Lw",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D7 — Section 6 (Tests), issue 4: the plan has no automated tests for the new handler and relies on the existing integration suite catching regressions.\nProject/branch/task: main branch, payment handler plan.\nELI10: The existing suite tests the prior handler and the shared guards. It does not exercise the new class, so nothing automated proves the four repairs just approved: commit-then-email ordering, named mail rescue, parameterized lookup, or the order-summary contract. The only check is the manual staging replay in the rollout checklist, which the plan itself labels 'not automated regression coverage'. The 2am-Friday test is the one that stubs MailTimeout and asserts the user is still marked paid.\nStakes if we pick wrong: the next refactor can silently reintroduce inline-in-transaction email or a catch-all rescue and only a production mail outage will tell you.\nRecommendation: 4A because well-tested code is your stated non-negotiable and every approved remedy already names its verifying assertion (completeness is cheap).\nCompleteness: 4A=10/10, 4B=7/10, 4C=2/10\nNet: the tests are the executable form of the contracts this plan retains; without them the contracts are prose.",
"header": "Tests",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "4A) Unit + integration tests for the handler (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Unit: happy path marks user paid with PaymentIntent ID and sends exactly one receipt; zero orders sends one receipt with empty summary; MailTimeout and the named delivery error are rescued, user stays paid, 200 returned, warning logged with event/user/PaymentIntent IDs; a DB exception is not rescued; user IDs with a quote, semicolon payload, and Unicode resolve without SQL error; unknown user takes the existing guard path. ✅ Integration: dispatcher routes payment_intent.succeeded to the new class under the flag, and a duplicate event ID delivered during an in-flight first delivery does not invoke the handler twice (controlled pause at the mail call). ❌ Roughly 10 to 12 test cases to write. Effort: human ~1 day / CC ~30 min."
},
{
"label": "4B) Integration tests only",
"description": "✅ Covers dispatcher routing and the dedup schedule end to end. ✅ Fewer files than the full set. ❌ Adversarial user-ID cases and the rescued-vs-not-rescued exception split are awkward at integration level and tend to be skipped. Completeness 7/10. Effort: human ~half day / CC ~15 min."
},
{
"label": "4C) Keep the plan: no new tests, rely on existing suite plus manual replay",
"description": "✅ Zero test-writing effort. ✅ Manual staging replay still runs before broad enablement. ❌ The existing suite never calls the new class; the three security and error-handling repairs have no automated proof. Completeness 2/10."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D7 — Section 6 (Tests), issue 4: the plan has no automated tests for the new handler and relies on the existing integration suite catching regressions.\nProject/branch/task: main branch, payment handler plan.\nELI10: The existing suite tests the prior handler and the shared guards. It does not exercise the new class, so nothing automated proves the four repairs just approved: commit-then-email ordering, named mail rescue, parameterized lookup, or the order-summary contract. The only check is the manual staging replay in the rollout checklist, which the plan itself labels 'not automated regression coverage'. The 2am-Friday test is the one that stubs MailTimeout and asserts the user is still marked paid.\nStakes if we pick wrong: the next refactor can silently reintroduce inline-in-transaction email or a catch-all rescue and only a production mail outage will tell you.\nRecommendation: 4A because well-tested code is your stated non-negotiable and every approved remedy already names its verifying assertion (completeness is cheap).\nCompleteness: 4A=10/10, 4B=7/10, 4C=2/10\nNet: the tests are the executable form of the contracts this plan retains; without them the contracts are prose.": "4A) Unit + integration tests for the handler (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T14:36:10.995Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "a3a1839d-1727-443b-b8ee-53c7cdc100e0",
"toolUseId": "toolu_013mjPD6bGoDGaVLyzxzXMyf",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D8 — Section 7 (Performance), issue 5: the order summary is loaded by fetching each order in a loop (N+1 queries).\nProject/branch/task: main branch, payment handler plan.\nELI10: The receipt needs a summary of the user's orders. The plan fetches each order with its own query. A customer with 200 orders means 201 database round trips inside a webhook that has a two-second database budget, all while holding the per-user lock that account deletion and other payments wait on. It also reads orders one at a time, so an order created mid-loop can appear in an inconsistent snapshot.\nStakes if we pick wrong: high-order-count customers push the handler past its deadline, Stripe retries for hours, and the lock stalls other work on that user.\nRecommendation: 5A because one bound query is smaller, faster, and a consistent snapshot; it is the minimal correct version of the same data load (right-sized diff).\nCompleteness: 5A=10/10, 5B=6/10\nNet: same data, one query, before the commit, with an index check.",
"header": "N+1 orders",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "5A) Single parameterized query for the user's orders, before commit (recommended)",
"description": "✅ One bound query (orders where user_id = ?, or the ORM association preload) loaded inside the transaction before the update, so a load failure rolls back cleanly and the summary is a consistent snapshot. ✅ Implementation confirms an index on orders.user_id exists and adds the receipt's summary shape unchanged (zero orders still yields one receipt). Verify: test asserts exactly one orders query is issued for a user with 50 orders. ❌ Requires touching the query rather than copying the loop. Effort: human ~1h / CC ~5 min."
},
{
"label": "5B) Keep the loop but cap it",
"description": "✅ Minimal change to the sketch. ✅ Bounds the worst case. ❌ Still N queries up to the cap and silently truncates the receipt summary, changing the retained notification contract. Completeness 6/10. Effort: human ~30 min / CC ~5 min."
},
{
"label": "5C) Keep the loop as written",
"description": "✅ No change. ✅ Fine for users with a handful of orders. ❌ Unbounded round trips inside a two-second budget while holding the per-user lock; degrades exactly for your best customers. Completeness 3/10."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D8 — Section 7 (Performance), issue 5: the order summary is loaded by fetching each order in a loop (N+1 queries).\nProject/branch/task: main branch, payment handler plan.\nELI10: The receipt needs a summary of the user's orders. The plan fetches each order with its own query. A customer with 200 orders means 201 database round trips inside a webhook that has a two-second database budget, all while holding the per-user lock that account deletion and other payments wait on. It also reads orders one at a time, so an order created mid-loop can appear in an inconsistent snapshot.\nStakes if we pick wrong: high-order-count customers push the handler past its deadline, Stripe retries for hours, and the lock stalls other work on that user.\nRecommendation: 5A because one bound query is smaller, faster, and a consistent snapshot; it is the minimal correct version of the same data load (right-sized diff).\nCompleteness: 5A=10/10, 5B=6/10\nNet: same data, one query, before the commit, with an index check.": "5A) Single parameterized query for the user's orders, before commit (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T14:36:23.105Z"
}
]
}
test/fixtures/ceo-section-parenthesis-at.json
Vendored
-256
View File
@@ -1,256 +0,0 @@
{
"calls": [
{
"sessionId": "063fcf3e-294e-4231-ac13-acb6a15df142",
"toolUseId": "toolu_013eVyXPYjXu7T6MeQsRhL5Y",
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-YNFu5w on main, one-time gstack onboarding prompt.\nELI10: gstack works best when the project's CLAUDE.md tells the agent which skill to invoke for which kind of request (bugs → /investigate, ship → /ship, and so on). Without it you invoke skills by name every time. Plan mode is active, so if you say yes the CLAUDE.md edit and commit happen after this review exits plan mode.\nStakes if we pick wrong: mild either way; this is a convenience setting you can flip later.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules make later reviews and ships one-word invocations.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Add routing rules (recommended)\n ✅ Future requests auto-route to the right gstack skill without remembering names\n ✅ Rules are a plain appended CLAUDE.md section, easy to edit or delete\n ❌ Adds ~15 lines to this fixture repo's CLAUDE.md and a commit, applied only after plan mode ends\nB) No thanks\n ✅ Keeps the fixture repo untouched; no extra commit\n ✅ Recorded once via gstack-config so this prompt never reappears here\n ❌ You invoke every gstack skill manually by slash command\nNet: convenience of auto-routing vs. keeping this repo's CLAUDE.md pristine.": "Add routing rules (recommended)",
"D2 — Enable cross-project learnings search on this machine?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-YNFu5w on main, first-time gstack config choice.\nELI10: gstack saves small lessons from each session (a project quirk, a pitfall). It can search lessons saved from your other projects on this machine when reviewing this one. Nothing leaves the machine. Recommended for solo developers; skip if you work on separate client codebases that should never inform each other.\nStakes if we pick wrong: low; the setting is one config flag and can be changed any time.\nRecommendation: A because a single developer benefits from patterns carrying across their own repos.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)\n ✅ Past pitfalls from your other repos surface here when relevant\n ✅ Stays local; only the learnings JSONL under ~/.gstack is read\n ❌ A lesson from one codebase could be mildly misleading in another\nB) Keep project-scoped only\n ✅ Strict separation between codebases; nothing cross-contaminates\n ✅ Still records and reuses learnings from this project\n ❌ Loses compounding benefit across your own repos\nNet: compounding memory across repos vs. strict per-repo isolation.": "Enable cross-project (recommended)",
"D3 — How should the new payment handler be wired in? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-approach>\nProject/branch/task: Payment Processing Integration plan on main; moving Stripe payment orchestration into app-owned code.\nELI10: Today one dispatcher receives verified Stripe events and hands them to a handler. The plan proposes a new handler class that skips that dispatcher to get a clean namespace. But the namespace is already settled by the class name (Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler), so skipping the dispatcher only creates a second routing path whose guard wiring you must prove all over again. The alternative is to register the new class with the existing dispatcher and let the feature flag pick prior vs new.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a second dispatch path can silently miss a guard (dedup, lock, ownership) and double-process a payment; or the dispatcher becomes a dumping ground for business logic.\nRecommendation: B because it keeps one routing path and one guard stack with the smallest diff (explicit over clever, right-sized diff).\nCompleteness: A=5/10, B=9/10, C=6/10\nPros / cons:\nA) Separate class, own route bypassing WebhookDispatcher (human ~1 day / CC ~20 min)\n ✅ Handler is fully isolated from dispatcher code; zero edits to the dispatcher\n ✅ Matches the plan as written, so no re-litigation of the sketch\n ❌ Two routing paths for Stripe events; the new path must re-prove every guard and will drift over time\nB) Separate class registered with WebhookDispatcher, flag selects handler (recommended) (human ~1.5 days / CC ~30 min)\n ✅ Guards (signature, dedup, per-user lock, ownership) are inherited by construction\n ✅ Feature flag flips handler selection in one registration line; rollback is trivial\n ❌ Small edit to WebhookDispatcher registration; prior and new handler coexist until cleanup\nC) No new class; orchestration inline in WebhookDispatcher (human ~0.5 day / CC ~15 min)\n ✅ Smallest possible diff, no new file\n ✅ Everything reused, including current traces and flag\n ❌ Mixes routing with payment business logic, hard to unit-test, undercuts the app-owned-orchestration motivation\nNet: isolation from the dispatcher (A) vs. one proven guard path (B) vs. minimal diff at the cost of cohesion (C).": "B: Register with dispatcher (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T19:42:23.799Z",
"questions": [
{
"header": "Routing",
"question": "D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-YNFu5w on main, one-time gstack onboarding prompt.\nELI10: gstack works best when the project's CLAUDE.md tells the agent which skill to invoke for which kind of request (bugs → /investigate, ship → /ship, and so on). Without it you invoke skills by name every time. Plan mode is active, so if you say yes the CLAUDE.md edit and commit happen after this review exits plan mode.\nStakes if we pick wrong: mild either way; this is a convenience setting you can flip later.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules make later reviews and ships one-word invocations.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Add routing rules (recommended)\n ✅ Future requests auto-route to the right gstack skill without remembering names\n ✅ Rules are a plain appended CLAUDE.md section, easy to edit or delete\n ❌ Adds ~15 lines to this fixture repo's CLAUDE.md and a commit, applied only after plan mode ends\nB) No thanks\n ✅ Keeps the fixture repo untouched; no extra commit\n ✅ Recorded once via gstack-config so this prompt never reappears here\n ❌ You invoke every gstack skill manually by slash command\nNet: convenience of auto-routing vs. keeping this repo's CLAUDE.md pristine.",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Add routing rules (recommended)",
"description": "Append the skill-routing section to CLAUDE.md and commit it after this review exits plan mode."
},
{
"label": "No thanks",
"description": "Record routing_declined=true; invoke skills manually. Re-enable later with gstack-config."
}
]
},
{
"header": "Learnings",
"question": "D2 — Enable cross-project learnings search on this machine?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-YNFu5w on main, first-time gstack config choice.\nELI10: gstack saves small lessons from each session (a project quirk, a pitfall). It can search lessons saved from your other projects on this machine when reviewing this one. Nothing leaves the machine. Recommended for solo developers; skip if you work on separate client codebases that should never inform each other.\nStakes if we pick wrong: low; the setting is one config flag and can be changed any time.\nRecommendation: A because a single developer benefits from patterns carrying across their own repos.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)\n ✅ Past pitfalls from your other repos surface here when relevant\n ✅ Stays local; only the learnings JSONL under ~/.gstack is read\n ❌ A lesson from one codebase could be mildly misleading in another\nB) Keep project-scoped only\n ✅ Strict separation between codebases; nothing cross-contaminates\n ✅ Still records and reuses learnings from this project\n ❌ Loses compounding benefit across your own repos\nNet: compounding memory across repos vs. strict per-repo isolation.",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Enable cross-project (recommended)",
"description": "gstack-config set cross_project_learnings true, then re-run the learnings search."
},
{
"label": "Project-scoped only",
"description": "gstack-config set cross_project_learnings false."
}
]
},
{
"header": "Approach",
"question": "D3 — How should the new payment handler be wired in? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-approach>\nProject/branch/task: Payment Processing Integration plan on main; moving Stripe payment orchestration into app-owned code.\nELI10: Today one dispatcher receives verified Stripe events and hands them to a handler. The plan proposes a new handler class that skips that dispatcher to get a clean namespace. But the namespace is already settled by the class name (Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler), so skipping the dispatcher only creates a second routing path whose guard wiring you must prove all over again. The alternative is to register the new class with the existing dispatcher and let the feature flag pick prior vs new.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a second dispatch path can silently miss a guard (dedup, lock, ownership) and double-process a payment; or the dispatcher becomes a dumping ground for business logic.\nRecommendation: B because it keeps one routing path and one guard stack with the smallest diff (explicit over clever, right-sized diff).\nCompleteness: A=5/10, B=9/10, C=6/10\nPros / cons:\nA) Separate class, own route bypassing WebhookDispatcher (human ~1 day / CC ~20 min)\n ✅ Handler is fully isolated from dispatcher code; zero edits to the dispatcher\n ✅ Matches the plan as written, so no re-litigation of the sketch\n ❌ Two routing paths for Stripe events; the new path must re-prove every guard and will drift over time\nB) Separate class registered with WebhookDispatcher, flag selects handler (recommended) (human ~1.5 days / CC ~30 min)\n ✅ Guards (signature, dedup, per-user lock, ownership) are inherited by construction\n ✅ Feature flag flips handler selection in one registration line; rollback is trivial\n ❌ Small edit to WebhookDispatcher registration; prior and new handler coexist until cleanup\nC) No new class; orchestration inline in WebhookDispatcher (human ~0.5 day / CC ~15 min)\n ✅ Smallest possible diff, no new file\n ✅ Everything reused, including current traces and flag\n ❌ Mixes routing with payment business logic, hard to unit-test, undercuts the app-owned-orchestration motivation\nNet: isolation from the dispatcher (A) vs. one proven guard path (B) vs. minimal diff at the cost of cohesion (C).",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "B: Register with dispatcher (recommended)",
"description": "New Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler registered in WebhookDispatcher for payment_intent.succeeded; feature flag selects prior vs new. Completeness 9/10."
},
{
"label": "A: Bypass dispatcher",
"description": "New class on its own route as the plan sketches; guard wiring re-proven for the new path. Completeness 5/10."
},
{
"label": "C: Inline in dispatcher",
"description": "No new class; orchestration as a branch inside WebhookDispatcher. Completeness 6/10."
}
]
}
]
},
{
"sessionId": "063fcf3e-294e-4231-ac13-acb6a15df142",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01UwthQrv8dmJamJMfuwPEoZ",
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D4 (Section 1, finding 1) — What should the handler do when the receipt send fails? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-s1-email-leg>\nProject/branch/task: Payment Processing Integration on main; the plan says update the user and fire the email inline with no error handling on the email leg.\nELI10: The mail client gives up after one second and throws (MailTimeout, or its delivery-failure error). The plan lets that throw escape. The ingress then answers Stripe with a 500 and Stripe retries the same event for up to three days, re-running a handler whose payment write may already be committed. Every retry fires the failed-webhook alert. Meanwhile the mail client has already durably recorded the failed send for the existing notification retry procedure, so the throw buys nothing. The plan also never says whether the email happens inside or after the DB transaction; inside means a mail outage rolls back payments.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a 20-minute mail-provider blip becomes hours of paging on committed payments, or worse, users who paid are not marked paid until the mail provider recovers.\nRecommendation: 1A because a notification failure is not a payment failure; the retained mail client, dashboard, and runbook already own receipt retries (zero silent failures, every error has a name).\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=4/10, C=3/10\nPros / cons:\n1A) Commit first, then send; rescue only the named mail exceptions (recommended) (human ~3h / CC ~15 min)\n ✅ All DB work (lookup, orders load, update) in one transaction, committed before any network send; DB errors still propagate to the 500/retry path\n ✅ Rescue exactly MailTimeout plus the client's named delivery-failure class (read from its source); emit a structured warning with event, user, PI, and handler identity and outcome receipt_deferred; let completion be recorded and return 200 so Stripe stops; the durable retry record and existing runbook deliver the receipt\n ✅ Tests: mail timeout after commit asserts paid persisted, completion recorded, warning emitted, no 500; DB failure asserts 500, no completion marker, no send attempted\n ❌ Receipt delivery now depends on the notification retry procedure instead of Stripe's automatic retry\n1B) Leave the email leg unrescued (plan as written)\n ✅ No rescue code to write; Stripe's own retries eventually resend the receipt\n ✅ Provider idempotency key prevents duplicate receipts across those retries\n ❌ Committed payments return 500 and page on-call on every retry; behavior depends on whether completion is recorded when the handler raises after commit, which nobody has specified\n1C) Send the email inside the DB transaction so a failure rolls back the payment update\n ✅ Payment and receipt succeed or fail together, easy to reason about\n ✅ No partial state to explain in the runbook\n ❌ A mail outage blocks marking users paid, and a network call inside a transaction holds DB locks for the 1s mail deadline\nNet: decoupling receipt failures from the payment write (1A) vs. leaning on Stripe retries at the cost of paging and undefined post-commit semantics (1B) vs. coupling them outright (1C).": "1A: Commit, then rescue named mail errors (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T19:44:36.956Z",
"questions": [
{
"header": "Email leg",
"question": "D4 (Section 1, finding 1) — What should the handler do when the receipt send fails? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-s1-email-leg>\nProject/branch/task: Payment Processing Integration on main; the plan says update the user and fire the email inline with no error handling on the email leg.\nELI10: The mail client gives up after one second and throws (MailTimeout, or its delivery-failure error). The plan lets that throw escape. The ingress then answers Stripe with a 500 and Stripe retries the same event for up to three days, re-running a handler whose payment write may already be committed. Every retry fires the failed-webhook alert. Meanwhile the mail client has already durably recorded the failed send for the existing notification retry procedure, so the throw buys nothing. The plan also never says whether the email happens inside or after the DB transaction; inside means a mail outage rolls back payments.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a 20-minute mail-provider blip becomes hours of paging on committed payments, or worse, users who paid are not marked paid until the mail provider recovers.\nRecommendation: 1A because a notification failure is not a payment failure; the retained mail client, dashboard, and runbook already own receipt retries (zero silent failures, every error has a name).\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=4/10, C=3/10\nPros / cons:\n1A) Commit first, then send; rescue only the named mail exceptions (recommended) (human ~3h / CC ~15 min)\n ✅ All DB work (lookup, orders load, update) in one transaction, committed before any network send; DB errors still propagate to the 500/retry path\n ✅ Rescue exactly MailTimeout plus the client's named delivery-failure class (read from its source); emit a structured warning with event, user, PI, and handler identity and outcome receipt_deferred; let completion be recorded and return 200 so Stripe stops; the durable retry record and existing runbook deliver the receipt\n ✅ Tests: mail timeout after commit asserts paid persisted, completion recorded, warning emitted, no 500; DB failure asserts 500, no completion marker, no send attempted\n ❌ Receipt delivery now depends on the notification retry procedure instead of Stripe's automatic retry\n1B) Leave the email leg unrescued (plan as written)\n ✅ No rescue code to write; Stripe's own retries eventually resend the receipt\n ✅ Provider idempotency key prevents duplicate receipts across those retries\n ❌ Committed payments return 500 and page on-call on every retry; behavior depends on whether completion is recorded when the handler raises after commit, which nobody has specified\n1C) Send the email inside the DB transaction so a failure rolls back the payment update\n ✅ Payment and receipt succeed or fail together, easy to reason about\n ✅ No partial state to explain in the runbook\n ❌ A mail outage blocks marking users paid, and a network call inside a transaction holds DB locks for the 1s mail deadline\nNet: decoupling receipt failures from the payment write (1A) vs. leaning on Stripe retries at the cost of paging and undefined post-commit semantics (1B) vs. coupling them outright (1C).",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "1A: Commit, then rescue named mail errors (recommended)",
"description": "One DB transaction, commit, then send; rescue MailTimeout + named delivery error only; structured receipt_deferred warning; 200. Completeness 10/10."
},
{
"label": "1B: Leave unrescued",
"description": "Plan as written; mail failure propagates to a 500 and Stripe retries. Completeness 4/10."
},
{
"label": "1C: Email inside transaction",
"description": "Mail failure rolls back the payment update. Completeness 3/10."
}
]
}
]
},
{
"sessionId": "063fcf3e-294e-4231-ac13-acb6a15df142",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Avmfeuq7Bg7ZA1G9R8L2Dw",
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D5 (Section 3, finding 1) — How should the handler look up the user from params.userId? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-s3-sql-lookup>\nProject/branch/task: Payment Processing Integration on main; the plan reads params.userId directly into a raw SQL fragment for the lookup query.\nELI10: The user ID arrives as a plain text string that the adapter forwards unchanged. Your own contract says IDs are opaque text with punctuation and Unicode, and that a valid Stripe signature does not make the string SQL-safe. Pasting that string into a SQL fragment means a legitimate ID with an apostrophe breaks the lookup (payment never marked paid, endless 500 retries), and a hostile ID placed in PaymentIntent metadata runs as SQL against the payments database. Bound parameters make the string data, never code.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a database compromise via the payment webhook, or a class of real users whose payments never land because their ID contains punctuation.\nRecommendation: 2A because parameterized queries are the standard-library rung of the reuse ladder and eliminate the whole class instead of filtering it (security is not optional).\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=5/10, C=1/10\nPros / cons:\n2A) Parameterized lookup via the ORM finder or a bound parameter (recommended) (human ~1h / CC ~5 min)\n ✅ The ID can never change the query shape; punctuation and Unicode IDs look up correctly, matching the opaque-TEXT contract\n ✅ Tests feed adversarial IDs (single quote, semicolon plus DROP, double-dash comment, Unicode, 1000 chars) and assert the correct row or the unknown-user path, never a SQL error\n ❌ None of substance; a raw SQL fragment must be rewritten as a finder or bound query\n2B) Keep raw SQL but add an allowlist regex on the ID format\n ✅ Small change to the fragment as sketched\n ✅ Blocks the obvious injection payloads\n ❌ Contradicts the contract that every nonempty string is a valid ID; legitimate punctuation IDs get rejected, and allowlists are bypassable\n2C) Keep raw SQL interpolation as written\n ✅ No change from the plan\n ✅ Fastest to type\n ❌ SQL injection into the payments database via webhook metadata; breakage on any ID containing a quote\nNet: eliminating the injection class (2A) vs. filtering it and breaking legitimate IDs (2B) vs. shipping the vulnerability (2C).": "2A: Parameterized lookup (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T19:45:32.974Z",
"questions": [
{
"header": "SQL lookup",
"question": "D5 (Section 3, finding 1) — How should the handler look up the user from params.userId? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-s3-sql-lookup>\nProject/branch/task: Payment Processing Integration on main; the plan reads params.userId directly into a raw SQL fragment for the lookup query.\nELI10: The user ID arrives as a plain text string that the adapter forwards unchanged. Your own contract says IDs are opaque text with punctuation and Unicode, and that a valid Stripe signature does not make the string SQL-safe. Pasting that string into a SQL fragment means a legitimate ID with an apostrophe breaks the lookup (payment never marked paid, endless 500 retries), and a hostile ID placed in PaymentIntent metadata runs as SQL against the payments database. Bound parameters make the string data, never code.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a database compromise via the payment webhook, or a class of real users whose payments never land because their ID contains punctuation.\nRecommendation: 2A because parameterized queries are the standard-library rung of the reuse ladder and eliminate the whole class instead of filtering it (security is not optional).\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=5/10, C=1/10\nPros / cons:\n2A) Parameterized lookup via the ORM finder or a bound parameter (recommended) (human ~1h / CC ~5 min)\n ✅ The ID can never change the query shape; punctuation and Unicode IDs look up correctly, matching the opaque-TEXT contract\n ✅ Tests feed adversarial IDs (single quote, semicolon plus DROP, double-dash comment, Unicode, 1000 chars) and assert the correct row or the unknown-user path, never a SQL error\n ❌ None of substance; a raw SQL fragment must be rewritten as a finder or bound query\n2B) Keep raw SQL but add an allowlist regex on the ID format\n ✅ Small change to the fragment as sketched\n ✅ Blocks the obvious injection payloads\n ❌ Contradicts the contract that every nonempty string is a valid ID; legitimate punctuation IDs get rejected, and allowlists are bypassable\n2C) Keep raw SQL interpolation as written\n ✅ No change from the plan\n ✅ Fastest to type\n ❌ SQL injection into the payments database via webhook metadata; breakage on any ID containing a quote\nNet: eliminating the injection class (2A) vs. filtering it and breaking legitimate IDs (2B) vs. shipping the vulnerability (2C).",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "2A: Parameterized lookup (recommended)",
"description": "ORM finder or bound parameter; adversarial-ID tests assert correct lookup or unknown-user path. Completeness 10/10."
},
{
"label": "2B: Raw SQL + allowlist regex",
"description": "Keep the fragment, reject IDs not matching a pattern. Contradicts the opaque-TEXT contract. Completeness 5/10."
},
{
"label": "2C: Raw SQL as written",
"description": "Ship the plan's raw fragment unchanged. Completeness 1/10."
}
]
}
]
},
{
"sessionId": "063fcf3e-294e-4231-ac13-acb6a15df142",
"toolUseId": "toolu_013HjEZX1sW7UyLTCbksgEnB",
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D6 (Section 6, finding 1) — What automated tests ship with the new handler? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-s6-tests>\nProject/branch/task: Payment Processing Integration on main; the plan says no tests, rely on the existing integration suite.\nELI10: The new handler only runs when the feature flag is on. The existing integration suite runs with the flag at its default, so it never executes the new code; a green suite proves nothing about it. Every remedy you approved so far (commit-then-rescue, parameterized lookup) and every retained contract (zero orders still gets one receipt, unknown user stops, empty email skips) is a behavior a test can pin. The staging replay in the rollout checklist is manual, one-shot, and not regression coverage.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a regression in the payment path reaches production with no signal until a customer says they paid and were not marked paid.\nRecommendation: 3A because well-tested code is non-negotiable and the delta between happy-path-only and full coverage is minutes with CC.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=1/10\nPros / cons:\n3A) Full coverage: unit tests for every row of the Section 6 table plus two dispatcher integration tests (recommended) (human ~1 day / CC ~30 min)\n ✅ Pins every approved remedy: adversarial IDs never raise SQL errors; MailTimeout after commit leaves paid persisted, emits the receipt_deferred warning, returns 200; DB failure yields 500 with no completion marker and no send\n ✅ Pins every retained contract: zero orders sends one receipt with empty summary; unknown user stops before update; empty email skips with a record; exactly one orders query for N=0/1/50; no email address in logs\n ✅ Flag ON/OFF integration tests through the real dispatcher prove routing and rollback wiring\n ❌ One new test file of roughly 15 cases to maintain; needs a fake mail client and fake clock\n3B) Happy path only: one flag-ON integration test through the dispatcher (human ~2h / CC ~10 min)\n ✅ Proves the new handler is wired and marks a user paid end to end\n ✅ Small and fast\n ❌ Leaves every failure path (mail rescue, DB rollback, adversarial IDs, zero orders) unverified until production\n3C) No automated tests (plan as written)\n ✅ Zero test code to write\n ✅ Manual staging replay still happens per the rollout checklist\n ❌ The existing suite never runs the flagged handler, so regressions are invisible; contradicts the non-negotiable testing preference\nNet: pinning all approved behavior (3A) vs. proving wiring only (3B) vs. shipping blind (3C).": "3A: Full unit + integration coverage (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T19:46:39.596Z",
"questions": [
{
"header": "Tests",
"question": "D6 (Section 6, finding 1) — What automated tests ship with the new handler? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-s6-tests>\nProject/branch/task: Payment Processing Integration on main; the plan says no tests, rely on the existing integration suite.\nELI10: The new handler only runs when the feature flag is on. The existing integration suite runs with the flag at its default, so it never executes the new code; a green suite proves nothing about it. Every remedy you approved so far (commit-then-rescue, parameterized lookup) and every retained contract (zero orders still gets one receipt, unknown user stops, empty email skips) is a behavior a test can pin. The staging replay in the rollout checklist is manual, one-shot, and not regression coverage.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a regression in the payment path reaches production with no signal until a customer says they paid and were not marked paid.\nRecommendation: 3A because well-tested code is non-negotiable and the delta between happy-path-only and full coverage is minutes with CC.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=1/10\nPros / cons:\n3A) Full coverage: unit tests for every row of the Section 6 table plus two dispatcher integration tests (recommended) (human ~1 day / CC ~30 min)\n ✅ Pins every approved remedy: adversarial IDs never raise SQL errors; MailTimeout after commit leaves paid persisted, emits the receipt_deferred warning, returns 200; DB failure yields 500 with no completion marker and no send\n ✅ Pins every retained contract: zero orders sends one receipt with empty summary; unknown user stops before update; empty email skips with a record; exactly one orders query for N=0/1/50; no email address in logs\n ✅ Flag ON/OFF integration tests through the real dispatcher prove routing and rollback wiring\n ❌ One new test file of roughly 15 cases to maintain; needs a fake mail client and fake clock\n3B) Happy path only: one flag-ON integration test through the dispatcher (human ~2h / CC ~10 min)\n ✅ Proves the new handler is wired and marks a user paid end to end\n ✅ Small and fast\n ❌ Leaves every failure path (mail rescue, DB rollback, adversarial IDs, zero orders) unverified until production\n3C) No automated tests (plan as written)\n ✅ Zero test code to write\n ✅ Manual staging replay still happens per the rollout checklist\n ❌ The existing suite never runs the flagged handler, so regressions are invisible; contradicts the non-negotiable testing preference\nNet: pinning all approved behavior (3A) vs. proving wiring only (3B) vs. shipping blind (3C).",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "3A: Full unit + integration coverage (recommended)",
"description": "Every Section 6 table row: adversarial IDs, mail rescue after commit, DB rollback, zero orders, unknown user, empty email, query count, log hygiene, flag ON/OFF routing. Completeness 10/10."
},
{
"label": "3B: Happy-path integration only",
"description": "One flag-ON test through the dispatcher marking a user paid. Completeness 6/10."
},
{
"label": "3C: No automated tests",
"description": "Plan as written; manual staging replay only. Completeness 1/10."
}
]
}
]
},
{
"sessionId": "063fcf3e-294e-4231-ac13-acb6a15df142",
"toolUseId": "toolu_019DfaTdR8uhuAryxVXWyCLk",
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D7 (Section 7, finding 1) — How should the handler load the orders for the receipt summary? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-s7-orders-n-plus-1>\nProject/branch/task: Payment Processing Integration on main; the plan fetches each order in a loop after the user lookup.\nELI10: One query per order means a customer with 300 orders costs 301 database round trips inside a two-second budget. When the budget runs out the database call throws, the payment update rolls back, Stripe gets a 500 and retries into the same wall for three days. Your best customers are exactly the ones whose payments would never land. One query that fetches all of a user's orders at once costs the same for 0 or 300 orders.\nStakes if we pick wrong: high-order-count users are silently never marked paid, and the failure looks like a flaky database rather than a design bug.\nRecommendation: 4A because a single indexed query is the native database rung of the reuse ladder and removes the deadline risk entirely (engineered enough, not clever).\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=5/10, C=1/10\nPros / cons:\n4A) Single query for all orders by user_id inside the transaction, with a query-count test (recommended) (human ~1h / CC ~5 min)\n ✅ Exactly one orders query regardless of N, selecting only the columns the receipt summary uses; runs inside the same transaction as the update so DB failures roll back cleanly\n ✅ Test asserts the orders query count is exactly 1 for N=0, 1, and 50, and that N=0 still yields one receipt with an empty summary; pre-merge check that orders.user_id is indexed\n ❌ Requires confirming the orders.user_id index exists; if absent, a small migration is needed first\n4B) Keep the loop but cap it at a fixed number of orders\n ✅ Bounds the worst case without restructuring the query\n ✅ Small edit to the sketch\n ❌ Still N queries up to the cap, and silently truncates the receipt summary, which changes the retained product semantics\n4C) Keep the per-order loop as written\n ✅ No change from the plan\n ✅ Reads naturally in code\n ❌ Deadline trips for large N, rolling back payments and retrying forever\nNet: one indexed query with a count assertion (4A) vs. a capped loop that alters the receipt (4B) vs. shipping the N+1 (4C).": "4A: Single query + count test (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T19:47:15.413Z",
"questions": [
{
"header": "Orders query",
"question": "D7 (Section 7, finding 1) — How should the handler load the orders for the receipt summary? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-s7-orders-n-plus-1>\nProject/branch/task: Payment Processing Integration on main; the plan fetches each order in a loop after the user lookup.\nELI10: One query per order means a customer with 300 orders costs 301 database round trips inside a two-second budget. When the budget runs out the database call throws, the payment update rolls back, Stripe gets a 500 and retries into the same wall for three days. Your best customers are exactly the ones whose payments would never land. One query that fetches all of a user's orders at once costs the same for 0 or 300 orders.\nStakes if we pick wrong: high-order-count users are silently never marked paid, and the failure looks like a flaky database rather than a design bug.\nRecommendation: 4A because a single indexed query is the native database rung of the reuse ladder and removes the deadline risk entirely (engineered enough, not clever).\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=5/10, C=1/10\nPros / cons:\n4A) Single query for all orders by user_id inside the transaction, with a query-count test (recommended) (human ~1h / CC ~5 min)\n ✅ Exactly one orders query regardless of N, selecting only the columns the receipt summary uses; runs inside the same transaction as the update so DB failures roll back cleanly\n ✅ Test asserts the orders query count is exactly 1 for N=0, 1, and 50, and that N=0 still yields one receipt with an empty summary; pre-merge check that orders.user_id is indexed\n ❌ Requires confirming the orders.user_id index exists; if absent, a small migration is needed first\n4B) Keep the loop but cap it at a fixed number of orders\n ✅ Bounds the worst case without restructuring the query\n ✅ Small edit to the sketch\n ❌ Still N queries up to the cap, and silently truncates the receipt summary, which changes the retained product semantics\n4C) Keep the per-order loop as written\n ✅ No change from the plan\n ✅ Reads naturally in code\n ❌ Deadline trips for large N, rolling back payments and retrying forever\nNet: one indexed query with a count assertion (4A) vs. a capped loop that alters the receipt (4B) vs. shipping the N+1 (4C).",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "4A: Single query + count test (recommended)",
"description": "One orders query by user_id inside the transaction; assert query count = 1 for N=0/1/50; confirm index. Completeness 10/10."
},
{
"label": "4B: Capped loop",
"description": "Keep the loop, stop after a fixed number of orders; truncates the receipt summary. Completeness 5/10."
},
{
"label": "4C: Loop as written",
"description": "One query per order. Completeness 1/10."
}
]
}
]
},
{
"sessionId": "063fcf3e-294e-4231-ac13-acb6a15df142",
"toolUseId": "toolu_017oPPW2Gbh2P5pdiixvAwWB",
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D8 (Section 9, finding 1) — Should the manual staging replay checklist cover the failure paths this review added? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-s9-staging-checklist>\nProject/branch/task: Payment Processing Integration on main; the rollout checklist replays one payment event and verifies update, email, and trace before broad enable.\nELI10: The checklist today proves the happy path works in staging. The remedies you approved (commit-then-rescue on mail failure, parameterized lookup, single orders query) each have a failure path that the automated tests pin in CI but that nobody exercises against the real staging stack, where the real mail client, real dispatcher, and real flag are wired. Three extra replays in staging catch wiring mistakes CI cannot see.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a wiring mistake (wrong exception class name, flag read in the wrong place) passes CI with fakes and surfaces only in production.\nRecommendation: 5A because deployments are not atomic and the checklist is the only place the real mail client meets the new rescue code before customers do.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10\nPros / cons:\n5A) Add three staging replays to the checklist (recommended) (human ~1h to document, ~20 min per rollout / CC ~5 min to document)\n ✅ Replay a payment event for a user ID containing a quote and Unicode and confirm the user is marked paid\n ✅ Replay with the staging mail provider forced to time out and confirm paid persisted, one receipt_deferred warning with handler=new, HTTP 200, and a notification retry record; replay for a zero-order user and confirm one receipt with an empty summary\n ❌ Adds roughly twenty minutes to each rollout of this handler\n5B) Keep the checklist as is\n ✅ No documentation change; rollout stays as fast as today\n ✅ CI tests from D6 still cover the paths with fakes\n ❌ The real mail client and flag wiring for the rescue path are never exercised before production\nNet: twenty minutes of staging verification per rollout (5A) vs. trusting fakes for the wiring (5B).": "5A: Add three failure replays (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T19:48:05.897Z",
"questions": [
{
"header": "Staging replay",
"question": "D8 (Section 9, finding 1) — Should the manual staging replay checklist cover the failure paths this review added? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-s9-staging-checklist>\nProject/branch/task: Payment Processing Integration on main; the rollout checklist replays one payment event and verifies update, email, and trace before broad enable.\nELI10: The checklist today proves the happy path works in staging. The remedies you approved (commit-then-rescue on mail failure, parameterized lookup, single orders query) each have a failure path that the automated tests pin in CI but that nobody exercises against the real staging stack, where the real mail client, real dispatcher, and real flag are wired. Three extra replays in staging catch wiring mistakes CI cannot see.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a wiring mistake (wrong exception class name, flag read in the wrong place) passes CI with fakes and surfaces only in production.\nRecommendation: 5A because deployments are not atomic and the checklist is the only place the real mail client meets the new rescue code before customers do.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10\nPros / cons:\n5A) Add three staging replays to the checklist (recommended) (human ~1h to document, ~20 min per rollout / CC ~5 min to document)\n ✅ Replay a payment event for a user ID containing a quote and Unicode and confirm the user is marked paid\n ✅ Replay with the staging mail provider forced to time out and confirm paid persisted, one receipt_deferred warning with handler=new, HTTP 200, and a notification retry record; replay for a zero-order user and confirm one receipt with an empty summary\n ❌ Adds roughly twenty minutes to each rollout of this handler\n5B) Keep the checklist as is\n ✅ No documentation change; rollout stays as fast as today\n ✅ CI tests from D6 still cover the paths with fakes\n ❌ The real mail client and flag wiring for the rescue path are never exercised before production\nNet: twenty minutes of staging verification per rollout (5A) vs. trusting fakes for the wiring (5B).",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "5A: Add three failure replays (recommended)",
"description": "Quote/Unicode user ID; forced mail timeout expecting paid + receipt_deferred + 200; zero-order user. Completeness 10/10."
},
{
"label": "5B: Keep checklist as is",
"description": "Happy-path replay only; rely on CI fakes. Completeness 6/10."
}
]
}
]
},
{
"sessionId": "063fcf3e-294e-4231-ac13-acb6a15df142",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01BR1cDVQJhnAjwa1GRKT33k",
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D9 (TODOS.md candidate 1) — Track removal of the prior library-adapter handler after rollout? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-todo-remove-prior-handler>\nProject/branch/task: Payment Processing Integration on main; approach B leaves the prior handler and the new one coexisting behind the feature flag.\nELI10: Once the new handler has run broadly for a while, the prior library-adapter handler and its flag branch become dead code that still compiles, still has tests, and still confuses the next engineer about which path is live. Deleting it is a small, separate change that should wait until rollback is no longer plausible. Writing it down now means it does not get forgotten.\nWhat: delete the prior library-adapter handler, its dispatcher registration branch, and the flag once the new handler has been broadly enabled without rollback for an agreed window. Why: two live handlers are the operational debt this plan introduces. Pros: one code path, simpler dispatcher, no stale flag. Cons: removes the tested rollback path, so timing matters. Context: flag and rollback are documented in the existing rollout checklist; deletion should also drop the handler-identity attribute from traces only if nothing else reads it. Effort: S (human) → S (CC). Priority: P3. Depends on: broad enable of the new handler plus a stabilization window.\nStakes if we pick wrong: mild; dead code lingers, or rollback is removed too early.\nRecommendation: A because everything deferred must be written down; a vague intention to clean up later is not a plan.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Add to TODOS.md (recommended)\n ✅ Cleanup has an owner-visible record with its trigger condition spelled out\n ✅ Keeps the tested rollback path intact until the window passes\n ❌ TODOS.md does not exist in this repo yet; the file is created by this item\nB) Skip, not valuable enough\n ✅ No new file in the repo\n ✅ Someone may remember anyway during a later refactor\n ❌ The dead handler and flag branch likely persist indefinitely\nC) Build it now in this PR\n ✅ Ships with one code path from day one\n ✅ No follow-up work\n ❌ Deletes the documented, tested rollback before the new handler has run in production; contradicts the retained rollout contract\nNet: recorded follow-up (A) vs. relying on memory (B) vs. removing rollback prematurely (C).": "A: Add to TODOS.md (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T19:48:43.782Z",
"questions": [
{
"header": "TODO",
"question": "D9 (TODOS.md candidate 1) — Track removal of the prior library-adapter handler after rollout? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-todo-remove-prior-handler>\nProject/branch/task: Payment Processing Integration on main; approach B leaves the prior handler and the new one coexisting behind the feature flag.\nELI10: Once the new handler has run broadly for a while, the prior library-adapter handler and its flag branch become dead code that still compiles, still has tests, and still confuses the next engineer about which path is live. Deleting it is a small, separate change that should wait until rollback is no longer plausible. Writing it down now means it does not get forgotten.\nWhat: delete the prior library-adapter handler, its dispatcher registration branch, and the flag once the new handler has been broadly enabled without rollback for an agreed window. Why: two live handlers are the operational debt this plan introduces. Pros: one code path, simpler dispatcher, no stale flag. Cons: removes the tested rollback path, so timing matters. Context: flag and rollback are documented in the existing rollout checklist; deletion should also drop the handler-identity attribute from traces only if nothing else reads it. Effort: S (human) → S (CC). Priority: P3. Depends on: broad enable of the new handler plus a stabilization window.\nStakes if we pick wrong: mild; dead code lingers, or rollback is removed too early.\nRecommendation: A because everything deferred must be written down; a vague intention to clean up later is not a plan.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Add to TODOS.md (recommended)\n ✅ Cleanup has an owner-visible record with its trigger condition spelled out\n ✅ Keeps the tested rollback path intact until the window passes\n ❌ TODOS.md does not exist in this repo yet; the file is created by this item\nB) Skip, not valuable enough\n ✅ No new file in the repo\n ✅ Someone may remember anyway during a later refactor\n ❌ The dead handler and flag branch likely persist indefinitely\nC) Build it now in this PR\n ✅ Ships with one code path from day one\n ✅ No follow-up work\n ❌ Deletes the documented, tested rollback before the new handler has run in production; contradicts the retained rollout contract\nNet: recorded follow-up (A) vs. relying on memory (B) vs. removing rollback prematurely (C).",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A: Add to TODOS.md (recommended)",
"description": "P3, effort S; remove prior handler + flag after a stabilization window post broad enable."
},
{
"label": "B: Skip",
"description": "Do not record the cleanup."
},
{
"label": "C: Build it now",
"description": "Delete the prior handler in this PR; removes the tested rollback path."
}
]
}
]
}
]
}
test/fixtures/ceo-sequence-aq.json
Vendored
-115
View File
@@ -1,115 +0,0 @@
{
"sourceCommit": "3bc3495400e3d1fff0ba1ac0364bc460c4a69066",
"publicObservationSHA256": "57b688fa8ae42beeb8c0dc4b5d87d9cb659c36fcf6e06b547398a96343abf43c",
"scope": "Exact completed public first three native calls only. Original first paid failure remains no_review_questions. Offline tests confer no paid coverage.",
"calls": [
{
"sessionId": "1376e1f5-9ab1-4a0a-9919-d512612674d4",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01NvUuh549ctBpZy7EwzU61r",
"questions": [
{
"question": "gstack setup: gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules (e.g. \"Strategy/scope → /plan-ceo-review\", \"Bugs → /investigate\"). Note: plan mode forbids editing CLAUDE.md or committing right now, so choosing A records it as a post-review follow-up rather than editing immediately. Add routing rules?",
"header": "CLAUDE.md",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Add routing rules (recommended)",
"description": "Record a follow-up to append the gstack skill routing section to CLAUDE.md and commit it once plan mode ends."
},
{
"label": "No thanks",
"description": "Invoke skills manually. Sets routing_declined=true so this prompt never fires again for this project."
}
]
},
{
"question": "gstack setup: gstack can search learnings from your other projects on this machine to find patterns that apply here. Stays local, no data leaves your machine. Recommended for solo developers; skip if you work on multiple client codebases where cross-contamination is a concern. Enable cross-project learnings?",
"header": "Learnings",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Enable cross-project (recommended)",
"description": "Sets cross_project_learnings=true; learnings search spans all local projects."
},
{
"label": "Project-scoped only",
"description": "Sets cross_project_learnings=false; learnings stay per-project."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"gstack setup: gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules (e.g. \"Strategy/scope → /plan-ceo-review\", \"Bugs → /investigate\"). Note: plan mode forbids editing CLAUDE.md or committing right now, so choosing A records it as a post-review follow-up rather than editing immediately. Add routing rules?": "Add routing rules (recommended)",
"gstack setup: gstack can search learnings from your other projects on this machine to find patterns that apply here. Stays local, no data leaves your machine. Recommended for solo developers; skip if you work on multiple client codebases where cross-contamination is a concern. Enable cross-project learnings?": "Enable cross-project (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T14:13:13.835Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "1376e1f5-9ab1-4a0a-9919-d512612674d4",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01NJ989HohJuknCfsjj4RnCK",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 — How should the new handler be wired: through WebhookDispatcher, beside it, or by modifying the prior handler?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md \"Payment Processing Integration\"; the plan itself marks this open (\"whether to add a separate implementation or reuse WebhookDispatcher remains open\").\nELI10: Stripe tells your server \"this payment succeeded.\" Something routes that message to the code that marks the user paid and emails a receipt. You already have a router (WebhookDispatcher) and a set of safety checks (signature, dedup, per-user lock, ownership) that the plan says the new handler \"runs inside.\" The plan also says the new handler bypasses the router for namespace separation. Both statements only hold if every check sits upstream of the router, which the plan never establishes.\nStakes if we pick wrong: the new handler either runs without the dedup/lock guarantees the whole plan leans on, or you maintain two routing paths and two rollback paths forever.\nRecommendation: B because the approved `Webhooks::` name already delivers the namespace separation, and dispatcher registration is the only wiring where \"runs inside unchanged guards\" is true by construction rather than by re-proof.\nCompleteness: A=5/10, B=9/10, C=5/10\nPros / cons:\nA) Modify the prior handler in place, no new class (human: ~4h / CC: ~10 min)\n ✅ Smallest possible diff: one existing file changes, no registration edit\n ✅ Single routing path, zero chance of a second path drifting from the first\n ❌ Breaks the retained rollback: the flag cannot switch back to \"the prior handler\" once it is rewritten; rollback becomes a code revert\n ❌ Outcome traces lose the prior/new handler identity the plan relies on for rollout attribution\nB) New Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler registered through WebhookDispatcher (recommended) (human: ~1 day / CC: ~20 min)\n ✅ Signature, dedup, per-user lock, ownership and unknown-user guards apply by construction; nothing to re-prove\n ✅ Feature flag flips the dispatcher target between prior and new handler, so the documented rollback stays valid as written\n ❌ Requires one edit to the dispatcher's registration table instead of leaving it untouched\nC) New class wired directly into ingress, bypassing WebhookDispatcher, plan as written (human: ~2 days / CC: ~40 min)\n ✅ Dispatcher code stays untouched; the handler is fully self-contained\n ✅ Matches the plan's literal \"clean namespace separation\" wording\n ❌ Second routing path: every retained guard must be re-verified on the bypass route, and the flag/rollback path must be rebuilt for it\n ❌ Plan does not say where the dispatcher sits relative to the event guard and lock, so \"runs inside unchanged guards\" is unproven on this path\nNet: one line in the dispatcher's registration table versus re-proving every retained guarantee on a second route.",
"header": "D1 Approach",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "B) Dispatcher-registered (Recommended)",
"description": "New Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler registered via WebhookDispatcher; flag toggles dispatcher target. Completeness 9/10."
},
{
"label": "A) Modify prior handler",
"description": "Rewrite the prior handler in place, no new class. Breaks flag rollback to prior handler. Completeness 5/10."
},
{
"label": "C) Bypass dispatcher",
"description": "Standalone class wired into ingress as the plan sketches; second routing path. Completeness 5/10."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 — How should the new handler be wired: through WebhookDispatcher, beside it, or by modifying the prior handler?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md \"Payment Processing Integration\"; the plan itself marks this open (\"whether to add a separate implementation or reuse WebhookDispatcher remains open\").\nELI10: Stripe tells your server \"this payment succeeded.\" Something routes that message to the code that marks the user paid and emails a receipt. You already have a router (WebhookDispatcher) and a set of safety checks (signature, dedup, per-user lock, ownership) that the plan says the new handler \"runs inside.\" The plan also says the new handler bypasses the router for namespace separation. Both statements only hold if every check sits upstream of the router, which the plan never establishes.\nStakes if we pick wrong: the new handler either runs without the dedup/lock guarantees the whole plan leans on, or you maintain two routing paths and two rollback paths forever.\nRecommendation: B because the approved `Webhooks::` name already delivers the namespace separation, and dispatcher registration is the only wiring where \"runs inside unchanged guards\" is true by construction rather than by re-proof.\nCompleteness: A=5/10, B=9/10, C=5/10\nPros / cons:\nA) Modify the prior handler in place, no new class (human: ~4h / CC: ~10 min)\n ✅ Smallest possible diff: one existing file changes, no registration edit\n ✅ Single routing path, zero chance of a second path drifting from the first\n ❌ Breaks the retained rollback: the flag cannot switch back to \"the prior handler\" once it is rewritten; rollback becomes a code revert\n ❌ Outcome traces lose the prior/new handler identity the plan relies on for rollout attribution\nB) New Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler registered through WebhookDispatcher (recommended) (human: ~1 day / CC: ~20 min)\n ✅ Signature, dedup, per-user lock, ownership and unknown-user guards apply by construction; nothing to re-prove\n ✅ Feature flag flips the dispatcher target between prior and new handler, so the documented rollback stays valid as written\n ❌ Requires one edit to the dispatcher's registration table instead of leaving it untouched\nC) New class wired directly into ingress, bypassing WebhookDispatcher, plan as written (human: ~2 days / CC: ~40 min)\n ✅ Dispatcher code stays untouched; the handler is fully self-contained\n ✅ Matches the plan's literal \"clean namespace separation\" wording\n ❌ Second routing path: every retained guard must be re-verified on the bypass route, and the flag/rollback path must be rebuilt for it\n ❌ Plan does not say where the dispatcher sits relative to the event guard and lock, so \"runs inside unchanged guards\" is unproven on this path\nNet: one line in the dispatcher's registration table versus re-proving every retained guarantee on a second route.": "B) Dispatcher-registered (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T14:16:53.889Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "1376e1f5-9ab1-4a0a-9919-d512612674d4",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01VfuQjGSM34qvyz6Y3mYuHR",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D2 — In what order does the handler run lookup, orders load, user update, and receipt send, and where does the DB transaction end?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md; the plan lists the steps (\"hits the database for the user, then fetches each order\", \"update the user record AND fire a notification email\") but never fixes the order or the commit point.\nELI10: The handler does four things. If the payment update is committed before the slow parts (loading orders, the up-to-1-second email call), a slow or failing email can never undo or delay marking the user paid. If everything sits in one transaction, an email timeout rolls back a payment Stripe already collected. If the order is left to the implementer, the orders load can eat the 2-second DB budget before the update even runs.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a user who paid stays unpaid until Stripe's retry schedule catches up, or the DB connection pool is held hostage to the mail provider's latency.\nRecommendation: A because the retained dedup guard already keys completion on the DB commit, and the runbook's \"never replay the payment blindly\" rule only works if the payment commit is independent of the notification leg. Maps to \"explicit over clever\" and \"plan for partial states.\"\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=6/10, C=4/10\nPros / cons:\nA) lookup + update in one transaction, commit, then single orders query, then receipt; all under the per-user lock (recommended) (human: ~2h / CC: ~10 min)\n ✅ Payment commit never waits behind the orders load or the 1s mail deadline; DB connection released before the mail call\n ✅ If orders load or mail fails after commit, a Stripe retry re-runs an idempotent update and the mail idempotency key prevents a second receipt\n ❌ Two DB round trips (transaction, then orders) instead of one; the orders query result is a snapshot taken after the payment commit\nB) One transaction around lookup, orders, update and email; commit after the send (human: ~1h / CC: ~5 min)\n ✅ Single transaction, simplest mental model for the implementer\n ✅ Receipt and payment status always agree at commit time\n ❌ A MailTimeout rolls back a payment Stripe already succeeded on; user stays unpaid until retry, violating the runbook's separation of payment and notification\n ❌ DB transaction and connection held for up to 1s of mail latency on every webhook, multiplying pool pressure under load\nC) Leave order as sketched (lookup, orders loop, update, email) with no explicit transaction boundary (human: ~1h / CC: ~5 min)\n ✅ No decision to make now; matches the plan text literally\n ✅ Zero additional design in the plan document\n ❌ A user with many orders can exhaust the 2s DB deadline before the update runs, so the payment is never marked and every Stripe retry fails the same way\n ❌ Implementer decides commit semantics ad hoc; the dedup guard's \"after commit\" contract has no defined commit to key on\nNet: two explicit DB round trips versus coupling the payment commit to the mail provider or leaving the commit point undefined.",
"header": "D2 Sequence",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Commit payment first (Recommended)",
"description": "Transaction: lookup + update, commit. Then one orders query, then receipt send. All under the per-user lock. Completeness 9/10."
},
{
"label": "B) One big transaction",
"description": "Lookup, orders, update, email in one transaction; commit after the send. Completeness 6/10."
},
{
"label": "C) Leave as sketched",
"description": "Lookup, orders loop, update, email; no explicit commit point. Completeness 4/10."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D2 — In what order does the handler run lookup, orders load, user update, and receipt send, and where does the DB transaction end?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md; the plan lists the steps (\"hits the database for the user, then fetches each order\", \"update the user record AND fire a notification email\") but never fixes the order or the commit point.\nELI10: The handler does four things. If the payment update is committed before the slow parts (loading orders, the up-to-1-second email call), a slow or failing email can never undo or delay marking the user paid. If everything sits in one transaction, an email timeout rolls back a payment Stripe already collected. If the order is left to the implementer, the orders load can eat the 2-second DB budget before the update even runs.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a user who paid stays unpaid until Stripe's retry schedule catches up, or the DB connection pool is held hostage to the mail provider's latency.\nRecommendation: A because the retained dedup guard already keys completion on the DB commit, and the runbook's \"never replay the payment blindly\" rule only works if the payment commit is independent of the notification leg. Maps to \"explicit over clever\" and \"plan for partial states.\"\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=6/10, C=4/10\nPros / cons:\nA) lookup + update in one transaction, commit, then single orders query, then receipt; all under the per-user lock (recommended) (human: ~2h / CC: ~10 min)\n ✅ Payment commit never waits behind the orders load or the 1s mail deadline; DB connection released before the mail call\n ✅ If orders load or mail fails after commit, a Stripe retry re-runs an idempotent update and the mail idempotency key prevents a second receipt\n ❌ Two DB round trips (transaction, then orders) instead of one; the orders query result is a snapshot taken after the payment commit\nB) One transaction around lookup, orders, update and email; commit after the send (human: ~1h / CC: ~5 min)\n ✅ Single transaction, simplest mental model for the implementer\n ✅ Receipt and payment status always agree at commit time\n ❌ A MailTimeout rolls back a payment Stripe already succeeded on; user stays unpaid until retry, violating the runbook's separation of payment and notification\n ❌ DB transaction and connection held for up to 1s of mail latency on every webhook, multiplying pool pressure under load\nC) Leave order as sketched (lookup, orders loop, update, email) with no explicit transaction boundary (human: ~1h / CC: ~5 min)\n ✅ No decision to make now; matches the plan text literally\n ✅ Zero additional design in the plan document\n ❌ A user with many orders can exhaust the 2s DB deadline before the update runs, so the payment is never marked and every Stripe retry fails the same way\n ❌ Implementer decides commit semantics ad hoc; the dedup guard's \"after commit\" contract has no defined commit to key on\nNet: two explicit DB round trips versus coupling the payment commit to the mail provider or leaving the commit point undefined.": "A) Commit payment first (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T14:17:57.762Z"
}
]
}
test/fixtures/ceo-source-attribution-6aef.json
Vendored
-96
View File
@@ -1,96 +0,0 @@
{
"sourceRevision": "6aef8d74a7835a0986694d57d4fa5748ac960379",
"runId": "ship-all-6aef8d74-c596dc24-a45d-4b9f-83bd-b1b676000695",
"qualification": "Literal projection of source attribution, complete decision ledger and complete native currentDecision fields. Original paid outcome remains unchanged; regression replay grants no behavioral credit.",
"originals": {
"saved-plan.md": {
"path": ".context/nouakchott-6aef8d74-monitor/ceo-counter-attempt1/saved-plan.md",
"sha256": "8289818fd15546b29e1994f10ae6c937a67df726cdda68a09b9f0d3606b36c20"
},
"seed.md": {
"path": ".context/nouakchott-6aef8d74-monitor/ceo-counter-attempt1/seed.md",
"sha256": "aa0b516f451b8e57be961a53169132f6211160314789d8108b94590c7f86a8fa"
},
"fingerprint.json": {
"path": ".context/nouakchott-6aef8d74-monitor/ceo-counter-attempt1/fingerprint.json",
"sha256": "417892bd5964deffbb7227c0c624ed62045b816e1ebdf73e6ee203984b7ac34f"
},
"observation.json": {
"path": ".context/nouakchott-6aef8d74-monitor/ceo-counter-attempt1/observation.json",
"sha256": "42df4f9701eeb52bf3988fe37508789f62b744e743506df6cc1f42bcccfd2a6f"
}
},
"savedPlanSegments": [
{
"startLine": 1,
"endLine": 4,
"sha256": "69bdd6f3c269ef01219bcbe0cf86e0d6a86d72a32a1d5afb1f988905fe629fba",
"text": "# Plan: Payment Processing Integration (CEO review, HOLD SCOPE)\n\nSource under review: `PLAN.md` (repo root, commit e4bae55). Review skill: `/plan-ceo-review`.\nMode: HOLD SCOPE (explicit user instruction). Base branch: `main`.\n"
},
{
"startLine": 155,
"endLine": 165,
"sha256": "4feeb26f866d2704651c849c62eb1614a009d016bfc931484add8f01e3233a40",
"text": "## Decision ledger\n\n| ID and owner | Contract and evidence | Current | Proposed | Status | Exact approval and scope |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| R0 (plan author) | Handler class name `Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler`, app namespace (PLAN.md:100-103) | n/a (new class) | as named | approved | Settled in PLAN.md:102 (\"This naming choice is settled\"); not re-asked |\n| R1 (backend owner) | Routing: separate handler registered with `WebhookDispatcher` vs bypass vs inline (PLAN.md:10-11, 103, 105-108) | ingress -> dispatcher -> prior library-adapter handler | A register / B bypass / C inline in dispatcher | approved | D1 answered \"A) Register with dispatcher\". Scope: new class `Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler` registered for `payment_intent.succeeded` in `WebhookDispatcher`; flag selects new vs prior handler at registration; no bypass route. Decision log id a7b3cdc1 |\n| R2 (backend owner) | Lookup query construction from `request.params.userId` (PLAN.md:16-31, 110-112) | existing lookup, opaque TEXT id, no cast | raw SQL fragment | pending | review sections (Error map) |\n| R3 (backend owner) | Email-leg exception handling after payment update (PLAN.md:52-53, 60-69, 85-97, 114-116) | prior handler behavior unknown; mail client rethrows | inline, no error handling | pending | review sections (Error map) |\n| R4 (backend owner) | Automated coverage for the new handler (PLAN.md:76-80, 118-119) | manual staging replay only | none | pending | review sections (Tests) |\n| R5 (backend owner) | Order summary data loading (PLAN.md:81-84, 121-123) | per-order loop | per-order loop | pending | review sections (Performance) |\n\n"
},
{
"startLine": 315,
"endLine": 342,
"sha256": "4bc00ad77afb80db3306c58b15dd7000891a74c48529b2f98065cf2cdda7ce19",
"text": "## currentDecision (R2)\nCommitment comparison:\n\n```text\nCommitment | Source/approval or pending | Current | A | B | C\nLookup query construction | pending (R2), PLAN.md:110-112 | existing lookup by opaque TEXT id (PLAN.md:24-26) | bound parameter via the existing lookup (`where(id: user_id)` / `where(\"id = ?\", user_id)`) | hand-built SQL string with `connection.quote(user_id)` escaping | raw fragment with interpolated `request.params.userId` (as planned)\nAccepts every nonempty opaque TEXT id incl. punctuation/Unicode | retained PLAN.md:24-26 | yes | yes | yes if quote() is correct for the adapter | no: quotes break the statement\nInjection surface | retained PLAN.md:21-23 | none | none | none if every call site quotes; fragile | open\nNo cast / no format validation | retained PLAN.md:24-26 | none | none | none | none\nRegression test carried with the change | 0D test table | n/a | spec: ids with ' \" ; -- and Unicode resolve the user, no exception | same spec | none\nDB exception propagation | retained PLAN.md:70-73 | propagate | unchanged | unchanged | unchanged\n```\n\nQuestion: D2 — R2: How should the handler build the user lookup query from `request.params.userId`?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-ryKYNk on main; HOLD SCOPE CEO review of the Stripe payment handler plan.\nELI10: The webhook carries a user id as plain text. The plan pastes that text straight into a SQL string. The contracts say ids can contain any punctuation and that nothing upstream escapes them (PLAN.md:21-26). So a legitimate id with an apostrophe breaks the query, and an id shaped like SQL runs as SQL. Databases have a built-in way to pass values separately from the query text; using it costs nothing.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a real customer whose id contains a quote pays, Stripe says succeeded, and our app throws on every retry until Stripe gives up: they stay unpaid and nobody sees why except a 500 in the ingress log. If ids ever come from outside the app, it is a SQL injection against the payments database.\nRecommendation: A because a bound parameter is the standard-library answer (reuse ladder rung 2), it reuses the existing lookup, and it removes the whole failure class instead of guarding one call site; this maps to \"explicit over clever\" and \"bug fixes hit root cause\".\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=5/10, C=1/10\nNet: A and B differ in whether the fix is structural (binding) or a hand-applied guard (escaping); C keeps a known break on legitimate ids.\nHeader: Lookup query\nA) Bind parameter via existing lookup (recommended)\nPass `userId` as a bound parameter through the existing user lookup (ActiveRecord `where(id: user_id)` or `where(\"id = ?\", user_id)`); never interpolate it into SQL text. Carries its regression: a handler spec that resolves users whose ids contain `'`, `\"`, `;`, `--`, and Unicode, asserting the user is found and no exception is raised. Failure visibility: none needed, the failure class no longer exists; DB exceptions still propagate to the ingress 500 path. Effort: S (human: ~1h / CC: ~5 min). Risk: low. Reuse: existing lookup, no new code path. Maintenance: none. ✅ Removes both the availability bug (legitimate ids with quotes) and the injection surface in one structural change. ✅ Reuses the existing lookup exactly as the prior handler did, so behavior for every nonempty id matches the retained contract (PLAN.md:24-26). ❌ Requires the implementer to resist the plan's literal wording (\"raw SQL fragment\") and use the ORM/bound form instead.\nB) Escape into raw SQL string\nKeep a hand-built SQL string but wrap the value with the adapter's quoting (`connection.quote(user_id)`) before interpolation. Same regression spec as A. Effort: S (human: ~1h / CC: ~5 min). Risk: medium. Reuse: none, a second lookup path beside the existing one. Maintenance: every future edit to that string must remember to quote. ✅ Keeps the plan's raw-SQL shape if there is an unstated reason to avoid the ORM here. ✅ Correct quoting does handle punctuation and Unicode ids on mainstream adapters. ❌ A guard applied at one call site; the next person who edits the string can drop it silently, and it duplicates a lookup that already exists (DRY). ❌ Escaping correctness is adapter-specific and not verified by the plan.\nC) Keep raw fragment as planned\nInterpolate `request.params.userId` directly, as PLAN.md:110-112 states, with no test. Effort: S (zero extra work). Risk: high. Reuse: none. Maintenance: incident-driven. ✅ Zero deviation from the written plan. ✅ Works for ids that happen to contain no quote characters. ❌ Violates the retained contract that every nonempty string is a valid identifier (PLAN.md:24-26): ids with quotes throw on every delivery and that customer never becomes paid. ❌ Leaves a SQL injection surface on the payments database, contradicting PLAN.md:21-23.\n\n"
}
],
"seed": "Please review this plan thoroughly in HOLD SCOPE mode. As you go, write your plan-mode plan to /tmp/g-cwnk0pmy/gstack-paid-shard-kd7Yyw/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-ceo-Ui9vBI/gstack-test-plan-ceo.md (use Edit/Write to that exact path).\nProceed directly to the requested CEO review; skip the optional /office-hours prerequisite.\nFinish after this CEO review; I will handle subsequent reviews manually.\n\n# Plan: Payment Processing Integration\n\n## Existing contracts retained\nThe approved motivation is to move payment orchestration out of the prior\nlibrary-adapter handler into application-owned code while retaining the\nexisting payment and receipt product behavior. The shared dispatcher remains\navailable; the proposed bypass below is still an architectural choice to review.\nThe existing ingress middleware verifies the Stripe signature against the\nraw request body and rejects invalid signatures before invoking handlers.\nThe existing ingress forwards only `payment_intent.succeeded` events to\nthis handler; other Stripe event types are acknowledged without invoking it.\nThe existing payload adapter exposes `event.data.object.metadata.user_id`\nas `request.params.userId`. This params object is the parsed body-data map,\nnot URL query/path parameters; all users share one webhook URL.\nThe adapter acknowledges missing, nil, or empty user_id metadata with\nHTTP 200 and an event-correlated warning before invoking this handler.\nFor every nonempty external string it performs no SQL-format validation.\nThe adapter forwards that external string unchanged. It does not cast,\nescape, or SQL-sanitize it; a valid signature does not make it safe for SQL.\nUser IDs are opaque TEXT values, including punctuation and Unicode. The\nlookup has no integer/UUID cast or ID-format restriction; every nonempty\nstring is a valid identifier representation.\nAn existing ingress ownership guard checks the PaymentIntent ID against\nits stored opaque user-ID binding before invoking the handler. A mismatch\nis acknowledged with HTTP 200 and an event-correlated warning. This is an\nidentity comparison, not SQL-format validation; the adapter still forwards\nthe original string unchanged.\nThe existing webhook event guard deduplicates deliveries by Stripe event ID,\nand an existing per-user lock serializes payment updates.\nThe event guard acquires the existing per-user lock before checking the\ncommitted completion marker, and rechecks after any lock wait. It holds\nthat lock through the handler and completion bookkeeping; an overlapping\ncompleted duplicate does not invoke the handler.\nThe new handler runs inside those unchanged guards; this plan does not\nreplace signature verification, event deduplication, or update locking.\nThe existing user update assigns payment_status=paid and the payment intent\nID; it does not increment a balance or counter. Repeating the same payment\nintent assigns the same values, independently of the event-ID guard.\nThe existing lookup-result guard acknowledges unknown/deleted users with\nHTTP 200, logs the event, and stops before user updates or email fan-out.\nThe retained recipient-policy helper treats a nil or empty email address as\nskipped_missing_address: payment processing continues normally, and no mail\nclient call is attempted. It persists an event/user/PaymentIntent-correlated\nskip record, emits a structured warning, and increments the existing counter.\nThe existing notification runbook already covers that skip result: correct\nthe account address, then retry only its recorded notification using the\nsame PaymentIntent idempotency key. It never replays the payment for this case.\nThat recipient policy does not catch failures from sends to nonempty addresses;\nthe shared mail client still rethrows those exceptions to this handler.\nAccount deletion uses the same per-user lock. The handler holds it from\nlookup through update and inline email, so deletion either precedes lookup\n(the existing unknown/deleted-user path) or follows the handler; it cannot\nremove the user between lookup and update.\nThe ingress wrapper already logs event IDs, outcomes, and durations, with\nalerts for failed webhook processing. Those controls remain in place.\nThe existing DB and mail clients attach the adapter user ID and event ID\nto outcome traces, including update success and email delivery success or\nfailure. These shared clients rethrow exceptions unchanged; tracing does\nnot rescue email errors or change the inline email call below.\nThe shared mail client also publishes its delivery failure rate to the\nexisting dashboard and tested on-call alert, including caught exceptions.\nThe existing incident runbook uses the correlated DB and mail outcomes to\ndistinguish committed payments from failed notifications. It directs on-call\nto check provider status and retry only the failed notification through the\nexisting notification retry procedure, never replay the payment blindly.\nDB lookup/update exceptionLine truncated
"fingerprint": {
"signature": "910b0744-5e68-4d14-9083-d2934f237353:toolu_01G8rErZHL4Cyvyz2tVFxAJi",
"promptSnippet": "Lookup query D2 — R2: How should the handler build the user lookup query from `request.params.userId`?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-ryKYNk on main; HOLD SCOPE CEO review of the Stripe payment handler plan.\nELI10: The webhoo",
"options": [
{
"index": 1,
"label": "A) Bind parameter via existing lookup (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "B) Escape into raw SQL string"
},
{
"index": 3,
"label": "C) Keep raw fragment as planned"
}
],
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "910b0744-5e68-4d14-9083-d2934f237353",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01G8rErZHL4Cyvyz2tVFxAJi",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D2 — R2: How should the handler build the user lookup query from `request.params.userId`?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-ryKYNk on main; HOLD SCOPE CEO review of the Stripe payment handler plan.\nELI10: The webhook carries a user id as plain text. The plan pastes that text straight into a SQL string. The contracts say ids can contain any punctuation and that nothing upstream escapes them (PLAN.md:21-26). So a legitimate id with an apostrophe breaks the query, and an id shaped like SQL runs as SQL. Databases have a built-in way to pass values separately from the query text; using it costs nothing.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a real customer whose id contains a quote pays, Stripe says succeeded, and our app throws on every retry until Stripe gives up: they stay unpaid and nobody sees why except a 500 in the ingress log. If ids ever come from outside the app, it is a SQL injection against the payments database.\nRecommendation: A because a bound parameter is the standard-library answer (reuse ladder rung 2), it reuses the existing lookup, and it removes the whole failure class instead of guarding one call site; this maps to \"explicit over clever\" and \"bug fixes hit root cause\".\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=5/10, C=1/10\nNet: A and B differ in whether the fix is structural (binding) or a hand-applied guard (escaping); C keeps a known break on legitimate ids.",
"header": "Lookup query",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Bind parameter via existing lookup (recommended)",
"description": "Pass `userId` as a bound parameter through the existing user lookup (ActiveRecord `where(id: user_id)` or `where(\"id = ?\", user_id)`); never interpolate it into SQL text. Carries its regression: a handler spec that resolves users whose ids contain `'`, `\"`, `;`, `--`, and Unicode, asserting the user is found and no exception is raised. Failure visibility: none needed, the failure class no longer exists; DB exceptions still propagate to the ingress 500 path. Effort: S (human: ~1h / CC: ~5 min). Risk: low. Reuse: existing lookup, no new code path. Maintenance: none. ✅ Removes both the availability bug (legitimate ids with quotes) and the injection surface in one structural change. ✅ Reuses the existing lookup exactly as the prior handler did, so behavior for every nonempty id matches the retained contract (PLAN.md:24-26). ❌ Requires the implementer to resist the plan's literal wording (\"raw SQL fragment\") and use the ORM/bound form instead."
},
{
"label": "B) Escape into raw SQL string",
"description": "Keep a hand-built SQL string but wrap the value with the adapter's quoting (`connection.quote(user_id)`) before interpolation. Same regression spec as A. Effort: S (human: ~1h / CC: ~5 min). Risk: medium. Reuse: none, a second lookup path beside the existing one. Maintenance: every future edit to that string must remember to quote. ✅ Keeps the plan's raw-SQL shape if there is an unstated reason to avoid the ORM here. ✅ Correct quoting does handle punctuation and Unicode ids on mainstream adapters. ❌ A guard applied at one call site; the next person who edits the string can drop it silently, and it duplicates a lookup that already exists (DRY). ❌ Escaping correctness is adapter-specific and not verified by the plan."
},
{
"label": "C) Keep raw fragment as planned",
"description": "Interpolate `request.params.userId` directly, as PLAN.md:110-112 states, with no test. Effort: S (zero extra work). Risk: high. Reuse: none. Maintenance: incident-driven. ✅ Zero deviation from the written plan. ✅ Works for ids that happen to contain no quote characters. ❌ Violates the retained contract that every nonempty string is a valid identifier (PLAN.md:24-26): ids with quotes throw on every delivery and that customer never becomes paid. ❌ Leaves a SQL injection surface on the payments database, contradicting PLAN.md:21-23."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D2 — R2: How should the handler build the user lookup query from `request.params.userId`?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-ryKYNk on main; HOLD SCOPE CEO review of the Stripe payment handler plan.\nELI10: The webhook carries a user id as plain text. The plan pastes that text straight into a SQL string. The contracts say ids can contain any punctuation and that nothing upstream escapes them (PLAN.md:21-26). So a legitimate id with an apostrophe breaks the query, and an id shaped like SQL runs as SQL. Databases have a built-in way to pass values separately from the query text; using it costs nothing.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a real customer whose id contains a quote pays, Stripe says succeeded, and our app throws on every retry until Stripe gives up: they stay unpaid and nobody sees why except a 500 in the ingress log. If ids ever come from outside the app, it is a SQL injection against the payments database.\nRecommendation: A because a bound parameter is the standard-library answer (reuse ladder rung 2), it reuses the existing lookup, and it removes the whole failure class instead of guarding one call site; this maps to \"explicit over clever\" and \"bug fixes hit root cause\".\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=5/10, C=1/10\nNet: A and B differ in whether the fix is structural (binding) or a hand-applied guard (escaping); C keeps a known break on legitimate ids.": "A) Bind parameter via existing lookup (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-16T23:12:47.138Z"
},
"observedAtMs": 559819,
"preReview": false
}
}
test/fixtures/ceo-test-subject-ao.json
Vendored
-259
View File
@@ -1,259 +0,0 @@
{
"provenance": {
"at": "2026-09-10T11:43:05.299281+00:00",
"status": "EXACT_CURRENT_PUBLIC_CALLS",
"observation": {
"path": ".context/ship-source-ao-delta-paid-20260910-v1/ceo-paired-current-public-native-v1/observation.json",
"sha256": "7cee884c6bbd3403129d059967e1952793654dad7a4ca730a923c9752e26ffcd",
"bytes": 52129
},
"sourceSnapshot": {
"path": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/.context/ship-source-ao-delta-paid-20260910-v1/delta-pty-evidence/blobs/18346cd8ff8c9915f69062e9bb5a05385d1ef95ee42e29f939cc389a3bc68302/current.jsonl",
"sha256": "af15e28348833eef7ec8f56d6104104968e6d2ea6807b45a3d99dce2fd04047d",
"bytes": 593503,
"descriptor": {
"process": "2827839-7071218",
"job": 4,
"sessionId": "4e1166e1-2842-4004-adb8-e76586dc3472",
"source": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-ERSX0L/tmp/gstack-hermetic-2827758-TflS0B/with-skills/.claude/projects/-tmp-gstack-paid-shard-ERSX0L-tmp-gstack-plan-count-QjuRwH/4e1166e1-2842-4004-adb8-e76586dc3472.jsonl",
"inode": 21543237,
"openedAt": "2026-09-10T11:36:03.264597+00:00",
"lastCapturedAt": "2026-09-10T11:43:05.112717+00:00"
}
},
"publicEvents": {
"path": ".context/ship-source-ao-delta-paid-20260910-v1/ceo-paired-current-public-native-v1/owned-public-question-events.json",
"sha256": "f42358578a75fa32906cf51ea59996e545143c30aa08595092b03e265d322e8c",
"bytes": 32632
},
"calls": [
{
"toolUseId": "toolu_016A3riQowZsb2za3pHesowQ",
"useLine": 77,
"ackLine": 78,
"exactQuestionsAnswersAndTime": true
},
{
"toolUseId": "toolu_01CekNdGxmwMVs2kbh3YLuuL",
"useLine": 93,
"ackLine": 94,
"exactQuestionsAnswersAndTime": true
},
{
"toolUseId": "toolu_01XQzemkQ2MJLbcEoBMaanzS",
"useLine": 98,
"ackLine": 99,
"exactQuestionsAnswersAndTime": true
}
],
"privateThinkingInspected": false,
"paidPassCredit": false,
"wholeCaseStillRunning": true
},
"fingerprints": [
{
"signature": "4e1166e1-2842-4004-adb8-e76586dc3472:toolu_016A3riQowZsb2za3pHesowQ",
"promptSnippet": "Routing D1 \u2014 Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md? Project/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-QjuRwH on main; one-time gstack onboarding prompt. ELI10: gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing",
"options": [
{
"index": 1,
"label": "Add routing rules (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "No thanks, manual"
},
{
"index": 1,
"label": "Enable cross-project (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "Project-scoped only"
},
{
"index": 1,
"label": "A: Two contract tests (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "B: Four per-clause tests"
},
{
"index": 3,
"label": "C: Table-driven single test"
}
],
"observedAtMs": 257010,
"preReview": true,
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "4e1166e1-2842-4004-adb8-e76586dc3472",
"toolUseId": "toolu_016A3riQowZsb2za3pHesowQ",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 \u2014 Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-QjuRwH on main; one-time gstack onboarding prompt.\nELI10: gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules, so requests like \"review this diff\" route to the right skill automatically. This repo's CLAUDE.md is a review fixture. Plan mode forbids editing it right now, so if you choose A the append and commit happen after this review exits plan mode.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Without rules you invoke skills by name; with them on a fixture file you add a section nobody may read.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules are the default gstack setup and cost nothing at runtime.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nA) Add routing rules (recommended)\n \u2705 Future sessions in this repo route to the right skill without typing names\n \u2705 Matches the standard gstack project setup used everywhere else\n \u274c Cannot be written in plan mode; deferred until after this review finishes\nB) No thanks, invoke skills manually\n \u2705 Keeps the fixture CLAUDE.md untouched and the review scope pure\n \u2705 One config write now, no deferred git commit to remember\n \u274c Every future skill run here needs an explicit slash command\nNet: convenience later versus an untouched fixture now.",
"header": "Routing",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Add routing rules (recommended)",
"description": "Append the gstack skill-routing section to CLAUDE.md and commit it once plan mode exits."
},
{
"label": "No thanks, manual",
"description": "Set routing_declined=true in gstack config; re-enable later with gstack-config."
}
]
},
{
"question": "D2 \u2014 Enable cross-project learnings search?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-QjuRwH on main; one-time gstack learnings config.\nELI10: gstack can search learnings saved from your other projects on this machine to spot patterns that apply here. Everything stays local. Good for solo developers; skip if you work across client codebases where mixing context is a concern.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Miss a relevant past lesson, or surface one from a codebase that should stay separate.\nRecommendation: A because this is a solo sandbox and local-only search has no leak path.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nA) Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)\n \u2705 Past pitfalls from other repos on this machine surface during reviews\n \u2705 Local only; nothing leaves the machine and it is one config flag to flip back\n \u274c Learnings from unrelated codebases can add noise to a small review\nB) Keep learnings project-scoped\n \u2705 Zero chance of cross-client context mixing in a multi-tenant setup\n \u2705 Review findings stay grounded in this repo alone\n \u274c This fresh repo has zero learnings, so the search returns nothing useful\nNet: broader recall versus strict per-project isolation.",
"header": "Learnings",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Enable cross-project (recommended)",
"description": "gstack-config set cross_project_learnings true, then search with --cross-project."
},
{
"label": "Project-scoped only",
"description": "gstack-config set cross_project_learnings false; search stays within this repo."
}
]
},
{
"question": "D3 \u2014 Which test structure should the plan commit to?\nProject/branch/task: PLAN.md adds caller-level unit tests for processPayment on main.\nELI10: The plan pins two existing behaviors: a successful charge returns a receipt with three exact fields, and repeated 502s produce exactly two attempts, one 100 ms backoff, then PaymentUnavailable. This decision is only about how the tests are shaped. What each test asserts is decided later, one finding at a time.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A shape that hides which clause broke costs debugging time; a shape with duplicated arrange code drifts from the two contracts the plan names.\nRecommendation: A because it is the smallest diff that cleanly expresses the change and still leaves room for complete assertions.\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=10/10, C=7/10\nA) Two contract tests in the existing suite (recommended) (human ~1h / CC ~5 min)\n \u2705 Matches the plan's own shape and the two contracts it states, smallest diff\n \u2705 A deep-equal failure already names the mismatched field in its output\n \u274c A multi-clause test reports only the first failing clause per run\nB) One test per contract clause, four tests (human ~1.5h / CC ~8 min)\n \u2705 Each clause fails independently with a precise, greppable test name\n \u2705 Bisecting a regression to receipt vs retry vs backoff takes one CI read\n \u274c Arrange code repeats across four tests and names drift from the two contracts\nC) One table-driven test over both cases (human ~1h / CC ~5 min)\n \u2705 Single arrange path, compact file\n \u2705 Adding a third case later is one more table row\n \u274c Success and 502 arrangements differ too much to share a table; rows hide which clause failed\nNet: readability as a two-contract spec versus per-clause failure isolation.",
"header": "Approach",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A: Two contract tests (recommended)",
"description": "One test per contract in the existing processPayment suite; each asserts every clause of its contract. Completeness 9/10."
},
{
"label": "B: Four per-clause tests",
"description": "Receipt shape, rejection class, attempt count, backoff record as separate tests. Completeness 10/10."
},
{
"label": "C: Table-driven single test",
"description": "One parametrized block iterating success and exhausted-502 cases. Completeness 7/10."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 \u2014 Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-QjuRwH on main; one-time gstack onboarding prompt.\nELI10: gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules, so requests like \"review this diff\" route to the right skill automatically. This repo's CLAUDE.md is a review fixture. Plan mode forbids editing it right now, so if you choose A the append and commit happen after this review exits plan mode.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Without rules you invoke skills by name; with them on a fixture file you add a section nobody may read.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules are the default gstack setup and cost nothing at runtime.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nA) Add routing rules (recommended)\n \u2705 Future sessions in this repo route to the right skill without typing names\n \u2705 Matches the standard gstack project setup used everywhere else\n \u274c Cannot be written in plan mode; deferred until after this review finishes\nB) No thanks, invoke skills manually\n \u2705 Keeps the fixture CLAUDE.md untouched and the review scope pure\n \u2705 One config write now, no deferred git commit to remember\n \u274c Every future skill run here needs an explicit slash command\nNet: convenience later versus an untouched fixture now.": "Add routing rules (recommended)",
"D2 \u2014 Enable cross-project learnings search?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-QjuRwH on main; one-time gstack learnings config.\nELI10: gstack can search learnings saved from your other projects on this machine to spot patterns that apply here. Everything stays local. Good for solo developers; skip if you work across client codebases where mixing context is a concern.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Miss a relevant past lesson, or surface one from a codebase that should stay separate.\nRecommendation: A because this is a solo sandbox and local-only search has no leak path.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nA) Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)\n \u2705 Past pitfalls from other repos on this machine surface during reviews\n \u2705 Local only; nothing leaves the machine and it is one config flag to flip back\n \u274c Learnings from unrelated codebases can add noise to a small review\nB) Keep learnings project-scoped\n \u2705 Zero chance of cross-client context mixing in a multi-tenant setup\n \u2705 Review findings stay grounded in this repo alone\n \u274c This fresh repo has zero learnings, so the search returns nothing useful\nNet: broader recall versus strict per-project isolation.": "Enable cross-project (recommended)",
"D3 \u2014 Which test structure should the plan commit to?\nProject/branch/task: PLAN.md adds caller-level unit tests for processPayment on main.\nELI10: The plan pins two existing behaviors: a successful charge returns a receipt with three exact fields, and repeated 502s produce exactly two attempts, one 100 ms backoff, then PaymentUnavailable. This decision is only about how the tests are shaped. What each test asserts is decided later, one finding at a time.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A shape that hides which clause broke costs debugging time; a shape with duplicated arrange code drifts from the two contracts the plan names.\nRecommendation: A because it is the smallest diff that cleanly expresses the change and still leaves room for complete assertions.\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=10/10, C=7/10\nA) Two contract tests in the existing suite (recommended) (human ~1h / CC ~5 min)\n \u2705 Matches the plan's own shape and the two contracts it states, smallest diff\n \u2705 A deep-equal failure already names the mismatched field in its output\n \u274c A multi-clause test reports only the first failing clause per run\nB) One test per contract clause, four tests (human ~1.5h / CC ~8 min)\n \u2705 Each clause fails independently with a precise, greppable test name\n \u2705 Bisecting a regression to receipt vs retry vs backoff takes one CI read\n \u274c Arrange code repeats across four tests and names drift from the two contracts\nC) One table-driven test over both cases (human ~1h / CC ~5 min)\n \u2705 Single arrange path, compact file\n \u2705 Adding a third case later is one more table row\n \u274c Success and 502 arrangements differ too much to share a table; rows hide which clause failed\nNet: readability as a two-contract spec versus per-clause failure isolation.": "A: Two contract tests (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T11:40:07.353Z"
}
},
{
"signature": "4e1166e1-2842-4004-adb8-e76586dc3472:toolu_01CekNdGxmwMVs2kbh3YLuuL",
"promptSnippet": "Test 1 D4 \u2014 Test 1 (successful charge): what does it assert? Project/branch/task: PLAN.md test 1 for processPayment on main; contract 1 in \"Existing behavior retained\". ELI10: The plan states the contract exactly: a 1000-cent USD charge ret",
"options": [
{
"index": 1,
"label": "4A: Deep-equal exact receipt (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "4B: Three field assertions"
},
{
"index": 3,
"label": "4C: Truthy only, as planned"
}
],
"observedAtMs": 315313,
"preReview": true,
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "4e1166e1-2842-4004-adb8-e76586dc3472",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01CekNdGxmwMVs2kbh3YLuuL",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D4 \u2014 Test 1 (successful charge): what does it assert?\nProject/branch/task: PLAN.md test 1 for processPayment on main; contract 1 in \"Existing behavior retained\".\nELI10: The plan states the contract exactly: a 1000-cent USD charge returning ch_paid yields the receipt { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }. The planned test only checks that the receipt is truthy. An empty object, a receipt with amountCents 100000, or currency \"usd\" all pass that check. The test would stay green while the user is shown or charged the wrong amount.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A receipt-mapping regression (wrong amount, wrong currency, missing chargeId) ships with a green suite; that is customer-visible money.\nRecommendation: 4A because the plan already states the exact expected receipt, and well-tested code is non-negotiable; an assertion that cannot reject a wrong result is not coverage.\nCompleteness: 4A=10/10, 4B=8/10, 4C=3/10\n4A) Deep-equal the exact receipt (recommended) (human ~10 min / CC ~1 min)\n \u2705 Rejects wrong chargeId, wrong amount, wrong currency, and unexpected extra fields\n \u2705 Failure output names the mismatched field, so debugging is one CI read\n \u274c A future additive receipt field will fail this test until it is updated (that is the point)\n4B) Assert the three fields individually, ignore extras (human ~10 min / CC ~1 min)\n \u2705 Rejects wrong values on all three named fields\n \u2705 Tolerates additive fields so unrelated receipt growth does not touch this test\n \u274c An unintended extra field (leaked internal data on a receipt) passes silently\n4C) Keep the truthy-only assertion as planned (human ~2 min / CC ~0)\n \u2705 Zero extra work; exactly what the sketch says\n \u2705 Still proves processPayment resolves rather than throws on the happy path\n \u274c Cannot reject any wrong receipt; contract 1 stays effectively untested\nNet: exact contract pinning versus tolerance for future receipt growth.",
"header": "Test 1",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "4A: Deep-equal exact receipt (recommended)",
"description": "expect(receipt).toEqual({ chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }). Completeness 10/10."
},
{
"label": "4B: Three field assertions",
"description": "Assert chargeId, amountCents, currency individually; extra fields tolerated. Completeness 8/10."
},
{
"label": "4C: Truthy only, as planned",
"description": "Keep expect(receipt).toBeTruthy() as the complete assertion. Completeness 3/10."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D4 \u2014 Test 1 (successful charge): what does it assert?\nProject/branch/task: PLAN.md test 1 for processPayment on main; contract 1 in \"Existing behavior retained\".\nELI10: The plan states the contract exactly: a 1000-cent USD charge returning ch_paid yields the receipt { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }. The planned test only checks that the receipt is truthy. An empty object, a receipt with amountCents 100000, or currency \"usd\" all pass that check. The test would stay green while the user is shown or charged the wrong amount.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A receipt-mapping regression (wrong amount, wrong currency, missing chargeId) ships with a green suite; that is customer-visible money.\nRecommendation: 4A because the plan already states the exact expected receipt, and well-tested code is non-negotiable; an assertion that cannot reject a wrong result is not coverage.\nCompleteness: 4A=10/10, 4B=8/10, 4C=3/10\n4A) Deep-equal the exact receipt (recommended) (human ~10 min / CC ~1 min)\n \u2705 Rejects wrong chargeId, wrong amount, wrong currency, and unexpected extra fields\n \u2705 Failure output names the mismatched field, so debugging is one CI read\n \u274c A future additive receipt field will fail this test until it is updated (that is the point)\n4B) Assert the three fields individually, ignore extras (human ~10 min / CC ~1 min)\n \u2705 Rejects wrong values on all three named fields\n \u2705 Tolerates additive fields so unrelated receipt growth does not touch this test\n \u274c An unintended extra field (leaked internal data on a receipt) passes silently\n4C) Keep the truthy-only assertion as planned (human ~2 min / CC ~0)\n \u2705 Zero extra work; exactly what the sketch says\n \u2705 Still proves processPayment resolves rather than throws on the happy path\n \u274c Cannot reject any wrong receipt; contract 1 stays effectively untested\nNet: exact contract pinning versus tolerance for future receipt growth.": "4A: Deep-equal exact receipt (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T11:41:06.154Z"
}
},
{
"signature": "4e1166e1-2842-4004-adb8-e76586dc3472:toolu_01XQzemkQ2MJLbcEoBMaanzS",
"promptSnippet": "Test 2 D5 \u2014 Test 2 (repeated 502): what does it assert? Project/branch/task: PLAN.md test 2 for processPayment on main; contract 2 in \"Existing behavior retained\". ELI10: The plan states contract 2 exactly: with max_retries=1, repeated 502s",
"options": [
{
"index": 1,
"label": "5A: Reject + 2 attempts + [100] backoff (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "5B: Reject + 2 attempts only"
},
{
"index": 3,
"label": "5C: Reject only, as planned"
}
],
"observedAtMs": 335412,
"preReview": true,
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "4e1166e1-2842-4004-adb8-e76586dc3472",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01XQzemkQ2MJLbcEoBMaanzS",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D5 \u2014 Test 2 (repeated 502): what does it assert?\nProject/branch/task: PLAN.md test 2 for processPayment on main; contract 2 in \"Existing behavior retained\".\nELI10: The plan states contract 2 exactly: with max_retries=1, repeated 502s produce two total charge attempts, one recorded 100 ms backoff, then PaymentUnavailable. The planned test asserts only the rejection and explicitly skips the mock call history and sleeper record, even though the factory exposes both. A regression that retries zero times, retries three times, or drops the backoff to 0 ms still rejects with PaymentUnavailable and passes.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too few attempts raises the transient-failure rate for real customers; too many attempts on a charge endpoint is a duplicate-charge risk; a dropped backoff hammers Stripe during an outage. All three ship green.\nRecommendation: 5A because the plan already names all three clauses and the factory already exposes the probes; the assertions are a translation of the stated contract, not new scope.\nCompleteness: 5A=10/10, 5B=7/10, 5C=3/10\n5A) Rejection class + exactly 2 attempts + sleeper record [100] (recommended) (human ~15 min / CC ~2 min)\n \u2705 Rejects zero-retry, over-retry, and wrong or missing backoff regressions by name\n \u2705 Uses only probes the factory already exposes: mock call history length and sleeper record\n \u274c A deliberate future change to max_retries or backoff must update this test (that is the point)\n5B) Rejection class + exactly 2 attempts, no sleeper assertion (human ~10 min / CC ~1 min)\n \u2705 Catches the two money-relevant regressions: zero-retry and duplicate attempts\n \u2705 One fewer probe to wire up in the test body\n \u274c A backoff dropped to 0 ms, or a stray extra sleep, passes silently\n5C) Rejects with PaymentUnavailable only, as planned (human ~5 min / CC ~0)\n \u2705 Zero extra work; exactly what the sketch says\n \u2705 Still proves the exhausted path surfaces the named error class\n \u274c Attempt count and backoff, two of the three stated clauses, stay untested\nNet: pinning the full retry contract versus a smaller test body.",
"header": "Test 2",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "5A: Reject + 2 attempts + [100] backoff (recommended)",
"description": "await expect(...).rejects.toBeInstanceOf(PaymentUnavailable); expect(stripeMock.calls).toHaveLength(2); expect(sleeper.record).toEqual([100]). Completeness 10/10."
},
{
"label": "5B: Reject + 2 attempts only",
"description": "Assert rejection class and exactly two Stripe calls; skip the sleeper record. Completeness 7/10."
},
{
"label": "5C: Reject only, as planned",
"description": "Keep the rejection assertion as the complete test. Completeness 3/10."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D5 \u2014 Test 2 (repeated 502): what does it assert?\nProject/branch/task: PLAN.md test 2 for processPayment on main; contract 2 in \"Existing behavior retained\".\nELI10: The plan states contract 2 exactly: with max_retries=1, repeated 502s produce two total charge attempts, one recorded 100 ms backoff, then PaymentUnavailable. The planned test asserts only the rejection and explicitly skips the mock call history and sleeper record, even though the factory exposes both. A regression that retries zero times, retries three times, or drops the backoff to 0 ms still rejects with PaymentUnavailable and passes.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too few attempts raises the transient-failure rate for real customers; too many attempts on a charge endpoint is a duplicate-charge risk; a dropped backoff hammers Stripe during an outage. All three ship green.\nRecommendation: 5A because the plan already names all three clauses and the factory already exposes the probes; the assertions are a translation of the stated contract, not new scope.\nCompleteness: 5A=10/10, 5B=7/10, 5C=3/10\n5A) Rejection class + exactly 2 attempts + sleeper record [100] (recommended) (human ~15 min / CC ~2 min)\n \u2705 Rejects zero-retry, over-retry, and wrong or missing backoff regressions by name\n \u2705 Uses only probes the factory already exposes: mock call history length and sleeper record\n \u274c A deliberate future change to max_retries or backoff must update this test (that is the point)\n5B) Rejection class + exactly 2 attempts, no sleeper assertion (human ~10 min / CC ~1 min)\n \u2705 Catches the two money-relevant regressions: zero-retry and duplicate attempts\n \u2705 One fewer probe to wire up in the test body\n \u274c A backoff dropped to 0 ms, or a stray extra sleep, passes silently\n5C) Rejects with PaymentUnavailable only, as planned (human ~5 min / CC ~0)\n \u2705 Zero extra work; exactly what the sketch says\n \u2705 Still proves the exhausted path surfaces the named error class\n \u274c Attempt count and backoff, two of the three stated clauses, stay untested\nNet: pinning the full retry contract versus a smaller test body.": "5A: Reject + 2 attempts + [100] backoff (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T11:41:26.251Z"
}
}
]
}
test/fixtures/ceo-transaction-contract-ar.json
Vendored
-240
View File
@@ -1,240 +0,0 @@
{
"provenance": {
"source": ".context/ship-source-ar-delta-paid-20260910-v1/ceo-distinct-first-terminal-public-native-v1/observation.json",
"scope": "Eight exact completed owned native calls from the failed distinct first attempt; no private reasoning."
},
"calls": [
{
"sessionId": "106d8b12-1955-4cd0-8839-755d1724170f",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Jam614QAXdZe3c6uETgaCF",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 \u2014 Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-DThKI5 on main, about to run a HOLD SCOPE CEO review of PLAN.md.\nELI10: gstack has a short block of routing rules that tells Claude which skill to reach for when you say things like \"review this diff\" or \"ship it\". Appending it to CLAUDE.md means future sessions route to the right skill without you typing slash commands. This is a one-time setup prompt per project.\nStakes if we pick wrong: without rules you invoke skills by hand every time; with them, CLAUDE.md gains ~15 lines and a commit. Both are reversible.\nRecommendation: A because it removes a recurring manual step and the edit is small and easy to revert.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNote on plan mode: we are in plan mode, so if you pick A the CLAUDE.md append and commit happen after the review, once plan mode exits.\nNet: a small durable convenience now versus keeping CLAUDE.md untouched.",
"header": "Routing",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Add routing rules (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Future requests like \"review this\" or \"ship it\" route to the right gstack skill automatically. \u2705 One small, self-contained CLAUDE.md section, easy to revert. \u274c Adds ~15 lines and one commit to a fixture repo that may not need them."
},
{
"label": "No thanks, manual skills",
"description": "\u2705 CLAUDE.md stays exactly as checked in, nothing to commit. \u2705 Prompt never fires again for this project. \u274c You type /skill-name by hand for every gstack workflow here."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 \u2014 Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-DThKI5 on main, about to run a HOLD SCOPE CEO review of PLAN.md.\nELI10: gstack has a short block of routing rules that tells Claude which skill to reach for when you say things like \"review this diff\" or \"ship it\". Appending it to CLAUDE.md means future sessions route to the right skill without you typing slash commands. This is a one-time setup prompt per project.\nStakes if we pick wrong: without rules you invoke skills by hand every time; with them, CLAUDE.md gains ~15 lines and a commit. Both are reversible.\nRecommendation: A because it removes a recurring manual step and the edit is small and easy to revert.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNote on plan mode: we are in plan mode, so if you pick A the CLAUDE.md append and commit happen after the review, once plan mode exits.\nNet: a small durable convenience now versus keeping CLAUDE.md untouched.": "Add routing rules (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T15:24:14.508Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "106d8b12-1955-4cd0-8839-755d1724170f",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01VF8C2V6jcp3TybiVDmFWQ5",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D2 \u2014 How should the new handler be wired into webhook routing?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-DThKI5 on main, HOLD SCOPE CEO review of PLAN.md, Step 0C-bis.\nELI10: Stripe sends one webhook to one URL. Today a dispatcher module looks at the event type and calls the right handler. The plan sketch adds a new handler class but routes around that dispatcher to get a \"clean namespace\". The class name Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler already gives you the clean namespace, so the only thing the bypass adds is a second routing path that every future guard change must be applied to twice.\nStakes if we pick wrong: with a bypass, a future fix to dedup or the ownership guard can land on one path and not the other, and a payment gets processed twice or not at all with no test to catch it.\nRecommendation: 2A because one routing path satisfies DRY and the approved app-owned motivation together, with the smallest correct diff.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=5/10\nNet: one dispatcher registration line versus a permanent parallel entry point or a dispatcher that grows into business logic.",
"header": "Routing",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "2A Register via WebhookDispatcher (recommended)",
"description": "Completeness 10/10. human ~1 day / CC ~20 min. \u2705 One routing path, so every retained guard provably wraps the new handler. \u2705 Namespace separation already delivered by the approved class name. \u2705 Flag flip is a single registration swap between prior and new handler. \u274c Handler must conform to the dispatcher's handler interface, and the registration table gets one edit."
},
{
"label": "2B Standalone handler, bypass dispatcher",
"description": "Completeness 6/10. human ~2 days / CC ~40 min. \u2705 Dispatcher untouched, so zero regression risk to other event types today. \u2705 Handler is fully self-contained and readable in one file. \u274c Two routing paths to keep in sync forever; the bypass buys nothing the class name does not already give."
},
{
"label": "2C Inline into WebhookDispatcher, no new class",
"description": "Completeness 5/10. human ~half day / CC ~15 min. \u2705 Smallest possible diff and no new file to review. \u2705 Reuses the dispatcher's existing payment_intent.succeeded branch directly. \u274c Fails the approved motivation of an app-owned, separately named handler and turns the dispatcher into a business-logic module."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D2 \u2014 How should the new handler be wired into webhook routing?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-DThKI5 on main, HOLD SCOPE CEO review of PLAN.md, Step 0C-bis.\nELI10: Stripe sends one webhook to one URL. Today a dispatcher module looks at the event type and calls the right handler. The plan sketch adds a new handler class but routes around that dispatcher to get a \"clean namespace\". The class name Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler already gives you the clean namespace, so the only thing the bypass adds is a second routing path that every future guard change must be applied to twice.\nStakes if we pick wrong: with a bypass, a future fix to dedup or the ownership guard can land on one path and not the other, and a payment gets processed twice or not at all with no test to catch it.\nRecommendation: 2A because one routing path satisfies DRY and the approved app-owned motivation together, with the smallest correct diff.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=5/10\nNet: one dispatcher registration line versus a permanent parallel entry point or a dispatcher that grows into business logic.": "2A Register via WebhookDispatcher (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T15:28:01.000Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "106d8b12-1955-4cd0-8839-755d1724170f",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01AjMcW89AbhQtHDqFsQ9M95",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D3 \u2014 Where does the user update commit relative to the email call?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-DThKI5 on main, HOLD SCOPE CEO review, Step 0E temporal interrogation.\nELI10: The handler does two things: mark the user paid in the database, then send a receipt. The plan says \"both happen inline\" but never says whether the email runs inside the database transaction. If it does, a one-second mail timeout rolls back the paid status, yet the shared mail client has already written a durable \"retry this receipt\" record. On-call then retries a receipt for a payment the database says never happened.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a receipt goes out for an unpaid account, or a paid account stays unpaid until Stripe's retry lands, and the two systems disagree for the whole gap.\nRecommendation: 3A because the retained contracts already assume this order: the dedup guard records completion after the transaction commits, and the mail client's retry record only makes sense against a committed payment.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=4/10\nNet: an explicit commit-then-notify boundary versus leaving the transaction shape to whoever writes the code.",
"header": "Txn boundary",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "3A Commit update, then email (recommended)",
"description": "Completeness 10/10. human ~1h / CC ~5 min. \u2705 Lookup and update commit in one transaction; the email call runs after commit, outside any DB transaction. \u2705 A mail failure can never roll back paid status, so the mail client's durable retry record always points at a committed payment. \u2705 Verified by a test that stubs MailTimeout and asserts payment_status=paid persisted. \u274c The handler must hold the per-user lock across commit and send, which the retained event guard already does."
},
{
"label": "3B Leave ordering unspecified",
"description": "Completeness 4/10. human 0 / CC 0. \u2705 No plan edit needed today. \u2705 Implementer picks whatever the shared DB client makes easiest. \u274c If the email lands inside the transaction, a mail timeout rolls back the payment while a retry record for its receipt already exists, and no test would catch it."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D3 \u2014 Where does the user update commit relative to the email call?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-DThKI5 on main, HOLD SCOPE CEO review, Step 0E temporal interrogation.\nELI10: The handler does two things: mark the user paid in the database, then send a receipt. The plan says \"both happen inline\" but never says whether the email runs inside the database transaction. If it does, a one-second mail timeout rolls back the paid status, yet the shared mail client has already written a durable \"retry this receipt\" record. On-call then retries a receipt for a payment the database says never happened.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a receipt goes out for an unpaid account, or a paid account stays unpaid until Stripe's retry lands, and the two systems disagree for the whole gap.\nRecommendation: 3A because the retained contracts already assume this order: the dedup guard records completion after the transaction commits, and the mail client's retry record only makes sense against a committed payment.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=4/10\nNet: an explicit commit-then-notify boundary versus leaving the transaction shape to whoever writes the code.": "3A Commit update, then email (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T15:28:42.732Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "106d8b12-1955-4cd0-8839-755d1724170f",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01EpZXVnCrJR6ib3veGmjF4J",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D4 \u2014 What happens when the inline receipt email raises after the payment has committed?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-DThKI5 on main, HOLD SCOPE CEO review, Section 2 Error & Rescue Map.\nELI10: After the database says \"paid\", the handler calls the mail client. That client has a one-second deadline and rethrows MailTimeout and its delivery error to the handler, after durably writing a retry record and updating the failure dashboard. The sketch says \"no error handling on the email leg\", so that exception flies up to the ingress wrapper, which returns 500 and fires the failed-webhook alert. Stripe then retries a payment that is already committed, for up to three days, once per mail blip.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a mail brownout looks like a payment outage on the pager, Stripe may flag the endpoint as failing, and the notification runbook already handles the receipt via the retry record anyway.\nRecommendation: 4A because the payment is committed and the mail client already made the failure durable and visible; the handler's job is to acknowledge the event and leave the receipt to the existing retry procedure.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=5/10\nNet: named rescue plus 200 versus letting notification failures masquerade as payment failures.",
"header": "Email leg",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "4A Rescue named mail errors, log, return 200 (recommended)",
"description": "Completeness 10/10. human ~2h / CC ~10 min. \u2705 Rescue exactly MailTimeout and the mail client's delivery error class, after commit; no StandardError catch-all. \u2705 Emit one structured warning with event id, user id, PaymentIntent id, handler identity, and outcome receipt_deferred; return 200 so the dedup guard records completion and Stripe stops. \u2705 Failure stays visible through the mail client's existing failure-rate alert, backlog alert, and retry record; tests stub MailTimeout and assert 200, paid persisted, one warning emitted. \u274c The ingress failed-webhook alert no longer fires for mail failures, so on-call must watch the mail dashboard for them (it already does)."
},
{
"label": "4B Keep the sketch: let mail errors propagate",
"description": "Completeness 5/10. human 0 / CC 0. \u2705 Zero handler code for the email leg. \u2705 Stripe's own retry schedule re-attempts the receipt automatically. \u274c Every mail timeout becomes a webhook 500, a failed-webhook page, and a Stripe retry storm against an already committed payment for up to three days."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D4 \u2014 What happens when the inline receipt email raises after the payment has committed?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-DThKI5 on main, HOLD SCOPE CEO review, Section 2 Error & Rescue Map.\nELI10: After the database says \"paid\", the handler calls the mail client. That client has a one-second deadline and rethrows MailTimeout and its delivery error to the handler, after durably writing a retry record and updating the failure dashboard. The sketch says \"no error handling on the email leg\", so that exception flies up to the ingress wrapper, which returns 500 and fires the failed-webhook alert. Stripe then retries a payment that is already committed, for up to three days, once per mail blip.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a mail brownout looks like a payment outage on the pager, Stripe may flag the endpoint as failing, and the notification runbook already handles the receipt via the retry record anyway.\nRecommendation: 4A because the payment is committed and the mail client already made the failure durable and visible; the handler's job is to acknowledge the event and leave the receipt to the existing retry procedure.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=5/10\nNet: named rescue plus 200 versus letting notification failures masquerade as payment failures.": "4A Rescue named mail errors, log, return 200 (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T15:29:40.564Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "106d8b12-1955-4cd0-8839-755d1724170f",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01JtLRNpUiT2VRFTpKURYgJq",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D5 \u2014 How does the handler pass the adapter's user id to the lookup query?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-DThKI5 on main, HOLD SCOPE CEO review, Section 3 Security.\nELI10: The plan reads request.params.userId straight into a raw SQL fragment. That value is whatever string sits in the PaymentIntent's metadata.user_id. Your own contracts say user ids are opaque text with punctuation and Unicode, the adapter never escapes them, and the ownership guard only checks equality, not shape. A single quote in a legitimate id breaks the query; a crafted id in metadata rewrites it. A valid Stripe signature proves who sent the event, not that the string is safe to splice into SQL.\nStakes if we pick wrong: at best, users whose ids contain punctuation never get marked paid; at worst, one metadata field reads or rewrites arbitrary rows in the users table.\nRecommendation: 5A because a bound parameter is the only defense that works for every legal identifier, and the shared DB client already supports it.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=3/10\nNet: one bound parameter versus an injection surface on the payment path.",
"header": "SQL lookup",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "5A Bound parameter via shared DB client (recommended)",
"description": "Completeness 10/10. human ~1h / CC ~5 min. \u2705 The lookup uses the shared DB client's parameterized query API; the user id is never concatenated into SQL text. \u2705 Works for every legal id: quotes, semicolons, comment markers, Unicode, 47+ chars; unknown ids fall through to the retained 200 path. \u2705 Tests feed ids containing a single quote, `; DROP`, `--`, and multibyte Unicode and assert exactly one row matched or none, with no error. \u274c None beyond writing the query the way the rest of the app already does."
},
{
"label": "5B Keep raw fragment, add an allow-list regex",
"description": "Completeness 3/10. human ~2h / CC ~10 min. \u2705 Rejects the obvious payloads before they reach SQL. \u2705 No change to the query text itself. \u274c Contradicts the retained contract that every nonempty string is a valid id, so real users with punctuation or Unicode ids are silently never marked paid, and regex allow-lists have a long history of bypasses."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D5 \u2014 How does the handler pass the adapter's user id to the lookup query?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-DThKI5 on main, HOLD SCOPE CEO review, Section 3 Security.\nELI10: The plan reads request.params.userId straight into a raw SQL fragment. That value is whatever string sits in the PaymentIntent's metadata.user_id. Your own contracts say user ids are opaque text with punctuation and Unicode, the adapter never escapes them, and the ownership guard only checks equality, not shape. A single quote in a legitimate id breaks the query; a crafted id in metadata rewrites it. A valid Stripe signature proves who sent the event, not that the string is safe to splice into SQL.\nStakes if we pick wrong: at best, users whose ids contain punctuation never get marked paid; at worst, one metadata field reads or rewrites arbitrary rows in the users table.\nRecommendation: 5A because a bound parameter is the only defense that works for every legal identifier, and the shared DB client already supports it.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=3/10\nNet: one bound parameter versus an injection surface on the payment path.": "5A Bound parameter via shared DB client (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T15:30:14.258Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "106d8b12-1955-4cd0-8839-755d1724170f",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01ULfBjZ8UV7b3E6BAW4aMBJ",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D6 \u2014 Does this change ship with automated handler tests?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-DThKI5 on main, HOLD SCOPE CEO review, Section 6 Tests.\nELI10: The plan says no tests, rely on the existing integration suite. But your own contracts say the only verification is a manual staging replay of one payment event. That replay cannot feed a user id with a quote in it, cannot make the mail provider time out, and cannot prove the handler rescues exactly two exception classes and nothing else. Every decision approved so far (D2 through D5) has a behavior that only a test can lock in.\nStakes if we pick wrong: the parameterized lookup, the commit-then-notify order, and the named rescue all regress silently the first time someone refactors the handler, and you find out from a Stripe retry storm or an unpaid user.\nRecommendation: 6A because tests are the cheapest lake to boil and each approved remedy already names its assertion.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=2/10\nNet: about 13 specs written in minutes with CC versus a payment handler whose only regression check is a human in staging.",
"header": "Tests",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "6A Full handler spec suite (recommended)",
"description": "Completeness 10/10. human ~1 day / CC ~20 min. \u2705 Roughly 10 unit specs plus 3 integration specs, one per approved behavior: bound-parameter ids, commit-then-notify, named mail rescue with exactly one warning, no catch-all, unknown user, nil address, zero and N orders, single orders query, flag routing, dedup, deletion race, DB rollback, chaos timeout. \u2705 Every spec names its observable assertion and the wrong result it rejects; failure shows up in CI, not in production. \u274c Adds one spec file and the mail-client deadline test hook if it does not exist yet."
},
{
"label": "6B No new tests, keep the sketch",
"description": "Completeness 2/10. human 0 / CC 0. \u2705 Nothing to write or maintain. \u2705 Staging replay still catches a totally broken happy path. \u274c No automated check exists for the injection fix, the transaction boundary, or the mail rescue, so all three can regress without anyone noticing until an incident."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D6 \u2014 Does this change ship with automated handler tests?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-DThKI5 on main, HOLD SCOPE CEO review, Section 6 Tests.\nELI10: The plan says no tests, rely on the existing integration suite. But your own contracts say the only verification is a manual staging replay of one payment event. That replay cannot feed a user id with a quote in it, cannot make the mail provider time out, and cannot prove the handler rescues exactly two exception classes and nothing else. Every decision approved so far (D2 through D5) has a behavior that only a test can lock in.\nStakes if we pick wrong: the parameterized lookup, the commit-then-notify order, and the named rescue all regress silently the first time someone refactors the handler, and you find out from a Stripe retry storm or an unpaid user.\nRecommendation: 6A because tests are the cheapest lake to boil and each approved remedy already names its assertion.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=2/10\nNet: about 13 specs written in minutes with CC versus a payment handler whose only regression check is a human in staging.": "6A Full handler spec suite (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T15:31:32.304Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "106d8b12-1955-4cd0-8839-755d1724170f",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01FuoeUfs6jfYH6KMYHsVBLV",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D7 \u2014 How are the user's orders loaded for the receipt?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-DThKI5 on main, HOLD SCOPE CEO review, Section 7 Performance.\nELI10: The receipt needs a summary of the user's orders. The sketch fetches them one at a time in a loop, so a customer with 300 orders costs 300 database round trips while the per-user lock is held and the two-second database budget is ticking. One query with WHERE user_id = ? returns them all in a single round trip. Running that query inside the same transaction as the paid update also means any database failure is a clean rollback and retry, never a committed payment that answers 500.\nStakes if we pick wrong: your best customers, the ones with the most orders, are exactly the ones whose payment webhooks time out and retry.\nRecommendation: 7A because it removes the N+1 and closes the committed-then-500 window in the same edit.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=3/10\nNet: one bounded query inside the transaction versus a loop whose cost scales with customer loyalty.",
"header": "Order load",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "7A One query, inside the transaction before commit (recommended)",
"description": "Completeness 10/10. human ~1h / CC ~5 min. \u2705 Single `orders WHERE user_id = ?` query via the shared DB client, bound parameter, ordered deterministically; executed after the update and before COMMIT so every DB failure rolls back cleanly and Stripe retries a clean slate. \u2705 Zero orders still yields one receipt with an empty summary (retained). \u2705 Verified by a query-count spec (exactly one orders query) and a 500-order fixture finishing well under the 2s DB budget. \u274c Requires confirming the `orders.user_id` index exists."
},
{
"label": "7B One query, after commit",
"description": "Completeness 6/10. human ~1h / CC ~5 min. \u2705 Fixes the N+1 with the same single query. \u2705 Keeps the transaction as short as possible. \u274c A DB failure in the orders query after commit returns 500 for an already-paid user, so Stripe retries a committed payment until the query succeeds."
},
{
"label": "7C Keep the loop",
"description": "Completeness 3/10. human 0 / CC 0. \u2705 No query change. \u2705 Matches the prior handler's shape if it also looped. \u274c Round trips scale with order count inside a held lock and a 2s deadline; high-order customers time out and retry."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D7 \u2014 How are the user's orders loaded for the receipt?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-DThKI5 on main, HOLD SCOPE CEO review, Section 7 Performance.\nELI10: The receipt needs a summary of the user's orders. The sketch fetches them one at a time in a loop, so a customer with 300 orders costs 300 database round trips while the per-user lock is held and the two-second database budget is ticking. One query with WHERE user_id = ? returns them all in a single round trip. Running that query inside the same transaction as the paid update also means any database failure is a clean rollback and retry, never a committed payment that answers 500.\nStakes if we pick wrong: your best customers, the ones with the most orders, are exactly the ones whose payment webhooks time out and retry.\nRecommendation: 7A because it removes the N+1 and closes the committed-then-500 window in the same edit.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=3/10\nNet: one bounded query inside the transaction versus a loop whose cost scales with customer loyalty.": "7A One query, inside the transaction before commit (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T15:31:58.004Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "106d8b12-1955-4cd0-8839-755d1724170f",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01U6vNchaBhFdn96GiLQJkay",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D8 \u2014 Should the handler class carry the request-flow ASCII diagram as a code comment?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-DThKI5 on main, HOLD SCOPE CEO review, Section 10 Long-Term Trajectory.\nELI10: This review produced a flow diagram showing the guards, the transaction boundary, the order query, and the mail rescue. Your engineering preferences ask for ASCII diagrams in code comments for request flows, and say a stale diagram is worse than none. Putting the diagram at the top of the handler class means the next engineer sees the commit-then-notify boundary before they touch it. It also means the diagram must be updated whenever the flow changes.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a future refactor moves the email inside the transaction because nobody saw why it was outside, or a diagram rots and misleads.\nRecommendation: 8A because it matches your stated preference and the diagram already exists in this plan.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: a maintained class-level diagram versus relying on this plan file staying findable.",
"header": "Flow diagram",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "8A Add the flow diagram as a class comment (recommended)",
"description": "human ~20 min / CC ~2 min. \u2705 The commit-then-notify boundary and the named rescue are visible at the top of the file that implements them. \u2705 Matches the engineering preference for request-flow diagrams on controllers and handlers. \u274c Diagram maintenance becomes part of every future change to the handler."
},
{
"label": "8B Keep the diagram in the plan file only",
"description": "human 0 / CC 0. \u2705 No comment to keep in sync with code. \u2705 The plan file already holds the full diagram with decision references. \u274c Nothing in the source explains why the mail call sits outside the transaction, so the next refactor can undo D3 without noticing."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D8 \u2014 Should the handler class carry the request-flow ASCII diagram as a code comment?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-DThKI5 on main, HOLD SCOPE CEO review, Section 10 Long-Term Trajectory.\nELI10: This review produced a flow diagram showing the guards, the transaction boundary, the order query, and the mail rescue. Your engineering preferences ask for ASCII diagrams in code comments for request flows, and say a stale diagram is worse than none. Putting the diagram at the top of the handler class means the next engineer sees the commit-then-notify boundary before they touch it. It also means the diagram must be updated whenever the flow changes.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a future refactor moves the email inside the transaction because nobody saw why it was outside, or a diagram rots and misleads.\nRecommendation: 8A because it matches your stated preference and the diagram already exists in this plan.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: a maintained class-level diagram versus relying on this plan file staying findable.": "8A Add the flow diagram as a class comment (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T15:32:55.986Z"
}
]
}
test/fixtures/ceo-zero-test-absence-6f6730f4.json
Vendored
-40
View File
@@ -1,40 +0,0 @@
{
"sourceCommit": "6f6730f478e20235b3266d56253d097d02dcdf46",
"originalOutcome": "five callback failed on attempt 2 at D4 before incrementing reviewCount3",
"reportCoverage": "Earlier complete acknowledged report through15:17:13; D4 ledger row also appears unchanged in final native terminal diff context line135. Final complete report was not retained. This fixture proves the lexical classifier boundary only, not full paid success.",
"call": {
"sessionId": "c0a001a7-fafa-4203-ad16-4e9a3c39ed58",
"toolUseId": "toolu_011hzWgHQPupfxa9UnKiue7f",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D4 — What automated test coverage ships with the new handler?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-Z2wGKp on main, HOLD SCOPE CEO review (ledger row D4).\nELI10: The plan ships a new payment handler with zero automated tests and trusts the existing integration suite plus a manual staging replay. The existing suite cannot cover a class that does not exist yet unless it already drives the dispatcher with a real fixture event and the new flag on, and the plan offers no evidence it does. The three changes we just approved (dispatcher registration, bound lookup, named-error rescue) each fail in a way only a test catches: a guard skipped, an injection, or a wrong exception class turning the rescue into a catch-all or a no-op.\nStakes if we pick wrong: The first time the new handler's error paths run is in production with real money; the manual checklist only walks the happy path.\nRecommendation: A because with AI-assisted implementation the full suite costs ~30 minutes and each approved change gets a failing test before it gets a bug.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=1/10\nNet: full coverage including flag routing and dedup (A) vs. handler-only coverage that leaves the rollback path unproven (B) vs. production as the test environment (C).",
"header": "D4 tests",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Unit tests for every path + dispatcher replay integration test (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Covers happy path, zero orders, missing email, unknown user, adversarial IDs, MailTimeout/delivery error, unknown exception propagation, DB error propagation\n✅ Proves flag on/off routes to new/prior handler and same event id twice runs the handler once, which is the whole rollback story (human: ~1 day / CC: ~30 min)\n❌ Needs a mail-client test double and a recorded fixture event; a dispatcher harness may have to be added if none exists"
},
{
"label": "B) Unit tests only",
"description": "✅ Fully covers the bound lookup (D2) and the named-error rescue (D3)\n✅ Smaller footprint, no dispatcher harness needed (human: ~half day / CC: ~15 min)\n❌ Dispatcher registration, flag routing and dedup interaction stay untested; staging replay remains the only proof the class is reached"
},
{
"label": "C) No new tests (plan as written)",
"description": "✅ Zero test-writing effort; matches the plan text literally\n❌ Error paths first execute in production; the manual checklist covers only the happy path; contradicts the stated preference that well-tested code is non-negotiable"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D4 — What automated test coverage ships with the new handler?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-Z2wGKp on main, HOLD SCOPE CEO review (ledger row D4).\nELI10: The plan ships a new payment handler with zero automated tests and trusts the existing integration suite plus a manual staging replay. The existing suite cannot cover a class that does not exist yet unless it already drives the dispatcher with a real fixture event and the new flag on, and the plan offers no evidence it does. The three changes we just approved (dispatcher registration, bound lookup, named-error rescue) each fail in a way only a test catches: a guard skipped, an injection, or a wrong exception class turning the rescue into a catch-all or a no-op.\nStakes if we pick wrong: The first time the new handler's error paths run is in production with real money; the manual checklist only walks the happy path.\nRecommendation: A because with AI-assisted implementation the full suite costs ~30 minutes and each approved change gets a failing test before it gets a bug.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=1/10\nNet: full coverage including flag routing and dedup (A) vs. handler-only coverage that leaves the rollback path unproven (B) vs. production as the test environment (C).": "A) Unit tests for every path + dispatcher replay integration test (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T15:19:43.362Z"
},
"savedPlan": "# Plan: Payment Processing Integration (CEO review working plan)\n\nSource: `PLAN.md` on `main` (fe7f2fa). Review mode: HOLD SCOPE (user-selected).\nReviewer: /plan-ceo-review, session 144618-1789485179-b77975c6, 2026-09-15.\n\n## Context\n\nMove payment orchestration for `payment_intent.succeeded` out of the prior\nlibrary-adapter handler into application-owned code, keeping the existing\npayment and receipt product behavior byte-for-byte. The ingress (signature\nverification, event-type filter, ownership guard, event-ID dedup, per-user\nlock), the DB/mail clients (tracing, idempotency key, durable failure record,\ndeadlines), the runbooks, dashboards, feature flag and rollback path are all\nretained unchanged. The plan under review adds the handler that runs inside\nthose guards. The repo contains only `PLAN.md` and `CLAUDE.md`; there is no\ncode to inspect, so every finding is traced against the retained contracts\nstated in the plan.\n\n## Original plan (as submitted, unchanged)\n\n### Existing contracts retained\nSee `PLAN.md` lines 7–103. Key contracts this review leans on:\n- Ingress verifies signature on raw body; forwards only `payment_intent.succeeded`.\n- `request.params.userId` = `event.data.object.metadata.user_id`, forwarded\n unchanged, no cast/escape; opaque TEXT incl. punctuation and Unicode.\n \"A valid signature does not make it safe for SQL.\"\n- Ownership guard: PaymentIntent ID ↔ stored user-ID binding, identity compare only.\n- Event-ID dedup + per-user lock held through handler and completion\n bookkeeping; completion recorded only after the DB transaction commits.\n- User update is an idempotent assignment (`payment_status=paid`, PI id).\n- Unknown/deleted user → HTTP 200, log, stop.\n- Nil/empty email → `skipped_missing_address`, processing continues.\n- Mail client: 1s deadline, `MailTimeout`, no inline retries, durable\n notification-attempt record before rethrow, provider idempotency key from PI\n id, failure-rate + backlog dashboards/alerts, runbook retries notification only.\n- DB exceptions → ingress logs, HTTP 500, Stripe retries.\n- DB+ingress budget 2s inside 10s webhook deadline.\n- Handler feature flag, tested rollback, manual staging replay checklist.\n- One receipt per PaymentIntent with order summary; zero orders → one receipt.\n- Class name, if a class exists: `Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler` (settled).\n Separate implementation vs. reuse `WebhookDispatcher`: open.\n\n### Architecture\nNew `StripePaymentWebhookHandler` class bypassing `WebhookDispatcher` for\n\"clean namespace separation\".\n\n### Database access\n`request.params.userId` read directly into a raw SQL fragment for the lookup.\n\n### Webhook fan-out\nUpdate user record AND send notification email, both inline; no error\nhandling on the email leg.\n\n### Tests\nNone planned; rely on existing integration suite.\n\n### Performance\nUser lookup, then one query per order in a loop.\n\n## Step 0 — Nuclear Scope Challenge\n\n### 0A. Premise Challenge\n1. **Right problem?** Yes, narrowly. Owning the orchestration code is a\n legitimate goal: the library adapter is a dependency boundary the team\n cannot patch. The framing error is \"clean namespace separation\" as the\n reason to bypass `WebhookDispatcher`. Namespace ownership is about where\n the class lives (already settled: `Webhooks::`); it says nothing about\n whether the class should be dispatched through the shared module. Those\n are two decisions presented as one.\n2. **Outcome?** Same paid-status update and same receipt, with code the team\n owns and can test. The plan reaches the ownership outcome directly but\n regresses two retained invariants on the way: it interpolates an\n unsanitized external string into SQL (the plan itself says the signature\n does not make it SQL-safe), and it lets a mail failure surface as a\n payment failure (HTTP 500 after the payment committed).\n3. **Do nothing?** Payments keep working on the prior adapter handler. The\n pain (cannot modify orchestration) is real but not urgent; there is no\n outage driving this. That argues for slowing down on the irreversible\n parts (data-model or contract changes) and moving fast on the rest.\n Nothing here is a one-way door except shipping a SQL injection.\n\n### 0B. Existing Code Leverage\n| Sub-problem | Existing code (per retained contracts) | Plan's use |\n|---|---|---|\n| Signature, event filter, ownership, dedup, lock | Ingress middleware + event guard | Reused (runs inside) |\n| Event routing to handler | `WebhookDispatcher` | **Bypassed** — open decision |\n| User lookup | Shared DB client with tracing | Used, but via raw SQL fragment |\n| User update | Existing idempotent assignment | Reused |\n| Recipient policy (nil/empty email) | Retained helper | Reused |\n| Email send, idempotency key, durable failure record | Shared mail client | Reused; exception left unhandled |\n| Order summary loading | ULine truncated
"reportSha256": "217ce4cb888f0f2d99bf9df901e9a1203ac0f7ba54d491dbaaa8609359c46758",
"seed": "Please review this plan thoroughly in HOLD SCOPE mode. As you go, write your plan-mode plan to /tmp/gstack-owned-display-np1l2aqb/gstack-paid-shard-MmyToP/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-ceo-njEsdf/gstack-test-plan-ceo.md (use Edit/Write to that exact path).\nProceed directly to the requested CEO review; skip the optional /office-hours prerequisite.\nFinish after this CEO review; I will handle subsequent reviews manually.\n\n# Plan: Payment Processing Integration\n\n## Existing contracts retained\nThe approved motivation is to move payment orchestration out of the prior\nlibrary-adapter handler into application-owned code while retaining the\nexisting payment and receipt product behavior. The shared dispatcher remains\navailable; the proposed bypass below is still an architectural choice to review.\nThe existing ingress middleware verifies the Stripe signature against the\nraw request body and rejects invalid signatures before invoking handlers.\nThe existing ingress forwards only `payment_intent.succeeded` events to\nthis handler; other Stripe event types are acknowledged without invoking it.\nThe existing payload adapter exposes `event.data.object.metadata.user_id`\nas `request.params.userId`. This params object is the parsed body-data map,\nnot URL query/path parameters; all users share one webhook URL.\nThe adapter acknowledges missing, nil, or empty user_id metadata with\nHTTP 200 and an event-correlated warning before invoking this handler.\nFor every nonempty external string it performs no SQL-format validation.\nThe adapter forwards that external string unchanged. It does not cast,\nescape, or SQL-sanitize it; a valid signature does not make it safe for SQL.\nUser IDs are opaque TEXT values, including punctuation and Unicode. The\nlookup has no integer/UUID cast or ID-format restriction; every nonempty\nstring is a valid identifier representation.\nAn existing ingress ownership guard checks the PaymentIntent ID against\nits stored opaque user-ID binding before invoking the handler. A mismatch\nis acknowledged with HTTP 200 and an event-correlated warning. This is an\nidentity comparison, not SQL-format validation; the adapter still forwards\nthe original string unchanged.\nThe existing webhook event guard deduplicates deliveries by Stripe event ID,\nand an existing per-user lock serializes payment updates.\nThe event guard acquires the existing per-user lock before checking the\ncommitted completion marker, and rechecks after any lock wait. It holds\nthat lock through the handler and completion bookkeeping; an overlapping\ncompleted duplicate does not invoke the handler.\nThe new handler runs inside those unchanged guards; this plan does not\nreplace signature verification, event deduplication, or update locking.\nThe existing user update assigns payment_status=paid and the payment intent\nID; it does not increment a balance or counter. Repeating the same payment\nintent assigns the same values, independently of the event-ID guard.\nThe existing lookup-result guard acknowledges unknown/deleted users with\nHTTP 200, logs the event, and stops before user updates or email fan-out.\nThe retained recipient-policy helper treats a nil or empty email address as\nskipped_missing_address: payment processing continues normally, and no mail\nclient call is attempted. It persists an event/user/PaymentIntent-correlated\nskip record, emits a structured warning, and increments the existing counter.\nThe existing notification runbook already covers that skip result: correct\nthe account address, then retry only its recorded notification using the\nsame PaymentIntent idempotency key. It never replays the payment for this case.\nThat recipient policy does not catch failures from sends to nonempty addresses;\nthe shared mail client still rethrows those exceptions to this handler.\nAccount deletion uses the same per-user lock. The handler holds it from\nlookup through update and inline email, so deletion either precedes lookup\n(the existing unknown/deleted-user path) or follows the handler; it cannot\nremove the user between lookup and update.\nThe ingress wrapper already logs event IDs, outcomes, and durations, with\nalerts for failed webhook processing. Those controls remain in place.\nThe existing DB and mail clients attach the adapter user ID and event ID\nto outcome traces, including update success and email delivery success or\nfailure. These shared clients rethrow exceptions unchanged; tracing does\nnot rescue email errors or change the inline email call below.\nThe shared mail client also publishes its delivery failure rate to the\nexisting dashboard and tested on-call alert, including caught exceptions.\nThe existing incident runbook uses the correlated DB and mail outcomes to\ndistinguish committed payments from failed notifications. It directs on-call\nto check provider status and retry only the failed notification through the\nexisting notification retry procedure, never replay the payment blindly.\nDB lookLine truncated
}
test/fixtures/conductor-prose-ao.json
Vendored
-24
View File
@@ -1,24 +0,0 @@
{
"publicDecisionTail": "D1—ReducethepricingtiertoStripe-nativepieces,orbuildallfourcomponents?\r\rReplywithaletter(Conductorsession,sothisbriefisinprose).Project/branch:gstackedinburgh-v1,reviewingan\rexternal pricing-tier plan.\r\rELI10:Youwantmoredeveloperstosignup,soyou'readdingacheaperplan.Thedraftbuildsfournewthingstodo\rit: a Stripe price, a custm pricing web age,r own atabse tbletht remmbers who paid fowhat, ad a fast\rn-memory copy of tht table. Strpealready ships the table (Entitlements)and th page (rcing table). Every exra\rcopy of \"wh is allowed to dowhat\" is another place that can disagre withStripe when a card fails or awebhook\rarriveslate. The stakes: a developer who paidand sees \"upgrae required,\"or ono cnelled andkeeps access.\r\rStakesifwepickwrong:threesourcesoftruthforentitlementswithnoinvalidationdesignmeanssilentaccessbugs\rtht onlyshow upas angry support tickets.\r\rRecommendation:Abecauseitkeepseveryuser-visibleoutcomeofthedraftwhiledeletingthetwocomponentsmost\rlikely to causeentitlemnt drift,and it fits \"engineered enough\" an \"smallestiff that cleanly exressethe\rchange.\"\r\rCompleteness:A=9/10,B=7/10.Cisahold,notabuildoption,sonoscore.\r\rA)Stripe-nativeslimbuild(recommended).Completeness9/10.Human:~1week/CC:~1to2hours.AddoneStripePrice\rplus a Fature-to-Product mapping, mirror active_entitlement_sumryinto a singleexisting cstomer table hrough an\ridempotent webhok, gate fetures off that olumn, ship the pricing surfacebehinda feature flag (Stripe pricin\u001b[?25h",
"actualFlags": {
"proseAUQEverObserved": false,
"waitingEverObserved": true,
"scopeGateAutoSelectObserved": true
},
"owner": {
"sessionId": "4e820ffc-b6dd-47d7-b074-5c4b0a3cbb68",
"commandStartedAt": 1789041170391,
"nativePolledAt": 1789041383968,
"captureAt": "2026-09-10T11:56:33.483Z"
},
"provenance": {
"observation": ".context/ship-source-ao-delta-paid-20260910-v1/conductor-first-failure-ledger-v1/observation.json",
"observationSha256": "da8c8a342f44ae06bfdd092f1bdb6a395765553d65ac99eecaaa35dedb34545d",
"visible": ".context/ship-source-ao-delta-paid-20260910-v1/conductor-first-failure-ledger-v1/terminal.visible.log",
"visibleSha256": "2a2fca3e8d1b51694d76a3dbcfac524626f856e4ebf38f4bd093346edb64bf82",
"startCharacterOffset": 78469,
"publicTailSha256": "e551890b1d839cee7d7dce05120b8dc05a54f27fe8f69617aa99384c49316604",
"limit": "Exact public partial D1 tail; no completed native prose message retained. A later second option in tests is synthetic.",
"offsetUnit": "Unicode code points in decoded retained bytes, without newline normalization"
}
}
test/fixtures/design-artifacts-w-calls.json
Vendored
-250
View File
@@ -1,250 +0,0 @@
[
{
"sessionId": "ce4def56-9180-4e1e-ba55-859036af9758",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01X8ZMvTZ76gAdUBVcBgRjNi",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 \u2014 Convert the Save button visual hierarchy gap into an implementation task? <gstack-qid:plan-design-review-ia-1>",
"header": "D1 Hierarchy",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Add as implementation task (Recommended)",
"description": "Convert the gap into a concrete task: 'Apply filled primary styling (#1d4ed8, white text) to Save; ghost styling to Reset, Cancel, Export per DESIGN.md.' Completeness: 10/10 \u2014 implementer has a specific, verifiable task with exact tokens."
},
{
"label": "B) Add token reference only",
"description": "Add a note in the gap section pointing to the DESIGN.md spec, but don't create a formal task. Completeness: 7/10 \u2014 the fix is findable but not surfaced for sprint planning or checklist use."
},
{
"label": "C) Leave as described gap",
"description": "Keep the gap as prose only. Completeness: 3/10 \u2014 the problem is named but implementers must cross-reference DESIGN.md to find the fix, risking it being missed or done wrong."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 \u2014 Convert the Save button visual hierarchy gap into an implementation task? <gstack-qid:plan-design-review-ia-1>": "A) Add as implementation task (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T09:50:51.334Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "ce4def56-9180-4e1e-ba55-859036af9758",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01CXhjZH4WEWPRGdmNTuAehf",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D2 \u2014 Add the pending-save state spec as an implementation task? <gstack-qid:plan-design-review-states-1>",
"header": "D2 PendingSave",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Add as implementation task (Recommended)",
"description": "Task: 'Render an inline spinner beside the text \u201cSaving\u2026\u201d inside the disabled Save button; set aria-busy=true on the button; under prefers-reduced-motion, remove the spinner but preserve disabled state and text.' Completeness: 10/10 \u2014 implementer has the full DESIGN.md spec with the a11y attribute and the motion variant."
},
{
"label": "B) Add note in Motion gap only",
"description": "Reference the DESIGN.md spinner pattern in the Motion gap section without a formal task. Completeness: 7/10 \u2014 the fix is documented but not actionable as a discrete work item."
},
{
"label": "C) Leave Motion gap as-is",
"description": "Keep the gap description as a known issue without specifying the fix. Completeness: 3/10 \u2014 ships a frozen page during 2-5s saves; users may try clicking Save again (duplicate submit)."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D2 \u2014 Add the pending-save state spec as an implementation task? <gstack-qid:plan-design-review-states-1>": "A) Add as implementation task (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T09:51:05.384Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "ce4def56-9180-4e1e-ba55-859036af9758",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01CbscyDZBegLpC9mhQdEtm4",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D3 \u2014 Add a state coverage table to the plan body for implementer reference? <gstack-qid:plan-design-review-states-2>",
"header": "D3 StateTable",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Add state table (Recommended)",
"description": "Insert a feature \u00d7 state table (Form load / Save / Export / Dirty state \u00d7 Loading / Empty / Error / Success / Pending). No new design decisions \u2014 all cells derive from existing specs. Completeness: 10/10 \u2014 implementers can verify each state against a single reference."
},
{
"label": "B) Leave states in prose only",
"description": "Keep the existing prose descriptions without a structured table. Completeness: 7/10 \u2014 specs are all there but scattered across paragraphs; edge cases like Export error during dirty-edit are harder to spot."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D3 \u2014 Add a state coverage table to the plan body for implementer reference? <gstack-qid:plan-design-review-states-2>": "A) Add state table (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T09:51:13.416Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "ce4def56-9180-4e1e-ba55-859036af9758",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01BwktmsUeBQpaEobh9sZdvN",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D4 \u2014 Add a user journey storyboard to the plan? <gstack-qid:plan-design-review-journey-1>",
"header": "D4 Storyboard",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Add storyboard (Recommended)",
"description": "Render the accepted journey as a step/user-does/user-feels/plan-specifies table (8 rows covering happy path, save failure, cancel with dirty state, first-time new account). No new design decisions \u2014 pure rendering of existing specs. Completeness: 10/10 \u2014 implementers understand the emotional arc and can verify the spec covers each moment."
},
{
"label": "B) Keep one-sentence journey description",
"description": "Leave the current one-sentence happy-path description. Completeness: 5/10 \u2014 the journey exists but reads like a state machine; error recovery arcs and first-time experience aren't visible without cross-referencing multiple paragraphs."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D4 \u2014 Add a user journey storyboard to the plan? <gstack-qid:plan-design-review-journey-1>": "A) Add storyboard (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T09:51:21.443Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "ce4def56-9180-4e1e-ba55-859036af9758",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01LLaQKbCpHmntdB1qWG3x38",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D5 \u2014 Convert the spacing gap into an implementation task with explicit DESIGN.md scale? <gstack-qid:plan-design-review-ds-2>",
"header": "D5 Spacing",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Add as implementation task (Recommended)",
"description": "Task: 'Apply the 8px spacing scale: between-section gaps 32px, between-field-group gaps 24px, label-to-input gaps 8px. Remove any 16px gap \u2014 no context in DESIGN.md uses 16px here.' Completeness: 10/10 \u2014 implementer has exact values and knows which to remove."
},
{
"label": "B) Reference DESIGN.md scale without a task",
"description": "Add a note pointing to the 8px base system in DESIGN.md. Completeness: 7/10 \u2014 the scale is accessible but the erroneous 16px value isn't explicitly called out for removal, risking it staying in the implementation."
},
{
"label": "C) Leave as gap description",
"description": "Keep the spacing gap as a prose description only. Completeness: 3/10 \u2014 ships inconsistent vertical rhythm; the UI will have a subtle broken-grid feel that erodes trust without an obvious cause."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D5 \u2014 Convert the spacing gap into an implementation task with explicit DESIGN.md scale? <gstack-qid:plan-design-review-ds-2>": "A) Add as implementation task (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T09:51:31.485Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "ce4def56-9180-4e1e-ba55-859036af9758",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01LUq6SetnpMxG9CuiYaogRN",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D6 \u2014 Convert the error color gap into an implementation task with WCAG-compliant tokens? <gstack-qid:plan-design-review-ds-3>",
"header": "D6 ErrorColor",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Add as implementation task (Recommended)",
"description": "Task: 'Apply error.text #991b1b on error.surface #fef2f2, plus an error icon and explicit text label. Measured contrast 5.9:1 \u2014 passes WCAG AA (4.5:1 required for normal text).' Completeness: 10/10 \u2014 implementer has exact hex values, knows the icon requirement, and can verify with a contrast checker."
},
{
"label": "B) Note the DESIGN.md tokens only",
"description": "Add a note pointing to the DESIGN.md error color pair without a formal task. Completeness: 7/10 \u2014 the fix is findable but ships as a follow-up item rather than a merge requirement."
},
{
"label": "C) Leave as gap description",
"description": "Keep the ~3:1 contrast gap as prose only. Completeness: 3/10 \u2014 ships a WCAG AA violation; users with low vision miss error messages; legal and audit risk."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D6 \u2014 Convert the error color gap into an implementation task with WCAG-compliant tokens? <gstack-qid:plan-design-review-ds-3>": "A) Add as implementation task (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T09:51:39.521Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "ce4def56-9180-4e1e-ba55-859036af9758",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01TZCPbE7Yf39r5abjL8QRiV",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D7 \u2014 Convert the typography gap into an implementation task with the two-role system? <gstack-qid:plan-design-review-ds-4>",
"header": "D7 Typography",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Add as implementation task (Recommended)",
"description": "Task: 'Apply two font-size roles: 16px for body text, form labels, and helper text; 20px for the h2 section headings (Profile, Notifications). Remove 14px (below universal-rule minimum) and 18px (no role in the design system).' Completeness: 10/10 \u2014 implementer has both the target values and the values to remove, with the WCAG rationale for the 14px removal."
},
{
"label": "B) Reference two-role system only",
"description": "Add a note pointing to the DESIGN.md two-role spec without listing which sizes to remove. Completeness: 7/10 \u2014 the target is clear but 14px and 18px may linger without an explicit removal instruction."
},
{
"label": "C) Leave as gap description",
"description": "Keep the 3-size description as a known gap. Completeness: 3/10 \u2014 ships 14px text that violates the universal-rule body minimum; flat hierarchy where headings don't distinguish themselves from body."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D7 \u2014 Convert the typography gap into an implementation task with the two-role system? <gstack-qid:plan-design-review-ds-4>": "A) Add as implementation task (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T09:51:49.561Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "ce4def56-9180-4e1e-ba55-859036af9758",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01EAbwBxUqkGimEBVbC9iFMm",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D8 \u2014 Address the skip navigation link gap? <gstack-qid:plan-design-review-a11y-1>",
"header": "D8 SkipNav",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Add verification task: confirm skip link exists in app shell (Recommended)",
"description": "Task: 'Verify that the persistent app navigation includes a skip-to-main-content link (WCAG 2.1 SC 2.4.1 Bypass Blocks). If absent, add <a href=\"#main-content\" class=\"sr-only focus:not-sr-only\">Skip to content</a> before the nav.' Completeness: 10/10 \u2014 WCAG 2.4.1 compliance confirmed or addressed; keyboard users can bypass nav on every page load."
},
{
"label": "B) Note it as a known gap, defer to app shell audit",
"description": "Add a note that skip nav is out of this form's scope and should be verified at app shell level. Completeness: 7/10 \u2014 the question is raised but the settings page may ship with a WCAG 2.4.1 gap if the shell audit doesn't happen alongside this PR."
},
{
"label": "C) Out of scope \u2014 leave unaddressed",
"description": "The plan covers only the settings form; skip nav is a shell concern. No action. Completeness: 5/10 \u2014 risk: if no skip link exists, keyboard users must tab through all nav items on every form interaction cycle."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D8 \u2014 Address the skip navigation link gap? <gstack-qid:plan-design-review-a11y-1>": "A) Add verification task: confirm skip link exists in app shell (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T09:51:59.598Z"
}
]
test/fixtures/design-boundaries-y-calls.json
Vendored
-234
View File
@@ -1,234 +0,0 @@
[
{
"sessionId": "a1ef2828-2d3d-4ad8-a826-48918d812142",
"toolUseId": "toolu_019cY79qXJh8SJhw7qkppXFv",
"questions": [
{
"question": "Pass 1 (Information Architecture) \u2014 Finding 1: The action group has no visual hierarchy. Save, Reset, Cancel, and Export are all styled the same. Users must pause to identify the primary action \u2014 a hierarchy failure at the most critical part of the page. DESIGN.MD already specifies the fix. Apply it to the plan? <gstack-qid:plan-design-review-save-button-primary>",
"header": "Action group",
"options": [
{
"label": "Apply DESIGN.MD tokens (Recommended)",
"description": "Save = filled #1d4ed8 with white text; Reset/Cancel/Export = neutral ghost buttons. Destructive intent communicated via confirmation dialog, not button color. Spec goes into the plan with exact tokens."
},
{
"label": "Add spec without tokens",
"description": "Note that Save should be visually primary but leave exact colors to implementation. Less rigid; risks inconsistency with DESIGN.MD when implemented."
},
{
"label": "Defer \u2014 handle in implementation",
"description": "Leave the gap as-is. The implementer decides at build time. Risk: ships with flat hierarchy because the gap is already the status quo."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"Pass 1 (Information Architecture) \u2014 Finding 1: The action group has no visual hierarchy. Save, Reset, Cancel, and Export are all styled the same. Users must pause to identify the primary action \u2014 a hierarchy failure at the most critical part of the page. DESIGN.MD already specifies the fix. Apply it to the plan? <gstack-qid:plan-design-review-save-button-primary>": "Apply DESIGN.MD tokens (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T11:19:06.151Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "a1ef2828-2d3d-4ad8-a826-48918d812142",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01JWj4Wpnz8GNGJfB86KKHF2",
"questions": [
{
"question": "Pass 2 (Interaction States) \u2014 Finding 2: The plan references 'the existing form skeleton' for initial loading but gives no visual spec. Which fields are skeleton shapes, how wide, how tall? Without this every implementer ships a different skeleton. Add a brief spec to the plan? <gstack-qid:plan-design-review-skeleton-spec>",
"header": "Skeleton spec",
"options": [
{
"label": "Add skeleton spec to plan (Recommended)",
"description": "Specify: two text-field skeleton rects (Display name, Email) + two switch-row skeleton rects (Weekly digest, Product tips), matching 640px max-width, using existing skeleton animation and color tokens. Enough detail that any implementer ships the same shape."
},
{
"label": "Leave as 'existing form skeleton'",
"description": "Trust the existing component to handle it. Risk: existing skeleton may not match the current form structure, and no one catches it until visual QA."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"Pass 2 (Interaction States) \u2014 Finding 2: The plan references 'the existing form skeleton' for initial loading but gives no visual spec. Which fields are skeleton shapes, how wide, how tall? Without this every implementer ships a different skeleton. Add a brief spec to the plan? <gstack-qid:plan-design-review-skeleton-spec>": "Add skeleton spec to plan (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T11:19:40.779Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "a1ef2828-2d3d-4ad8-a826-48918d812142",
"toolUseId": "toolu_011uLPurT75gPkAiTEemoox8",
"questions": [
{
"question": "Pass 5 (Design System) \u2014 Finding 3: Spacing is inconsistent \u2014 24px between some areas, 32px between others, 16px in a third. DESIGN.MD specifies an 8px base: sections 32px, field groups 24px, label-to-input 8px. Apply the consistent scale to the plan? <gstack-qid:plan-design-review-spacing-scale>",
"header": "Spacing scale",
"options": [
{
"label": "Apply DESIGN.MD spacing scale (Recommended)",
"description": "Section gaps = 32px, field group gaps = 24px, label-to-input = 8px. Removes the ad-hoc 16px section gap. Spec written into plan with exact values so implementer has no choices to make."
},
{
"label": "Defer to implementation",
"description": "Let the implementer reconcile spacing at build time. Risk: inconsistent rhythm ships, and QA cycles are needed to catch it post-implementation."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"Pass 5 (Design System) \u2014 Finding 3: Spacing is inconsistent \u2014 24px between some areas, 32px between others, 16px in a third. DESIGN.MD specifies an 8px base: sections 32px, field groups 24px, label-to-input 8px. Apply the consistent scale to the plan? <gstack-qid:plan-design-review-spacing-scale>": "Apply DESIGN.MD spacing scale (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T11:20:05.875Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "a1ef2828-2d3d-4ad8-a826-48918d812142",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01P1d2BhRam8mSsx32x7vmED",
"questions": [
{
"question": "Pass 4+5 (AI Slop / Design System) \u2014 Finding 4: The form currently uses three font sizes: 14px, 16px, and 18px. This is two problems: (1) 14px violates the Universal Rule \u2014 body text below 16px is never allowed; (2) DESIGN.MD specifies exactly two roles: 16px for body/labels, 20px for section headings. Collapse to the DESIGN.MD two-size scale? <gstack-qid:plan-design-review-typography-scale>",
"header": "Typography scale",
"options": [
{
"label": "Apply DESIGN.MD two-size scale (Recommended)",
"description": "Body/form labels/helper text = 16px. Section headings (Profile, Notifications) = 20px. Eliminates 14px (Universal Rule violation) and 18px (DESIGN.MD misalignment). Two sizes instead of three creates stronger, scannable hierarchy."
},
{
"label": "Keep 16px and 18px, just fix 14px",
"description": "Raises 14px to 16px but keeps 18px headings instead of 20px. Fixes the hard rule but stays misaligned with DESIGN.MD typography spec. Three-size scale persists."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"Pass 4+5 (AI Slop / Design System) \u2014 Finding 4: The form currently uses three font sizes: 14px, 16px, and 18px. This is two problems: (1) 14px violates the Universal Rule \u2014 body text below 16px is never allowed; (2) DESIGN.MD specifies exactly two roles: 16px for body/labels, 20px for section headings. Collapse to the DESIGN.MD two-size scale? <gstack-qid:plan-design-review-typography-scale>": "Apply DESIGN.MD two-size scale (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T11:20:30.979Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "a1ef2828-2d3d-4ad8-a826-48918d812142",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Fu3RwRPev6XxSQE9Nfap6B",
"questions": [
{
"question": "Pass 5 (Design System) \u2014 Finding 5: Error text currently has ~3:1 contrast (red on light pink) \u2014 below WCAG AA minimum of 4.5:1. Users with low vision cannot reliably read error messages. DESIGN.MD specifies error.text #991b1b on error.surface #fef2f2 (approximately 5.5:1 contrast, passing AA). Apply the DESIGN.MD error color tokens? <gstack-qid:plan-design-review-error-contrast>",
"header": "Error contrast",
"options": [
{
"label": "Apply DESIGN.MD error tokens (Recommended)",
"description": "error.text: #991b1b on error.surface: #fef2f2. Achieves ~5.5:1 contrast \u2014 passes WCAG AA (4.5:1). Also requires an icon and explicit text per DESIGN.MD (never color alone to communicate status). All three together go in the plan."
},
{
"label": "Defer to implementation",
"description": "Leave the contrast gap noted but unresolved. Risk: a WCAG AA violation ships. Downstream: legal exposure and/or failing audit."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"Pass 5 (Design System) \u2014 Finding 5: Error text currently has ~3:1 contrast (red on light pink) \u2014 below WCAG AA minimum of 4.5:1. Users with low vision cannot reliably read error messages. DESIGN.MD specifies error.text #991b1b on error.surface #fef2f2 (approximately 5.5:1 contrast, passing AA). Apply the DESIGN.MD error color tokens? <gstack-qid:plan-design-review-error-contrast>": "Apply DESIGN.MD error tokens (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T11:21:03.636Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "a1ef2828-2d3d-4ad8-a826-48918d812142",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01D8xGiK8saLKFZwAAKqTZHx",
"questions": [
{
"question": "Pass 5 (Design System) \u2014 Finding 6: Save takes 2\u20135 seconds with no feedback. The page appears frozen. This is the trust-critical moment: the user just committed their preferences. DESIGN.MD specifies an inline spinner beside 'Saving\u2026' inside the disabled Save button, with aria-busy=true and reduced-motion support. Apply this pattern to the plan? <gstack-qid:plan-design-review-save-spinner>",
"header": "Save spinner",
"options": [
{
"label": "Apply DESIGN.MD pending-action pattern (Recommended)",
"description": "Inline spinner inside disabled Save button. Button text changes to 'Saving\u2026'. aria-busy=true on the button. @media (prefers-reduced-motion): spinner hidden, text-only 'Saving\u2026' shown. Resolves the frozen-page trust erosion at step 6 of the user journey."
},
{
"label": "Add a page-level loading overlay instead",
"description": "Blur or disable the entire form while saving. Covers the full wait period but is heavier UX \u2014 user loses context of what they just edited. DESIGN.MD specifies inline pattern; this diverges."
},
{
"label": "Defer to implementation",
"description": "Leave the 2\u20135s frozen page as-is. Risk: users double-click Save, submit twice, or navigate away mid-save."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"Pass 5 (Design System) \u2014 Finding 6: Save takes 2\u20135 seconds with no feedback. The page appears frozen. This is the trust-critical moment: the user just committed their preferences. DESIGN.MD specifies an inline spinner beside 'Saving\u2026' inside the disabled Save button, with aria-busy=true and reduced-motion support. Apply this pattern to the plan? <gstack-qid:plan-design-review-save-spinner>": "Apply DESIGN.MD pending-action pattern (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T11:21:32.773Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "a1ef2828-2d3d-4ad8-a826-48918d812142",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Pfjp1TX1ms3SEbqZR6VWD6",
"questions": [
{
"question": "Pass 6 (Responsive & Accessibility) \u2014 Finding 7: The plan specifies Weekly digest and Product tips as switches, but never names the keyboard interaction. ARIA switch role requires Space to toggle and aria-checked to announce state. Without this spec, an implementer may ship a custom element with no keyboard support \u2014 an accessibility regression. Add the switch keyboard pattern to the plan? <gstack-qid:plan-design-review-switch-keyboard>",
"header": "Switch keyboard",
"options": [
{
"label": "Add switch keyboard spec to plan (Recommended)",
"description": "Weekly digest and Product tips use input[type=checkbox][role=switch] or equivalent. Space toggles the switch. aria-checked reflects current state. State change announces immediately via the existing aria-live region. This is the ARIA switch pattern; costs nothing to specify now."
},
{
"label": "Trust existing switch component",
"description": "If an existing switch/toggle component already handles this, no spec change is needed. Risk: if the component is custom or third-party, keyboard support may not be guaranteed. Requires knowing the existing component's a11y coverage."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"Pass 6 (Responsive & Accessibility) \u2014 Finding 7: The plan specifies Weekly digest and Product tips as switches, but never names the keyboard interaction. ARIA switch role requires Space to toggle and aria-checked to announce state. Without this spec, an implementer may ship a custom element with no keyboard support \u2014 an accessibility regression. Add the switch keyboard pattern to the plan? <gstack-qid:plan-design-review-switch-keyboard>": "Add switch keyboard spec to plan (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T11:21:57.883Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "a1ef2828-2d3d-4ad8-a826-48918d812142",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Bdht9T8YS5rpM4m6m9MJGi",
"questions": [
{
"question": "Design review complete \u2014 6/10 \u2192 9/10. All 7 decisions resolved. The plan is design-complete; next is the required shipping gate. What\u2019s next?",
"header": "Next review",
"options": [
{
"label": "Run /plan-eng-review (Recommended)",
"description": "Eng review is the required shipping gate. It validates architecture, component wiring, tests, and accessibility implementation against the 7 approved design decisions. This design review added interaction specs (spinner, skeleton, switch keyboard), so eng review needs to validate their architectural fit."
},
{
"label": "Skip \u2014 I\u2019ll handle next steps manually",
"description": "End the review workflow here. The improved plan is at the e2e output path; implementation can begin. Run /plan-eng-review later before shipping."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"Design review complete \u2014 6/10 \u2192 9/10. All 7 decisions resolved. The plan is design-complete; next is the required shipping gate. What\u2019s next?": "Run /plan-eng-review (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T11:24:30.829Z"
}
]
test/fixtures/design-compact-primary-aw-call.json
Vendored
-36
View File
@@ -1,36 +0,0 @@
{
"provenance": {
"sourceCommit": "16a5e0cd3b52e5ea7965f0df860eb533d89a47b5",
"publicEvidenceProofSha256": "0ccf49cf70a3d38fe76baf62cc1e7b99dfa09b451869f205238775a7aa793aeb",
"nativeSourceSha256": "639a5c5df0f26c14a88d02b1e8fb5fbfbff9f0bf881a77f25c789772a45df4ac",
"selection": "Exact third acknowledged AskUserQuestion call; no assistant prose or thinking."
},
"call": {
"sessionId": "cb4abdd2-31fe-48c2-b435-489292fed82a",
"toolUseId": "toolu_0154MPCcrEatXz3FPGDYchfB",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D2 — Issue 1: Save has no primary-action hierarchy. Project/branch/task: main, Pass 1 (Information Architecture) of the Account settings plan. ELI10: The header shows Save, Reset, Cancel, Export as four identical buttons. The user came to do one thing: save. When everything shouts, nothing is heard, and a scanning user can hit Reset by mistake. Stakes if we pick wrong: every visit costs a moment of hesitation, and misclicks on Reset trigger a confirmation dialog the user never wanted. Recommendation: 1A because DESIGN.md already names the token and it uses the existing Button component. Completeness: 1A=10/10, 1B=7/10. 1A) Filled primary Save per DESIGN.md (recommended) (human: ~1h / CC: ~5min) ✅ Save becomes the only filled button (#1d4ed8, white text); Reset, Cancel, Export become neutral ghost buttons ✅ Zero new components; Button already has both variants; 44px geometry and disabled styles unchanged ❌ Ghost buttons must still pass 4.5:1 text contrast, which the implementer has to verify. 1B) Keep four equal buttons, rely on position only ✅ No visual change to ship ✅ Save is still first in DOM and tab order ❌ Violates DESIGN.md and leaves the primary action indistinguishable at a glance, especially on 320px where the row wraps. Principle: hierarchy as service, more important means more prominent. Net: 1A is a token swap on an existing component; 1B keeps the known defect. Which option?",
"header": "Issue 1",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "1A) Filled primary Save (recommended)",
"description": "Save: filled #1d4ed8 with white text. Reset/Cancel/Export: neutral ghost. Existing Button variants, no new component."
},
{
"label": "1B) Keep four equal buttons",
"description": "No change. Documented as a declined fix; Pass 1 stays below 10."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D2 — Issue 1: Save has no primary-action hierarchy. Project/branch/task: main, Pass 1 (Information Architecture) of the Account settings plan. ELI10: The header shows Save, Reset, Cancel, Export as four identical buttons. The user came to do one thing: save. When everything shouts, nothing is heard, and a scanning user can hit Reset by mistake. Stakes if we pick wrong: every visit costs a moment of hesitation, and misclicks on Reset trigger a confirmation dialog the user never wanted. Recommendation: 1A because DESIGN.md already names the token and it uses the existing Button component. Completeness: 1A=10/10, 1B=7/10. 1A) Filled primary Save per DESIGN.md (recommended) (human: ~1h / CC: ~5min) ✅ Save becomes the only filled button (#1d4ed8, white text); Reset, Cancel, Export become neutral ghost buttons ✅ Zero new components; Button already has both variants; 44px geometry and disabled styles unchanged ❌ Ghost buttons must still pass 4.5:1 text contrast, which the implementer has to verify. 1B) Keep four equal buttons, rely on position only ✅ No visual change to ship ✅ Save is still first in DOM and tab order ❌ Violates DESIGN.md and leaves the primary action indistinguishable at a glance, especially on 320px where the row wraps. Principle: hierarchy as service, more important means more prominent. Net: 1A is a token swap on an existing component; 1B keeps the known defect. Which option?": "1A) Filled primary Save (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-11T01:03:40.095Z"
}
}
test/fixtures/design-count-ad-v2.json
Vendored
-62
View File
@@ -1,62 +0,0 @@
{
"provenance": {
"sourceHead": "7fac51e9bd8619665960657462ceab2773d142f5",
"label": "ship-source-ad-full-paid-20260909-v2",
"observationSha256": "be4c5fa632f628b7b9d37ecd3c17e6c13268f041beecc160b08da7e62593539f",
"kind": "Exact completed public native calls; pending states and visible panes in unit tests are explicit projections",
"outcome": "First attempt timed out; parent shard later timed out. No retrospective passing credit.",
"scope": "The original prompt did not decline outside voices or follow-on reviews; those user choices are explicit prospectively. This fixture supplies only the completed first design finding."
},
"firstFinding": {
"signature": "420ee23b-d826-4dd2-bffd-6b6ac7870fe4:toolu_01RyjkeyEHbqPSVudqMmcsc6",
"promptSnippet": "Issue 1 D4 — Issue 1 (G1, Visual Hierarchy): how should the plan fix the four identical header buttons? Project/branch/task: main branch; account-settings form plan, action group Save | Reset | Cancel | Export. ELI10: Right now Save, Reset,",
"options": [
{
"index": 1,
"label": "1A) Filled primary Save, ghost secondaries per DESIGN.md (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "1B) Filled Save only; leave the other three as they are"
},
{
"index": 3,
"label": "1C) Defer; keep four equal buttons for this update"
}
],
"observedAtMs": 522337,
"preReview": true,
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "420ee23b-d826-4dd2-bffd-6b6ac7870fe4",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01RyjkeyEHbqPSVudqMmcsc6",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D4 — Issue 1 (G1, Visual Hierarchy): how should the plan fix the four identical header buttons?\nProject/branch/task: main branch; account-settings form plan, action group Save | Reset | Cancel | Export.\nELI10: Right now Save, Reset, Cancel and Export all look the same, so nothing tells the user which button is the one they came for, and the destructive Reset looks as safe as Save. DESIGN.md already says Save is the only filled blue button and the other three are quiet ghost buttons. This is a documented gap; it still needs your approval before it becomes a task.\nStakes if we pick wrong: users hesitate at every visit, and some hit Reset or Cancel when they meant Save.\nRecommendation: 1A because it applies the exact approved token and removes the guesswork with zero new design.\nCompleteness: 1A=10/10, 1B=7/10, 1C=3/10\nPrinciple: Hierarchy as service. What should the user see first? Save.\nNet: a one-token fix that resolves the biggest first-impression problem versus deferring it.",
"header": "Issue 1",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "1A) Filled primary Save, ghost secondaries per DESIGN.md (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Save becomes the sole filled #1d4ed8 button with white text; Reset, Cancel, Export become neutral ghost buttons, order and 44px targets unchanged (human: ~1h / CC: ~5min). ✅ Gives the page its one visual anchor, closing litmus check 2. ❌ Ghost secondaries must still meet 4.5:1 text contrast and show the shared focus ring, so add that to verification."
},
{
"label": "1B) Filled Save only; leave the other three as they are",
"description": "✅ Save stands out with the approved token (human: ~30min / CC: ~3min). ✅ Smallest possible diff to the existing header. ❌ Reset, Cancel, Export keep their current equal weight, which does not match DESIGN.md and leaves three competing mid-weight buttons."
},
{
"label": "1C) Defer; keep four equal buttons for this update",
"description": "✅ No header work in this change. ✅ Nothing new to verify. ❌ Ships a documented DESIGN.md violation and the plan keeps a hierarchy score below 8."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D4 — Issue 1 (G1, Visual Hierarchy): how should the plan fix the four identical header buttons?\nProject/branch/task: main branch; account-settings form plan, action group Save | Reset | Cancel | Export.\nELI10: Right now Save, Reset, Cancel and Export all look the same, so nothing tells the user which button is the one they came for, and the destructive Reset looks as safe as Save. DESIGN.md already says Save is the only filled blue button and the other three are quiet ghost buttons. This is a documented gap; it still needs your approval before it becomes a task.\nStakes if we pick wrong: users hesitate at every visit, and some hit Reset or Cancel when they meant Save.\nRecommendation: 1A because it applies the exact approved token and removes the guesswork with zero new design.\nCompleteness: 1A=10/10, 1B=7/10, 1C=3/10\nPrinciple: Hierarchy as service. What should the user see first? Save.\nNet: a one-token fix that resolves the biggest first-impression problem versus deferring it.": "1A) Filled primary Save, ghost secondaries per DESIGN.md (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T19:10:44.705Z"
}
}
}
test/fixtures/design-count-current-pass.json
Vendored
-377
View File
@@ -1,377 +0,0 @@
{
"source": "67147822f55b911c033617f759dc472d0d348e72",
"calls": [
{
"sessionId": "0283bf0b-80ac-4203-ae8e-a69664c6543b",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01AsCtYnuM2xzLiWk5EfsBHA",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 \u2014 Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: main branch of the plan-review fixture; one-time gstack onboarding prompt fired by skill-start.\nELI10: gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules, so plain requests like \"review this diff\" route to the right skill automatically instead of you typing slash commands. This is a small appended section, committed once. Note: plan mode is active, so if you pick A I will append and commit it only after this review finishes and plan mode exits.\nStakes if we pick wrong: pick A and dislike it, delete a 15-line section; pick B and skills only run when you invoke them by name.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules make the skill set discoverable with zero ongoing cost.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.",
"header": "Routing",
"options": [
{
"label": "Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Natural-language requests auto-route to /investigate, /review, /ship, etc. without memorizing names. \u2705 One 15-line append, committed once, easy to revert. \u274c Adds a section to CLAUDE.md that every session loads into context."
},
{
"label": "No thanks, I'll invoke skills manually",
"description": "\u2705 CLAUDE.md stays exactly as it is, nothing added to context. \u2705 Full manual control over when skills run. \u274c Skills only fire when you type the slash command; no proactive routing."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 \u2014 Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: main branch of the plan-review fixture; one-time gstack onboarding prompt fired by skill-start.\nELI10: gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules, so plain requests like \"review this diff\" route to the right skill automatically instead of you typing slash commands. This is a small appended section, committed once. Note: plan mode is active, so if you pick A I will append and commit it only after this review finishes and plan mode exits.\nStakes if we pick wrong: pick A and dislike it, delete a 15-line section; pick B and skills only run when you invoke them by name.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules make the skill set discoverable with zero ongoing cost.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.": "Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T12:30:19.040Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "0283bf0b-80ac-4203-ae8e-a69664c6543b",
"toolUseId": "toolu_012gzg2N8fMrHTieypYNSXzt",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D2 \u2014 Enable cross-project learnings search?\nProject/branch/task: main branch of the plan-review fixture; first-time gstack learnings configuration.\nELI10: gstack can search learnings from your other projects on this machine to find patterns that might apply here. This stays local (no data leaves your machine). Recommended for solo developers. Skip if you work on multiple client codebases where cross-contamination would be a concern.\nStakes if we pick wrong: enable it on a multi-client machine and a client A pitfall could surface in client B's review; disable it as a solo dev and you re-discover the same quirks per repo.\nRecommendation: A because this is a local-only search and the fixture has no client-separation concern.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.",
"header": "Learnings",
"options": [
{
"label": "Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Pitfalls and patterns logged in other repos on this machine inform this review. \u2705 Local-only read of ~/.gstack; nothing leaves the machine. \u274c Findings from unrelated projects could occasionally be irrelevant noise."
},
{
"label": "Keep learnings project-scoped only",
"description": "\u2705 Strict isolation between codebases; nothing crosses project lines. \u2705 Zero risk of client-to-client contamination. \u274c Every repo starts from zero learnings; same quirks get re-learned per project."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D2 \u2014 Enable cross-project learnings search?\nProject/branch/task: main branch of the plan-review fixture; first-time gstack learnings configuration.\nELI10: gstack can search learnings from your other projects on this machine to find patterns that might apply here. This stays local (no data leaves your machine). Recommended for solo developers. Skip if you work on multiple client codebases where cross-contamination would be a concern.\nStakes if we pick wrong: enable it on a multi-client machine and a client A pitfall could surface in client B's review; disable it as a solo dev and you re-discover the same quirks per repo.\nRecommendation: A because this is a local-only search and the fixture has no client-separation concern.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.": "Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T12:31:21.164Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "0283bf0b-80ac-4203-ae8e-a69664c6543b",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01GrZ2bFMtABqzqpSSYT8YMt",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D3 \u2014 Review all 7 design dimensions, or focus on specific areas?\nProject/branch/task: main; reviewing \"Plan: Settings Page UI redesign\" (PLAN.md) against DESIGN.md.\nELI10: I've rated this plan 6/10 on design completeness. The biggest gaps are: no primary-action hierarchy in the header (Save looks like Reset/Cancel/Export), a 2-5 second Save with no pending indicator, and error text below WCAG AA contrast. Next I run six rated passes plus the decision register. You already said text-only and all seven dimensions, so this confirms the pass scope before I start asking per-issue decisions.\nStakes if we pick wrong: narrowing skips passes where the plan is already strong, saving little; running all seven costs a few extra minutes.\nRecommendation: A because you asked for all seven and the five listed gaps span four different passes anyway.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.",
"header": "Focus",
"options": [
{
"label": "All 7 dimensions (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Every listed gap gets its own decision in the pass it belongs to, nothing slips. \u2705 Matches your stated request for all seven design dimensions. \u274c A few extra minutes on passes (journey, slop) where findings are thin."
},
{
"label": "Focus on the 5 listed gaps only",
"description": "\u2705 Fastest path to approving the five DESIGN.md token fixes. \u2705 Skips storyboard and state-table artifacts you may not need. \u274c Misses the ErrorSummary placement ambiguity and any journey-level finding."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D3 \u2014 Review all 7 design dimensions, or focus on specific areas?\nProject/branch/task: main; reviewing \"Plan: Settings Page UI redesign\" (PLAN.md) against DESIGN.md.\nELI10: I've rated this plan 6/10 on design completeness. The biggest gaps are: no primary-action hierarchy in the header (Save looks like Reset/Cancel/Export), a 2-5 second Save with no pending indicator, and error text below WCAG AA contrast. Next I run six rated passes plus the decision register. You already said text-only and all seven dimensions, so this confirms the pass scope before I start asking per-issue decisions.\nStakes if we pick wrong: narrowing skips passes where the plan is already strong, saving little; running all seven costs a few extra minutes.\nRecommendation: A because you asked for all seven and the five listed gaps span four different passes anyway.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.": "All 7 dimensions (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T12:33:30.976Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "0283bf0b-80ac-4203-ae8e-a69664c6543b",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01MK1W9HLWJiinMAdf1TcgTp",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D4 \u2014 Issue 1: How should Save be distinguished from Reset/Cancel/Export in the header?\nProject/branch/task: main; Pass 1 (Information Architecture) of the Account settings plan.\nELI10: Right now all four header buttons look identical, so a user who just edited their email has to read four labels to find the one that commits the change. Design principle: hierarchy as service (what should the user see first). DESIGN.md already names the treatment: Save is the only filled button, the other three are ghost buttons.\nStakes if we pick wrong: users mis-click Reset or Cancel next to Save, hit a discard dialog, and lose confidence; or Save stays invisible and users leave without saving.\nRecommendation: 1A because it is the exact existing Button variant pair from DESIGN.md and needs no new styles.\nCompleteness: 1A=10/10, 1B=6/10, 1C=3/10",
"header": "Issue 1",
"options": [
{
"label": "1A: Filled primary Save + ghost secondaries per DESIGN.md (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Save uses the existing filled primary variant (#1d4ed8 fill, white text); Reset/Cancel/Export use the existing neutral ghost variant. \u2705 Zero new tokens; white on #1d4ed8 is ~6.7:1, well above AA. \u274c Ghost buttons rely on border/text for affordance, so the ghost variant must keep a visible border (already in the component)."
},
{
"label": "1B: Filled Save, plus move Export to the far right with a gap",
"description": "\u2705 Also separates the read-only Export from the two destructive actions spatially. \u2705 Still uses existing variants. \u274c Changes the approved DOM/visual order and the \u2264640px equal-column row, both of which the plan says to preserve."
},
{
"label": "1C: Keep four identical buttons, bold the Save label only",
"description": "\u2705 Smallest visual change. \u274c Weight alone is a weak cue at 16px and violates DESIGN.md's stated primary treatment. \u274c Still reads as a toolbar in the 3-second scan test."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D4 \u2014 Issue 1: How should Save be distinguished from Reset/Cancel/Export in the header?\nProject/branch/task: main; Pass 1 (Information Architecture) of the Account settings plan.\nELI10: Right now all four header buttons look identical, so a user who just edited their email has to read four labels to find the one that commits the change. Design principle: hierarchy as service (what should the user see first). DESIGN.md already names the treatment: Save is the only filled button, the other three are ghost buttons.\nStakes if we pick wrong: users mis-click Reset or Cancel next to Save, hit a discard dialog, and lose confidence; or Save stays invisible and users leave without saving.\nRecommendation: 1A because it is the exact existing Button variant pair from DESIGN.md and needs no new styles.\nCompleteness: 1A=10/10, 1B=6/10, 1C=3/10": "1A: Filled primary Save + ghost secondaries per DESIGN.md (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T12:33:51.033Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "0283bf0b-80ac-4203-ae8e-a69664c6543b",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01WwJh3dZ2c4VoTV9YzMUNyM",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D5 \u2014 Issue 2: What does the user see during the 2-5 second Save?\nProject/branch/task: main; Pass 2 (Interaction States) of the Account settings plan.\nELI10: After pressing Save nothing on screen changes for up to five seconds, so users double-click, assume it broke, or leave. A pending state has to live somewhere the eye already is: on the button they just pressed. DESIGN.md's established pattern is a small spinner plus the word \"Saving\u2026\" inside the Save button, with aria-busy so screen readers hear it, and no spin under reduced-motion.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a skeleton would blank the form and hide the user's edits; a status-region \"Saving\u2026\" would double-announce and contradict the plan's rule that the live region stays unchanged while pending.\nRecommendation: 2A because it is the existing pattern, keeps focus and edits in place, and reserves width so the header row does not jump when the label changes.\nCompleteness: 2A=10/10, 2B=5/10, 2C=2/10",
"header": "Issue 2",
"options": [
{
"label": "2A: Spinner + \"Saving\u2026\" inside Save button per DESIGN.md (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Existing inline spinner beside \"Saving\u2026\" inside Save; aria-busy=true; aria-disabled + activation guard so it stays focusable; reduced-motion swaps spin for a static indicator. \u2705 Save button min-width equals its widest label state so the action row does not shift. \u274c Feedback is only on the button; the InlineStatus stays unchanged by design, which is intended."
},
{
"label": "2B: Full-form skeleton while saving",
"description": "\u2705 Very visible pending signal. \u274c Hides the user's just-typed values and the status text, exactly what they want to keep seeing. \u274c Not the DESIGN.md pending pattern; skeleton is reserved for initial load."
},
{
"label": "2C: Add \"Saving\u2026\" text to the InlineStatus live region only",
"description": "\u2705 Screen readers hear a change. \u274c Contradicts the plan's accepted rule that the status region stays unchanged while pending. \u274c Sighted users still see a Save button that looks inert."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D5 \u2014 Issue 2: What does the user see during the 2-5 second Save?\nProject/branch/task: main; Pass 2 (Interaction States) of the Account settings plan.\nELI10: After pressing Save nothing on screen changes for up to five seconds, so users double-click, assume it broke, or leave. A pending state has to live somewhere the eye already is: on the button they just pressed. DESIGN.md's established pattern is a small spinner plus the word \"Saving\u2026\" inside the Save button, with aria-busy so screen readers hear it, and no spin under reduced-motion.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a skeleton would blank the form and hide the user's edits; a status-region \"Saving\u2026\" would double-announce and contradict the plan's rule that the live region stays unchanged while pending.\nRecommendation: 2A because it is the existing pattern, keeps focus and edits in place, and reserves width so the header row does not jump when the label changes.\nCompleteness: 2A=10/10, 2B=5/10, 2C=2/10": "2A: Spinner + \"Saving\u2026\" inside Save button per DESIGN.md (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T12:34:30.638Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "0283bf0b-80ac-4203-ae8e-a69664c6543b",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Qa4kQBs29GT2XkZEhMNVsT",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D6 \u2014 Issue 3: How should the form's type sizes be consolidated?\nProject/branch/task: main; Pass 4 (AI Slop Risk) of the Account settings plan.\nELI10: Labels currently use three sizes (14, 16, 18px) that are too close to read as different levels, so the eye gets no help telling a section heading from a field label, and 14px text is below the 16px floor for body text. DESIGN.md defines exactly two type roles: 16px for body, labels and helper text; 20px for section headings. Principle: specificity over vibes, and \"if everything shouts, nothing is heard\".\nStakes if we pick wrong: keeping 14px labels ships sub-16px body text on a form people fill on phones; keeping three sizes keeps the flat hierarchy the plan itself flagged.\nRecommendation: 3A because it is the existing two-role scale and removes the sub-16px text in one move.\nCompleteness: 3A=10/10, 3B=6/10, 3C=4/10",
"header": "Issue 3",
"options": [
{
"label": "3A: Two roles per DESIGN.md: 16px labels/body/helper, 20px h2 (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 All field labels, helper text, status text, error text and button labels at 16px; Profile/Notifications h2 at 20px; h1 keeps its existing size. \u2705 Removes every sub-16px string on the form. \u274c Any label currently at 18px shrinks slightly, so verify the two switch labels still wrap cleanly at 320px."
},
{
"label": "3B: Keep 14px helper text, 16px labels, 20px headings",
"description": "\u2705 Preserves a smaller helper-text size some teams like. \u2705 Headings still get a clear 20px step. \u274c Violates DESIGN.md's two-role rule and the 16px body-text floor on helper/error text."
},
{
"label": "3C: Leave 14/16/18 as-is",
"description": "\u2705 No change to the current form. \u274c Leaves the flat hierarchy and 14px text the plan itself identified as a problem. \u274c Contradicts DESIGN.md."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D6 \u2014 Issue 3: How should the form's type sizes be consolidated?\nProject/branch/task: main; Pass 4 (AI Slop Risk) of the Account settings plan.\nELI10: Labels currently use three sizes (14, 16, 18px) that are too close to read as different levels, so the eye gets no help telling a section heading from a field label, and 14px text is below the 16px floor for body text. DESIGN.md defines exactly two type roles: 16px for body, labels and helper text; 20px for section headings. Principle: specificity over vibes, and \"if everything shouts, nothing is heard\".\nStakes if we pick wrong: keeping 14px labels ships sub-16px body text on a form people fill on phones; keeping three sizes keeps the flat hierarchy the plan itself flagged.\nRecommendation: 3A because it is the existing two-role scale and removes the sub-16px text in one move.\nCompleteness: 3A=10/10, 3B=6/10, 3C=4/10": "3A: Two roles per DESIGN.md: 16px labels/body/helper, 20px h2 (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T12:35:36.340Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "0283bf0b-80ac-4203-ae8e-a69664c6543b",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01LfvCdJau8WWeKksb3acYkx",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D7 \u2014 Issue 4: How should vertical spacing be normalized?\nProject/branch/task: main; Pass 5 (Design System Alignment) of the Account settings plan.\nELI10: The form uses 16px, 24px and 32px between sections with no rule, so the gaps stop meaning anything: a user's eye cannot tell where Profile ends and Notifications begins by spacing alone. DESIGN.md defines an 8px scale with three named gaps: 32px between sections, 24px between field groups, 8px from a label to its input. Principle: related things are visually grouped, nested things visually contained (Gestalt proximity).\nStakes if we pick wrong: keep the random gaps and headings float between sections; pick a tighter scale and the 44px targets crowd on a 320px phone.\nRecommendation: 4A because it is the existing scale and the three values map one-to-one onto the page's three kinds of gap.\nCompleteness: 4A=10/10, 4B=7/10, 4C=3/10",
"header": "Issue 4",
"options": [
{
"label": "4A: Apply DESIGN.md's 8px scale: 32 / 24 / 8 (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 32px between header, status area, Profile and Notifications; 24px between field groups inside a fieldset; 8px label-to-input. \u2705 More space above each h2 (32) than below it (8 to its first label), so headings sit with their content. \u274c Some current 16px gaps grow, so total page height increases slightly on phones."
},
{
"label": "4B: Normalize to 24px everywhere",
"description": "\u2705 One number, trivially consistent. \u2705 Fits the 8px base. \u274c Loses the section/field-group distinction, so Profile and Notifications read as one continuous list; not the DESIGN.md scale."
},
{
"label": "4C: Leave 16/24/32 as currently implemented",
"description": "\u2705 No change. \u274c Keeps the inconsistency the plan itself flagged and contradicts DESIGN.md. \u274c Headings keep floating between sections."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D7 \u2014 Issue 4: How should vertical spacing be normalized?\nProject/branch/task: main; Pass 5 (Design System Alignment) of the Account settings plan.\nELI10: The form uses 16px, 24px and 32px between sections with no rule, so the gaps stop meaning anything: a user's eye cannot tell where Profile ends and Notifications begins by spacing alone. DESIGN.md defines an 8px scale with three named gaps: 32px between sections, 24px between field groups, 8px from a label to its input. Principle: related things are visually grouped, nested things visually contained (Gestalt proximity).\nStakes if we pick wrong: keep the random gaps and headings float between sections; pick a tighter scale and the 44px targets crowd on a 320px phone.\nRecommendation: 4A because it is the existing scale and the three values map one-to-one onto the page's three kinds of gap.\nCompleteness: 4A=10/10, 4B=7/10, 4C=3/10": "4A: Apply DESIGN.md's 8px scale: 32 / 24 / 8 (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T12:36:17.982Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "0283bf0b-80ac-4203-ae8e-a69664c6543b",
"toolUseId": "toolu_013xFMVNR89fN1ydvhX2Pkco",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D8 \u2014 Issue 5: How should the error message color be fixed?\nProject/branch/task: main; Pass 6 (Responsive & Accessibility) of the Account settings plan.\nELI10: The current red-on-pink error text measures about 3:1, below the 4.5:1 WCAG AA minimum for text, so people with low vision or a dim phone screen may not be able to read the one message telling them why their save failed. DESIGN.md's error tokens (#991b1b on #fef2f2) measure 7.60:1, and it also requires an icon plus explicit wording so the state is never color-only. Principle: accessibility is not optional; trust is earned at the pixel level.\nStakes if we pick wrong: ship an AA failure on the most important message on the page; or fix contrast but keep a color-only signal for colorblind users.\nRecommendation: 5A because it is the exact DESIGN.md token pair, verified at 7.60:1, and includes the non-color cue.\nCompleteness: 5A=10/10, 5B=6/10, 5C=2/10",
"header": "Issue 5",
"options": [
{
"label": "5A: error.text #991b1b on error.surface #fef2f2, icon + explicit text (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Measured 7.60:1, clears AA (4.5:1) and AAA (7:1) for the field messages, ErrorSummary and the network error area. \u2705 Leading error icon (aria-hidden) plus wording like \"Email address is required\" so the state does not depend on color. \u274c Slightly darker red than the current one; verify it against the existing ghost-button border in the Retry sibling."
},
{
"label": "5B: Darken only the text until it reaches 4.5:1, keep current pink",
"description": "\u2705 Minimal change to the existing surface. \u2705 Meets AA at the floor. \u274c Off-token color that diverges from DESIGN.md and needs its own measurement; no icon means status still leans on color."
},
{
"label": "5C: Leave the ~3:1 error styling",
"description": "\u2705 No change. \u274c Ships a WCAG AA failure on the message users most need to read. \u274c Contradicts DESIGN.md's \"all text must meet WCAG AA\"."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D8 \u2014 Issue 5: How should the error message color be fixed?\nProject/branch/task: main; Pass 6 (Responsive & Accessibility) of the Account settings plan.\nELI10: The current red-on-pink error text measures about 3:1, below the 4.5:1 WCAG AA minimum for text, so people with low vision or a dim phone screen may not be able to read the one message telling them why their save failed. DESIGN.md's error tokens (#991b1b on #fef2f2) measure 7.60:1, and it also requires an icon plus explicit wording so the state is never color-only. Principle: accessibility is not optional; trust is earned at the pixel level.\nStakes if we pick wrong: ship an AA failure on the most important message on the page; or fix contrast but keep a color-only signal for colorblind users.\nRecommendation: 5A because it is the exact DESIGN.md token pair, verified at 7.60:1, and includes the non-color cue.\nCompleteness: 5A=10/10, 5B=6/10, 5C=2/10": "5A: error.text #991b1b on error.surface #fef2f2, icon + explicit text (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T12:37:05.673Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "0283bf0b-80ac-4203-ae8e-a69664c6543b",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01BvWcEpYGGfcSSy9rK68Tnf",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D9 \u2014 Issue 6: Where should the ErrorSummary render when validation fails?\nProject/branch/task: main; Pass 7 (Unresolved decisions) of the Account settings plan.\nELI10: When Save fails validation, DESIGN.md says errors appear beside the fields AND in a linked summary, with focus moving to the first invalid field. But the page's DOM-order diagram never shows where that summary lives. If the existing ErrorSummary component already has a fixed slot in the current form, keep it and just record it; if not, it needs a home. Principle: seeing the system, not the screen; the error path is part of the layout.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a summary rendered below the fieldsets is off-screen on a phone at the moment Save appears to do nothing; a summary above the h1 breaks the heading order the plan protects.\nRecommendation: 6A because it sits where the user's eye already is after pressing Save and where DESIGN.md already puts network errors.\nCompleteness: 6A=10/10, 6B=7/10, 6C=4/10",
"header": "Issue 6",
"options": [
{
"label": "6A: In the existing status/error area, below the action row, above Profile (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Directly beneath Save, next to the InlineStatus, above the first fieldset; same slot DESIGN.md uses for network errors. \u2705 Each summary item links to its field via href/aria-describedby; focus still goes to the first invalid field, so the summary is not a second live region. \u274c If the existing component is currently mounted elsewhere, moving it is a small refactor (human: ~1h / CC: ~5min)."
},
{
"label": "6B: Keep wherever the existing ErrorSummary component mounts today",
"description": "\u2705 Zero layout change; honors \"preserve component behavior\". \u2705 No refactor. \u274c Leaves the position undocumented in the plan, so the 320px visibility question stays open until someone checks the code."
},
{
"label": "6C: Below the Notifications fieldset, near the bottom of the form",
"description": "\u2705 Keeps the header compact. \u274c Off-screen on phones at the moment of failure; user sees Save \"do nothing\". \u274c Save lives at the top, so the summary is far from the trigger."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D9 \u2014 Issue 6: Where should the ErrorSummary render when validation fails?\nProject/branch/task: main; Pass 7 (Unresolved decisions) of the Account settings plan.\nELI10: When Save fails validation, DESIGN.md says errors appear beside the fields AND in a linked summary, with focus moving to the first invalid field. But the page's DOM-order diagram never shows where that summary lives. If the existing ErrorSummary component already has a fixed slot in the current form, keep it and just record it; if not, it needs a home. Principle: seeing the system, not the screen; the error path is part of the layout.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a summary rendered below the fieldsets is off-screen on a phone at the moment Save appears to do nothing; a summary above the h1 breaks the heading order the plan protects.\nRecommendation: 6A because it sits where the user's eye already is after pressing Save and where DESIGN.md already puts network errors.\nCompleteness: 6A=10/10, 6B=7/10, 6C=4/10": "6A: In the existing status/error area, below the action row, above Profile (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T12:37:59.358Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "0283bf0b-80ac-4203-ae8e-a69664c6543b",
"toolUseId": "toolu_013v56sRKMjQLpWC7CwXPcxQ",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D10 \u2014 Issue 7: How do the status text and its Retry sibling lay out at 320px?\nProject/branch/task: main; Pass 7 (Unresolved decisions) of the Account settings plan.\nELI10: After a network failure the status area shows an error sentence plus a separate 44px \"Retry\" button beside it. The plan proves the header action row fits a 320px phone but never says what this error row does there. If both stay on one line, either the text gets crushed into a column two words wide or Retry shrinks below 44px. Principle: responsive is not \"stacked on mobile\", each viewport gets an intentional layout.\nStakes if we pick wrong: the Retry target on the failure path, the moment users are most frustrated, becomes hard to tap.\nRecommendation: 7A because it keeps text and button as siblings (so Retry stays outside the live region) while guaranteeing the 44px target at every width.\nCompleteness: 7A=10/10, 7B=6/10, 7C=5/10",
"header": "Issue 7",
"options": [
{
"label": "7A: Inline above 640px; at \u2264640px Retry wraps to its own full-width row below the text (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Above 640px: text and Retry on one line, Retry right-aligned, 8px gap. \u2705 At \u2264640px: Retry wraps below the message as a full-width 44px ghost button; icon and text keep their 8px gap; no horizontal scroll at 320px. \u274c Two layout rules for one row; the wrap must be tested at 320px with a long error sentence."
},
{
"label": "7B: Always inline, let the text wrap around a fixed-width Retry",
"description": "\u2705 One rule at all widths. \u2705 Retry always visible beside the text. \u274c At 320px the message column is roughly 200px wide; a two-sentence error becomes five short lines."
},
{
"label": "7C: Always stack Retry below the text at every width",
"description": "\u2705 Simplest single rule and always 44px. \u2705 Long messages read at full measure. \u274c Above 640px it wastes a row and separates Retry from the sentence it belongs to."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D10 \u2014 Issue 7: How do the status text and its Retry sibling lay out at 320px?\nProject/branch/task: main; Pass 7 (Unresolved decisions) of the Account settings plan.\nELI10: After a network failure the status area shows an error sentence plus a separate 44px \"Retry\" button beside it. The plan proves the header action row fits a 320px phone but never says what this error row does there. If both stay on one line, either the text gets crushed into a column two words wide or Retry shrinks below 44px. Principle: responsive is not \"stacked on mobile\", each viewport gets an intentional layout.\nStakes if we pick wrong: the Retry target on the failure path, the moment users are most frustrated, becomes hard to tap.\nRecommendation: 7A because it keeps text and button as siblings (so Retry stays outside the live region) while guaranteeing the 44px target at every width.\nCompleteness: 7A=10/10, 7B=6/10, 7C=5/10": "7A: Inline above 640px; at \u2264640px Retry wraps to its own full-width row below the text (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T12:38:26.962Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "0283bf0b-80ac-4203-ae8e-a69664c6543b",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01137jbiM1CrXD99Bf3ehyaK",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D11 \u2014 Issue 8: What is the Export download filename?\nProject/branch/task: main; Pass 7 (Unresolved decisions) of the Account settings plan.\nELI10: Export saves the user's preferences as a JSON file, but nothing says what the file is called. Users judge a download by its name in the Downloads folder a week later; \"export.json\" tells them nothing. Principle: trust is earned at the pixel level, and a filename is a pixel the user keeps.\nStakes if we pick wrong: low, but an anonymous filename is the kind of carelessness Ive says people can sense; a filename with the user's email leaks PII into shared Downloads folders.\nRecommendation: 8A because it names the product area and the date, sorts chronologically, and contains no personal data.\nCompleteness: 8A=10/10, 8B=7/10, 8C=3/10",
"header": "Issue 8",
"options": [
{
"label": "8A: account-settings-YYYY-MM-DD.json (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Self-describing and date-stamped in the user's local date, so repeated exports sort and never overwrite. \u2705 No personal data in the filename; safe on shared machines. \u274c Two exports on the same day collide; the browser appends (1), which is acceptable."
},
{
"label": "8B: account-settings.json (no date)",
"description": "\u2705 Shortest, stable name; easy to reference in support docs. \u2705 No personal data. \u274c Repeated exports pile up as account-settings (1).json, (2).json with no way to tell which is newest."
},
{
"label": "8C: Leave to the implementer",
"description": "\u2705 No decision needed now. \u274c Engineer ships whatever the JSON helper defaults to, typically \"download.json\". \u274c Not a design outcome anyone chose."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D11 \u2014 Issue 8: What is the Export download filename?\nProject/branch/task: main; Pass 7 (Unresolved decisions) of the Account settings plan.\nELI10: Export saves the user's preferences as a JSON file, but nothing says what the file is called. Users judge a download by its name in the Downloads folder a week later; \"export.json\" tells them nothing. Principle: trust is earned at the pixel level, and a filename is a pixel the user keeps.\nStakes if we pick wrong: low, but an anonymous filename is the kind of carelessness Ive says people can sense; a filename with the user's email leaks PII into shared Downloads folders.\nRecommendation: 8A because it names the product area and the date, sorts chronologically, and contains no personal data.\nCompleteness: 8A=10/10, 8B=7/10, 8C=3/10": "8A: account-settings-YYYY-MM-DD.json (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T12:38:52.561Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "0283bf0b-80ac-4203-ae8e-a69664c6543b",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01GLSSTGGWDMaFCdvVPLgtRS",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D12 \u2014 TODO: app-wide typeface decision (replace system-ui)?\nProject/branch/task: main; post-pass TODO proposals for the Account settings plan.\nELI10: The settings form inherits the app's default system font. That is fine for this alignment pass, but it is an app-level typography gap that this plan cannot fix alone. This asks only whether to record it as debt; it changes nothing in the current plan.\nStakes if we pick wrong: record it and it costs one TODO entry; skip it and the observation is lost until someone notices again.\nRecommendation: A because it is real debt with a clear owner path (/design-consultation) and zero cost to record.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.",
"header": "TODO",
"options": [
{
"label": "A: Add to TODOS.md (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Debt is recorded with context so it is picked up as its own scope later. \u2705 Zero change to this plan. \u274c TODOS.md does not exist yet; it gets created after plan mode exits, as a follow-up write."
},
{
"label": "B: Skip, not valuable enough",
"description": "\u2705 Nothing to maintain. \u2705 Keeps the review output focused on this form. \u274c The typography observation is lost."
},
{
"label": "C: Build it now in this PR",
"description": "\u2705 Fixes the tell immediately. \u274c Contradicts the plan's explicit \"retain system-ui\" and \"no visual exploration\" rules. \u274c An app-wide font change does not belong in a one-form alignment PR."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D12 \u2014 TODO: app-wide typeface decision (replace system-ui)?\nProject/branch/task: main; post-pass TODO proposals for the Account settings plan.\nELI10: The settings form inherits the app's default system font. That is fine for this alignment pass, but it is an app-level typography gap that this plan cannot fix alone. This asks only whether to record it as debt; it changes nothing in the current plan.\nStakes if we pick wrong: record it and it costs one TODO entry; skip it and the observation is lost until someone notices again.\nRecommendation: A because it is real debt with a clear owner path (/design-consultation) and zero cost to record.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.": "A: Add to TODOS.md (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-15T12:39:26.202Z"
}
]
}
test/fixtures/design-count-sep20-calls.json
Vendored
-341
View File
@@ -1,341 +0,0 @@
{
"provenance": {
"source": "2026-09-20 shared-libs ship periodic plan-design-finding-count retry",
"sourceLogSha256": "a7604146887bf04ef50aad495463c3bc639a24bd7cafa27db3eb1843490b528f",
"kind": "Exact completed public native question calls from the failed observation; no hidden reasoning.",
"outcome": "ceiling_reached",
"reviewCount": 8,
"expectedCeiling": 7,
"unseededHeaders": [
"Issue 3",
"Issue 7",
"Issue 8"
]
},
"calls": [
{
"sessionId": "a55ade1a-0cdd-4811-9479-29db6282ad87",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01YA8ZvjXcqHcbzLWit9wVtY",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: main branch of the settings-page plan fixture; one-time gstack onboarding before the design review.\nELI10: gstack skills work best when CLAUDE.md tells the agent which slash skill matches which kind of request (bugs → /investigate, ship → /ship, and so on). Without it you invoke each skill by hand. This is a one-time setup prompt per project.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Wrong pick means either an unwanted CLAUDE.md section, or repeatedly typing skill names manually. Both are easy to reverse.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules save typing and make the review pipeline discoverable; note that plan mode blocks file edits, so the CLAUDE.md append and commit would happen after plan mode ends.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: convenience of auto-routing vs keeping CLAUDE.md untouched.",
"header": "Routing",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Add routing rules (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Skills auto-route from natural requests, so you stop memorizing slash names. ✅ Makes the CEO/design/eng review pipeline discoverable to anyone on the repo. ❌ Adds a ~15-line section to CLAUDE.md; the append and commit must wait until plan mode exits."
},
{
"label": "No thanks, invoke manually",
"description": "✅ CLAUDE.md stays exactly as checked in, nothing extra to review. ✅ You keep full control over when a skill runs. ❌ Every skill has to be typed by name each time, and this prompt won't repeat for this project."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: main branch of the settings-page plan fixture; one-time gstack onboarding before the design review.\nELI10: gstack skills work best when CLAUDE.md tells the agent which slash skill matches which kind of request (bugs → /investigate, ship → /ship, and so on). Without it you invoke each skill by hand. This is a one-time setup prompt per project.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Wrong pick means either an unwanted CLAUDE.md section, or repeatedly typing skill names manually. Both are easy to reverse.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules save typing and make the review pipeline discoverable; note that plan mode blocks file edits, so the CLAUDE.md append and commit would happen after plan mode ends.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: convenience of auto-routing vs keeping CLAUDE.md untouched.": "Add routing rules (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-20T18:36:49.788Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "a55ade1a-0cdd-4811-9479-29db6282ad87",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01FGGnCKa72C27F8FoZgGqay",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D2 — Let gstack search learnings from your other projects on this machine?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, settings-page plan review; one-time gstack learnings setup.\nELI10: gstack saves small lessons from each session (pitfalls, project quirks). It can search only this project's lessons, or also lessons from other repos on this machine. Nothing leaves your computer either way.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Cross-project on a multi-client machine could surface one client's quirks in another's review; project-only means fewer hints.\nRecommendation: A because this is a solo fixture repo with no client separation concern.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: more reusable hints vs strict per-repo isolation.",
"header": "Learnings",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Enable cross-project (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Reviews can reuse patterns learned in your other repos on this machine. ✅ Stays local; no data leaves the machine. ❌ Lessons from unrelated codebases may occasionally surface as noise."
},
{
"label": "Project-scoped only",
"description": "✅ Strict isolation, right for machines that hold multiple client codebases. ✅ Zero chance of cross-repo hints appearing. ❌ Each repo starts from zero and learns more slowly."
}
]
},
{
"question": "D3 — Review all 7 design dimensions, or focus on specific ones?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, PLAN.md settings-page redesign rated 6/10 on design completeness.\nELI10: The plan already nails behavior. Its five listed gaps (Save not visually primary, uneven spacing, failing error contrast, three label sizes, no Save spinner) are the biggest holes, and each maps to a DESIGN.md token but still needs your call. You asked for all seven dimensions; I'll confirm that here so I don't narrow scope on my own.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Focusing too narrowly leaves a gap unreviewed; going wide costs a few more decision prompts.\nRecommendation: A because you asked for all seven and the five gaps span hierarchy, spacing, color, type, and motion anyway.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10\nNet: full coverage with a handful more prompts vs a shorter session that only fixes the five named gaps.",
"header": "Focus",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "All 7 dimensions (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Every pass gets a score and a fix path, including state coverage and the journey storyboard. ✅ Catches anything the five named gaps missed, such as the missing Export error state detail. ❌ More decision prompts, roughly one per unresolved finding."
},
{
"label": "Only the five named gaps",
"description": "✅ Fastest path: five decisions, then done. ✅ Each already has a DESIGN.md token to apply. ❌ Passes 2, 3, and 7 get a quick score only, so unlisted gaps stay unreviewed."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D2 — Let gstack search learnings from your other projects on this machine?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, settings-page plan review; one-time gstack learnings setup.\nELI10: gstack saves small lessons from each session (pitfalls, project quirks). It can search only this project's lessons, or also lessons from other repos on this machine. Nothing leaves your computer either way.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Cross-project on a multi-client machine could surface one client's quirks in another's review; project-only means fewer hints.\nRecommendation: A because this is a solo fixture repo with no client separation concern.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: more reusable hints vs strict per-repo isolation.": "Enable cross-project (recommended)",
"D3 — Review all 7 design dimensions, or focus on specific ones?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, PLAN.md settings-page redesign rated 6/10 on design completeness.\nELI10: The plan already nails behavior. Its five listed gaps (Save not visually primary, uneven spacing, failing error contrast, three label sizes, no Save spinner) are the biggest holes, and each maps to a DESIGN.md token but still needs your call. You asked for all seven dimensions; I'll confirm that here so I don't narrow scope on my own.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Focusing too narrowly leaves a gap unreviewed; going wide costs a few more decision prompts.\nRecommendation: A because you asked for all seven and the five gaps span hierarchy, spacing, color, type, and motion anyway.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10\nNet: full coverage with a handful more prompts vs a shorter session that only fixes the five named gaps.": "All 7 dimensions (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-20T18:38:37.833Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "a55ade1a-0cdd-4811-9479-29db6282ad87",
"toolUseId": "toolu_014BD1k8vjdBsHwzvDGegQRE",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D4 — Issue 1: How should the header action group signal that Save is the primary action?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, PLAN.md settings form; Pass 1 Information Architecture, gap G1.\nELI10: Save, Reset, Cancel and Export currently look identical. A user who just edited their email has to read all four labels to find the one that stores their change. Making one button visually dominant answers \"what do I see first\" without adding anything to the page. Principle: hierarchy as service; if everything shouts, nothing is heard.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Ship four look-alike buttons and users hesitate at the moment of highest intent, or misclick Reset next to Save.\nRecommendation: 1A because DESIGN.md already names the tokens (filled #1d4ed8 Save, neutral ghost for the other three) and the Button component has those variants, so this is a zero-invention fix.\nCompleteness: 1A=10/10, 1B=8/10, 1C=2/10\nNet: one filled button with three ghosts uses the approved system; anything else is new visual exploration the plan explicitly excludes.",
"header": "Issue 1",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "1A Apply DESIGN.md tokens (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Save becomes the only filled button (#1d4ed8, white text); Reset, Cancel, Export become neutral ghost buttons with existing variants (human: ~30min / CC: ~3min). ✅ White-on-#1d4ed8 passes AA and matches the focus ring, so the hierarchy reads for color-blind users too. ❌ Export loses visual weight, which is correct for a rarely used action but worth confirming."
},
{
"label": "1B Filled Save plus outlined Export",
"description": "✅ Gives Export a middle tier so power users find the download faster. ✅ Still makes Save the single dominant control. ❌ Adds a third button style DESIGN.md does not define, which counts as visual exploration the plan rules out (human: ~1h / CC: ~5min)."
},
{
"label": "1C Keep four identical buttons",
"description": "✅ No visual change to review or test. ✅ Zero implementation cost. ❌ Leaves the plan violating DESIGN.md and users scanning four labels at the moment they want to save."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D4 — Issue 1: How should the header action group signal that Save is the primary action?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, PLAN.md settings form; Pass 1 Information Architecture, gap G1.\nELI10: Save, Reset, Cancel and Export currently look identical. A user who just edited their email has to read all four labels to find the one that stores their change. Making one button visually dominant answers \"what do I see first\" without adding anything to the page. Principle: hierarchy as service; if everything shouts, nothing is heard.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Ship four look-alike buttons and users hesitate at the moment of highest intent, or misclick Reset next to Save.\nRecommendation: 1A because DESIGN.md already names the tokens (filled #1d4ed8 Save, neutral ghost for the other three) and the Button component has those variants, so this is a zero-invention fix.\nCompleteness: 1A=10/10, 1B=8/10, 1C=2/10\nNet: one filled button with three ghosts uses the approved system; anything else is new visual exploration the plan explicitly excludes.": "1A Apply DESIGN.md tokens (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-20T18:39:09.487Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "a55ade1a-0cdd-4811-9479-29db6282ad87",
"toolUseId": "toolu_019FsvN42ar1ctGn5M5sEUox",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D5 — Issue 2: What does the user see during the 2 to 5 second Save?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, PLAN.md settings form; Pass 2 state coverage, gap G5.\nELI10: Today the page freezes after clicking Save with no sign anything happened, so people click again or assume it broke. The plan lists \"spinner or skeleton\" as options but never picks one. The fix has to fit the accepted rule that pending feedback belongs to the Save button and the status live region stays quiet. Principle: visibility of system status (Nielsen); users muddle through, so the signal must be where their eyes already are.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A skeleton hides the fields the user just typed into and breaks \"preserve unsaved values\"; a status-line message double-announces to screen readers.\nRecommendation: 2A because DESIGN.md already defines the pattern, the Export button uses the same one, and it keeps the live region rule intact.\nCompleteness: 2A=10/10, 2B=5/10, 2C=4/10\nNet: reuse the established in-button spinner vs invent a form-wide loading treatment that contradicts two accepted rules.",
"header": "Issue 2",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "2A In-button spinner beside “Saving…” (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Existing DESIGN.md pattern: inline spinner plus “Saving…” inside the aria-disabled Save button, aria-busy=true, static text under reduced motion (human: ~1h / CC: ~5min). ✅ Matches Export's pending state, so the two request buttons behave identically. ❌ The button label changes width slightly; reserve min-width so the row does not reflow."
},
{
"label": "2B Skeleton over the form while saving",
"description": "✅ Very obvious that something is happening. ✅ Reuses the existing loading skeleton component. ❌ Hides the values the user just entered and fights the accepted \"preserve unsaved values\" and \"do not move focus\" rules (human: ~2h / CC: ~10min)."
},
{
"label": "2C “Saving…” text in the InlineStatus line",
"description": "✅ One place for all status text. ✅ Trivial to implement. ❌ Directly contradicts the accepted rule that the live region stays unchanged while pending, and double-announces for screen reader users."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D5 — Issue 2: What does the user see during the 2 to 5 second Save?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, PLAN.md settings form; Pass 2 state coverage, gap G5.\nELI10: Today the page freezes after clicking Save with no sign anything happened, so people click again or assume it broke. The plan lists \"spinner or skeleton\" as options but never picks one. The fix has to fit the accepted rule that pending feedback belongs to the Save button and the status live region stays quiet. Principle: visibility of system status (Nielsen); users muddle through, so the signal must be where their eyes already are.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A skeleton hides the fields the user just typed into and breaks \"preserve unsaved values\"; a status-line message double-announces to screen readers.\nRecommendation: 2A because DESIGN.md already defines the pattern, the Export button uses the same one, and it keeps the live region rule intact.\nCompleteness: 2A=10/10, 2B=5/10, 2C=4/10\nNet: reuse the established in-button spinner vs invent a form-wide loading treatment that contradicts two accepted rules.": "2A In-button spinner beside “Saving…” (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-20T18:40:10.840Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "a55ade1a-0cdd-4811-9479-29db6282ad87",
"toolUseId": "toolu_011nY7e1xqcLFfwyBDn9DGsT",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D6 — Issue 3: What do the network-failure messages say for Save, Export, and initial load?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, PLAN.md settings form; Pass 2 state coverage, unlisted gap.\nELI10: The plan says a failed save, export, or load shows \"the error message\" next to a Retry button, but nobody has written the message. Left open, the engineer ships \"Something went wrong\" or a raw HTTP error. Good error copy says what happened, that the user's typing is safe, and what to do next. Principle: help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors (Nielsen); replenish the goodwill reservoir by telling them their work is safe.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Vague copy makes users think their edits were lost and retype or abandon; technical copy erodes trust.\nRecommendation: 3A because it fixes exact strings now in the plan's own voice (utility language, one sentence each) and confirms edits are kept, so implementation and tests have a single source.\nCompleteness: 3A=10/10, 3B=6/10, 3C=3/10\nNet: three short sentences decided now vs whatever the engineer types under deadline.",
"header": "Issue 3",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "3A Specify the three strings now (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Save: “Couldn’t save your changes. Your edits are still here.” Export: “Couldn’t prepare your export.” Load: “Couldn’t load your settings.” each with the existing error icon and a sibling Retry (human: ~20min / CC: ~2min). ✅ Names the recovery path and confirms unsaved values survive, matching the accepted preserve-edits rule. ❌ Copy may still get a wording pass from whoever owns product voice."
},
{
"label": "3B One generic string for all three",
"description": "✅ Single string to translate and test: “Something went wrong. Try again.” ✅ Fastest to implement. ❌ Does not tell the user whether their edits survived, which is the one thing they want to know after a failed save."
},
{
"label": "3C Leave copy to implementation",
"description": "✅ No decision needed now. ✅ Zero plan edits. ❌ The plan stays ambiguous on a user-visible string and the QA pass has nothing to assert against."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D6 — Issue 3: What do the network-failure messages say for Save, Export, and initial load?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, PLAN.md settings form; Pass 2 state coverage, unlisted gap.\nELI10: The plan says a failed save, export, or load shows \"the error message\" next to a Retry button, but nobody has written the message. Left open, the engineer ships \"Something went wrong\" or a raw HTTP error. Good error copy says what happened, that the user's typing is safe, and what to do next. Principle: help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors (Nielsen); replenish the goodwill reservoir by telling them their work is safe.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Vague copy makes users think their edits were lost and retype or abandon; technical copy erodes trust.\nRecommendation: 3A because it fixes exact strings now in the plan's own voice (utility language, one sentence each) and confirms edits are kept, so implementation and tests have a single source.\nCompleteness: 3A=10/10, 3B=6/10, 3C=3/10\nNet: three short sentences decided now vs whatever the engineer types under deadline.": "3A Specify the three strings now (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-20T18:40:54.075Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "a55ade1a-0cdd-4811-9479-29db6282ad87",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01H8kFd8awCUoExFGLT8Z5Nb",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D7 — Issue 4: Which vertical spacing rhythm should the form use?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, PLAN.md settings form; Pass 5 design system alignment, gap G2.\nELI10: Section gaps are currently 24px in some places, 32px in others, and 16px in a third. Uneven gaps make related things look unrelated and vice versa, so the eye cannot tell where Profile ends and Notifications begins. DESIGN.md already sets an 8px scale: 32px between sections, 24px between field groups, 8px from label to input. Principle: Gestalt proximity; spacing is how the layout says \"these belong together\".\nStakes if we pick wrong: Users misread grouping, and every future field added to the form inherits a different gap.\nRecommendation: 4A because the tokens exist and the fix is three CSS values on the existing fieldset, field, and label rules.\nCompleteness: 4A=10/10, 4B=7/10, 4C=2/10\nNet: adopt the approved 32/24/8 scale vs keep today's mixture or invent a tighter one.",
"header": "Issue 4",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "4A Apply DESIGN.md 32/24/8 scale (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Sections 32px apart, field groups 24px, label-to-input 8px, all multiples of the 8px base (human: ~30min / CC: ~3min). ✅ Also applies to the header: 24px from action group to InlineStatus and 32px from status to the first fieldset, so the whole column shares one rhythm. ❌ Slightly taller page than the 16px variant on a 320px viewport; no horizontal impact."
},
{
"label": "4B Tighter 24/16/8 scale",
"description": "✅ Shorter page on small screens. ✅ Still a consistent 8px-based rhythm. ❌ Departs from the DESIGN.md tokens, so this form would differ from every other settings surface that follows them (human: ~30min / CC: ~3min)."
},
{
"label": "4C Leave spacing as is",
"description": "✅ No CSS change. ✅ No visual regression risk on the current layout. ❌ Keeps three different section gaps and the plan stays out of line with DESIGN.md."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D7 — Issue 4: Which vertical spacing rhythm should the form use?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, PLAN.md settings form; Pass 5 design system alignment, gap G2.\nELI10: Section gaps are currently 24px in some places, 32px in others, and 16px in a third. Uneven gaps make related things look unrelated and vice versa, so the eye cannot tell where Profile ends and Notifications begins. DESIGN.md already sets an 8px scale: 32px between sections, 24px between field groups, 8px from label to input. Principle: Gestalt proximity; spacing is how the layout says \"these belong together\".\nStakes if we pick wrong: Users misread grouping, and every future field added to the form inherits a different gap.\nRecommendation: 4A because the tokens exist and the fix is three CSS values on the existing fieldset, field, and label rules.\nCompleteness: 4A=10/10, 4B=7/10, 4C=2/10\nNet: adopt the approved 32/24/8 scale vs keep today's mixture or invent a tighter one.": "4A Apply DESIGN.md 32/24/8 scale (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-20T18:42:33.756Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "a55ade1a-0cdd-4811-9479-29db6282ad87",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Hn3gx75i3mGztAye3ZFXBK",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D8 — Issue 5: How many text sizes should the form use, and which?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, PLAN.md settings form; Pass 5 design system alignment, gap G4.\nELI10: Labels currently come in 14px, 16px, and 18px with no rule for which is which, so size stops meaning anything. DESIGN.md defines two roles: 16px for body, labels, and helper text, and 20px for the Profile and Notifications headings. Fewer sizes with a clear jump makes the hierarchy readable at a glance. Principle: flat or arbitrary type hierarchy is noise; users scan, and size is the first cue they read.\nStakes if we pick wrong: 14px text fails the plan's own no-small-type rule on a 320px phone, and three sizes leave every new field guessing.\nRecommendation: 5A because it matches DESIGN.md exactly, drops the 14px size that hurts legibility, and the h1 keeps the existing shell size.\nCompleteness: 5A=10/10, 5B=6/10, 5C=2/10\nNet: two roles from the approved system vs a bespoke three-tier scale that needs its own rulebook.",
"header": "Issue 5",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "5A Two roles: 16px text, 20px section headings (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Labels, inputs, helper text, status, error copy and button labels all 16px; Profile and Notifications h2 at 20px; h1 keeps the shell size (human: ~30min / CC: ~3min). ✅ Nothing below 16px, so body text passes the universal small-type rule on every viewport. ❌ Helper text loses its current 14px de-emphasis; use color contrast within AA rather than size to make it quieter."
},
{
"label": "5B Three roles: 14px helper, 16px labels, 20px headings",
"description": "✅ Keeps a visibly smaller helper text tier some teams prefer. ✅ Still removes the stray 18px label size. ❌ 14px helper text sits below the 16px body-text floor and adds a role DESIGN.md does not define (human: ~45min / CC: ~4min)."
},
{
"label": "5C Leave sizes as they are",
"description": "✅ No change to review. ✅ No risk of wrapping differences at 320px. ❌ Three unexplained label sizes remain and the plan stays inconsistent with DESIGN.md."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D8 — Issue 5: How many text sizes should the form use, and which?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, PLAN.md settings form; Pass 5 design system alignment, gap G4.\nELI10: Labels currently come in 14px, 16px, and 18px with no rule for which is which, so size stops meaning anything. DESIGN.md defines two roles: 16px for body, labels, and helper text, and 20px for the Profile and Notifications headings. Fewer sizes with a clear jump makes the hierarchy readable at a glance. Principle: flat or arbitrary type hierarchy is noise; users scan, and size is the first cue they read.\nStakes if we pick wrong: 14px text fails the plan's own no-small-type rule on a 320px phone, and three sizes leave every new field guessing.\nRecommendation: 5A because it matches DESIGN.md exactly, drops the 14px size that hurts legibility, and the h1 keeps the existing shell size.\nCompleteness: 5A=10/10, 5B=6/10, 5C=2/10\nNet: two roles from the approved system vs a bespoke three-tier scale that needs its own rulebook.": "5A Two roles: 16px text, 20px section headings (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-20T18:43:27.090Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "a55ade1a-0cdd-4811-9479-29db6282ad87",
"toolUseId": "toolu_011tirX2ENtfDpANQhU651eP",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D9 — Issue 6: How should error messages be colored so they pass WCAG AA?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, PLAN.md settings form; Pass 6 accessibility, gap G3.\nELI10: The error text is red on light pink at about 3:1 contrast. WCAG AA needs 4.5:1 for text that size, so people with low vision or a dim phone screen cannot read the one message telling them what went wrong. DESIGN.md already defines error.text #991b1b on error.surface #fef2f2 (about 7.6:1) with an icon and explicit text, so the state never depends on color alone. Principle: accessibility is not optional; trust is earned at the pixel level, and the error moment is where trust is most fragile.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Failed saves become unreadable for the users most likely to need the message, and the plan ships a known AA failure.\nRecommendation: 6A because the tokens exist, exceed AA with margin, and the icon plus text already satisfy the no-color-alone rule.\nCompleteness: 6A=10/10, 6B=8/10, 6C=1/10\nNet: apply the approved error tokens vs hand-tune a new red that still needs its own contrast check.",
"header": "Issue 6",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "6A Apply error.text #991b1b on error.surface #fef2f2 (recommended)",
"description": "✅ About 7.6:1 contrast, comfortably above the 4.5:1 AA floor, with the existing error icon and explicit text so color is never the only cue (human: ~20min / CC: ~2min). ✅ Same tokens for field errors, the error summary, and the inline network-error area, so all three read as one system. ❌ Darker red reads heavier than the current pink treatment; that weight is appropriate for an error."
},
{
"label": "6B Keep pink surface, darken text only",
"description": "✅ Minimal visual shift from today. ✅ Can reach AA by picking a darker red on the existing pink. ❌ Introduces a second red that is not a DESIGN.md token and must be contrast-measured separately (human: ~30min / CC: ~5min)."
},
{
"label": "6C Leave the current colors",
"description": "✅ No change. ✅ No visual regression. ❌ Ships a measured WCAG AA failure on the most important message in the form."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D9 — Issue 6: How should error messages be colored so they pass WCAG AA?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, PLAN.md settings form; Pass 6 accessibility, gap G3.\nELI10: The error text is red on light pink at about 3:1 contrast. WCAG AA needs 4.5:1 for text that size, so people with low vision or a dim phone screen cannot read the one message telling them what went wrong. DESIGN.md already defines error.text #991b1b on error.surface #fef2f2 (about 7.6:1) with an icon and explicit text, so the state never depends on color alone. Principle: accessibility is not optional; trust is earned at the pixel level, and the error moment is where trust is most fragile.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Failed saves become unreadable for the users most likely to need the message, and the plan ships a known AA failure.\nRecommendation: 6A because the tokens exist, exceed AA with margin, and the icon plus text already satisfy the no-color-alone rule.\nCompleteness: 6A=10/10, 6B=8/10, 6C=1/10\nNet: apply the approved error tokens vs hand-tune a new red that still needs its own contrast check.": "6A Apply error.text #991b1b on error.surface #fef2f2 (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-20T18:44:20.430Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "a55ade1a-0cdd-4811-9479-29db6282ad87",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01CraZfgsGShEKqe7jE2um2L",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D10 — Issue 7: Should Save be enabled when the form has no unsaved changes?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, PLAN.md settings form; Pass 7 unresolved decisions.\nELI10: The plan says dirty state must not rely on whether Save is enabled, but it never says whether Save IS enabled on a clean form. If enabled, a click re-sends identical values and the timestamp changes, which is harmless but odd. If disabled, the primary button greys out on arrival and the row of four has no filled control until the user types. Principle: users muddle through; a primary button that does nothing, or that sometimes cannot be reached, both cost goodwill.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Either a confusing greyed-out primary on page load, or a Save that appears to do something when nothing changed.\nRecommendation: 7A because the page's visual anchor stays present, keyboard users always have a focusable Save, and the accepted status text already tells them there is nothing pending.\nCompleteness: 7A=9/10, 7B=8/10\nNet: a stable, always-available primary that no-ops cleanly vs a primary that greys out to signal cleanliness the status line already communicates.",
"header": "Issue 7",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "7A Save stays enabled; clean click is a no-op (recommended)",
"description": "✅ The filled Save is always visible and focusable, so the header hierarchy from Decision 1 holds on page load and after a save (human: ~30min / CC: ~3min). ✅ A clean click sends no request and changes nothing, including the “Saved at” timestamp, so the status stays truthful. ❌ Some users expect a press to do something; the unchanged status is the only feedback."
},
{
"label": "7B Save disabled when clean",
"description": "✅ Makes “nothing to save” obvious at a glance for sighted users. ✅ Mirrors how Reset is already disabled when clean. ❌ Primary button greys out on arrival and aria-disabled state churn adds screen reader noise; the plan already says enabled state must not carry dirty meaning (human: ~30min / CC: ~3min)."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D10 — Issue 7: Should Save be enabled when the form has no unsaved changes?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, PLAN.md settings form; Pass 7 unresolved decisions.\nELI10: The plan says dirty state must not rely on whether Save is enabled, but it never says whether Save IS enabled on a clean form. If enabled, a click re-sends identical values and the timestamp changes, which is harmless but odd. If disabled, the primary button greys out on arrival and the row of four has no filled control until the user types. Principle: users muddle through; a primary button that does nothing, or that sometimes cannot be reached, both cost goodwill.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Either a confusing greyed-out primary on page load, or a Save that appears to do something when nothing changed.\nRecommendation: 7A because the page's visual anchor stays present, keyboard users always have a focusable Save, and the accepted status text already tells them there is nothing pending.\nCompleteness: 7A=9/10, 7B=8/10\nNet: a stable, always-available primary that no-ops cleanly vs a primary that greys out to signal cleanliness the status line already communicates.": "7A Save stays enabled; clean click is a no-op (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-20T18:45:15.804Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "a55ade1a-0cdd-4811-9479-29db6282ad87",
"toolUseId": "toolu_018E4ENQbQqKbWEWoLD5oEcm",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D11 — Issue 8: What filename should the Export download use?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, PLAN.md settings form; Pass 7 unresolved decisions.\nELI10: Export downloads the saved preferences as JSON, but the plan never names the file. Left open, the browser saves it as download.json or whatever the server emits, and a user with several exports cannot tell them apart in their Downloads folder. Principle: the design does not end at the viewport; the file on disk is the last thing the user sees from this feature.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Indistinguishable or cryptic files erode trust in the export and generate support questions.\nRecommendation: 8A because a fixed prefix plus the local date is readable, sortable, safe on every filesystem, and needs no personal data in the name.\nCompleteness: 8A=10/10, 8B=7/10, 8C=2/10\nNet: a predictable dated name decided now vs whatever the download attribute defaults to.",
"header": "Issue 8",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "8A account-settings-YYYY-MM-DD.json (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Readable, sorts chronologically, and contains no email or display name, so nothing personal leaks into a filename (human: ~15min / CC: ~2min). ✅ Date uses the user's local calendar day, consistent with the local-time “Saved at” timestamp. ❌ Two exports on the same day get the same name; the browser appends (1), which is acceptable."
},
{
"label": "8B account-settings.json",
"description": "✅ Shortest, simplest name. ✅ Trivial to implement and test. ❌ Every export collides in the Downloads folder and the user cannot tell which is current (human: ~10min / CC: ~1min)."
},
{
"label": "8C Leave to implementation",
"description": "✅ No decision now. ✅ No plan edit. ❌ Ships as download.json or a server default, and QA has nothing to assert."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D11 — Issue 8: What filename should the Export download use?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, PLAN.md settings form; Pass 7 unresolved decisions.\nELI10: Export downloads the saved preferences as JSON, but the plan never names the file. Left open, the browser saves it as download.json or whatever the server emits, and a user with several exports cannot tell them apart in their Downloads folder. Principle: the design does not end at the viewport; the file on disk is the last thing the user sees from this feature.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Indistinguishable or cryptic files erode trust in the export and generate support questions.\nRecommendation: 8A because a fixed prefix plus the local date is readable, sortable, safe on every filesystem, and needs no personal data in the name.\nCompleteness: 8A=10/10, 8B=7/10, 8C=2/10\nNet: a predictable dated name decided now vs whatever the download attribute defaults to.": "8A account-settings-YYYY-MM-DD.json (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-20T18:45:49.550Z"
}
]
}
test/fixtures/design-count-sep21-confirm-first-call.json
Vendored
-41
View File
@@ -1,41 +0,0 @@
{
"provenance": {
"source": "September 21 fresh plan-design-finding-count confirmation",
"runId": "shared-libs-design-confirm-sep21",
"sourceCallSha256": "129093ff57df4abafb2184384525bde132620981e3dae7c7b5e756e45582fe1f"
},
"calls": [
{
"sessionId": "6001f9ea-6d4b-44e0-a37c-3598680da835",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01VRFDkXuLgHgy7cVBmWBpe4",
"questions": [
{
"header": "Issue 1 Save",
"question": "D1 — Issue 1: Save is indistinguishable from Reset/Cancel/Export in the header. How should the plan fix it?\n\nProject/branch/task: main branch, design review of the account-settings form plan against DESIGN.md.\nELI10: Four buttons in a row all look the same, so someone who just changed their email has to read every label to find the one that keeps their work. Design principle: hierarchy as service — the user should see first, second, third without thinking. Right now nothing is first.\nStakes if we pick wrong: users mis-hit Reset or Cancel next to Save and lose edits, or hesitate on every save. Either drains the goodwill reservoir on the page whose whole job is confidence.\nRecommendation: A because DESIGN.md already names the exact treatment, so this is a one-token change with no new visual exploration.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=5/10, C=0/10\nNet: A restores a single filled primary for one CSS token; B nudges weight only and still fails the DESIGN.md rule; C leaves the top gap in the plan open.",
"options": [
{
"label": "1A Filled primary Save (recommended)",
"description": "Save becomes the only filled primary (#1d4ed8, white text). Reset, Cancel, Export become neutral ghost buttons. Same DOM order, same 44px geometry. (human: ~1h / CC: ~5min) ✅ Matches DESIGN.md exactly; one primary per page. ✅ Works at 320px because the mobile stack already puts Save first. ❌ Ghost buttons need their own hover/disabled states verified for contrast."
},
{
"label": "1B Bold label only",
"description": "Keep all four the same size and color; bold Save's label weight only. (human: ~15min / CC: ~2min) ✅ Smallest diff, no new button variant. ✅ Keeps the current visual calm. ❌ Weight-only emphasis is weak at a glance and still violates DESIGN.md's filled-primary rule."
},
{
"label": "1C Defer",
"description": "Leave the four buttons uniform for now and record it as unresolved design debt. ✅ Zero work in this PR. ✅ Can be revisited with a live /design-review after ship. ❌ Ships a form with no clear primary action, the most visible gap in the plan."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 — Issue 1: Save is indistinguishable from Reset/Cancel/Export in the header. How should the plan fix it?\n\nProject/branch/task: main branch, design review of the account-settings form plan against DESIGN.md.\nELI10: Four buttons in a row all look the same, so someone who just changed their email has to read every label to find the one that keeps their work. Design principle: hierarchy as service — the user should see first, second, third without thinking. Right now nothing is first.\nStakes if we pick wrong: users mis-hit Reset or Cancel next to Save and lose edits, or hesitate on every save. Either drains the goodwill reservoir on the page whose whole job is confidence.\nRecommendation: A because DESIGN.md already names the exact treatment, so this is a one-token change with no new visual exploration.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=5/10, C=0/10\nNet: A restores a single filled primary for one CSS token; B nudges weight only and still fails the DESIGN.md rule; C leaves the top gap in the plan open.": "1A Filled primary Save (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-21T17:22:25.728Z"
}
]
}
test/fixtures/design-count-sep21-declared-first-call.json
Vendored
-41
View File
@@ -1,41 +0,0 @@
{
"provenance": {
"source": "September 21 final design-count diagnostic",
"runId": "shared-libs-design-final-sep21",
"sourceCallSha256": "a377c46b875e3c22841403a75aa088e363882249622a8351591c05e0bd7fb529"
},
"calls": [
{
"sessionId": "f88caf33-9daa-4975-b2be-584db7424e05",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01KHwBM18zikG3ooKJQYyPo7",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D2 — Issue 1: Save has no visual primacy in the header action group\nProject/branch/task: main — account-settings form update reviewed against DESIGN.md.\nELI10: Four buttons sit in a row and all look the same. The person who just edited their email has to read every label to find the one that keeps their work. DESIGN.md already says Save is the only filled blue button and the other three are quiet ghost buttons, but the proposed form ignores that. Nothing else on the page tells them which action is the safe, expected one.\nStakes if we pick wrong: users misclick Reset or Cancel next to Save and hit a discard dialog, or hesitate on every save; the header reads as noise rather than hierarchy.\nRecommendation: 1A because DESIGN.md already defines the exact tokens and the Button component already has both variants, so this is zero new design and restores the scan order (title → Save → status).\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=3/10, C=7/10\nPrinciple: Visual hierarchy is everything — if everything shouts, nothing is heard.\nNet: we are trading a one-token change for whether the page has a primary action at all.",
"header": "Issue 1",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "1A — Save filled primary, others ghost (Recommended)",
"description": "✅ Matches DESIGN.md exactly: Save #1d4ed8 with white text, Reset/Cancel/Export neutral ghost buttons, 44px targets unchanged. ✅ Reuses the existing Button variants; no new component or exploration (human: ~30min / CC: ~3min). ❌ Export loses visual weight even though some users come only to download."
},
{
"label": "1B — Keep four identical buttons, rely on Save being first",
"description": "✅ Zero visual change to the current form; nothing to re-verify. ✅ Position still gives Save a mild advantage in tab order and scan order. ❌ Violates DESIGN.md and leaves the primary action indistinguishable at a glance, especially at 640px where all four are the same width."
},
{
"label": "1C — Save filled primary, Export outlined secondary, Reset/Cancel ghost",
"description": "✅ Gives Export a middle tier so download-only visitors still find it quickly. ✅ Save remains the single filled anchor, preserving the primary scan target. ❌ Introduces a third button tier DESIGN.md does not define, so it needs a new token and a DESIGN.md amendment (human: ~2h / CC: ~10min)."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D2 — Issue 1: Save has no visual primacy in the header action group\nProject/branch/task: main — account-settings form update reviewed against DESIGN.md.\nELI10: Four buttons sit in a row and all look the same. The person who just edited their email has to read every label to find the one that keeps their work. DESIGN.md already says Save is the only filled blue button and the other three are quiet ghost buttons, but the proposed form ignores that. Nothing else on the page tells them which action is the safe, expected one.\nStakes if we pick wrong: users misclick Reset or Cancel next to Save and hit a discard dialog, or hesitate on every save; the header reads as noise rather than hierarchy.\nRecommendation: 1A because DESIGN.md already defines the exact tokens and the Button component already has both variants, so this is zero new design and restores the scan order (title → Save → status).\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=3/10, C=7/10\nPrinciple: Visual hierarchy is everything — if everything shouts, nothing is heard.\nNet: we are trading a one-token change for whether the page has a primary action at all.": "1A — Save filled primary, others ghost (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-21T17:39:30.327Z"
}
]
}
test/fixtures/design-count-sep21-first-call.json
Vendored
-43
View File
@@ -1,43 +0,0 @@
{
"provenance": {
"source": "September 21 bounded plan-design-finding-count confirmation",
"runId": "shared-libs-design-count-sep21",
"observedReviewCount": 0,
"observedStep0Count": 6,
"sourceCallSha256": "e56b9c057b1a69193d2a932eafac5ca81c8dbe8ed21009d147adc59c881b2052"
},
"calls": [
{
"sessionId": "1a7d5895-da78-46d8-9fa9-e8b681038344",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Fes64xV7Kq6QiS9HH49Drc",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 — Issue 1: Save is visually identical to Reset, Cancel, and Export. How should the primary action be distinguished?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-PXjOyl on main, design review of PLAN.md (Settings Page UI redesign).\nELI10: Four buttons in a row all look the same, so the person has to read every label to find the one they came for. Making Save the only filled button turns a reading task into a glance. The stakes: mis-taps on Reset or Cancel open a discard dialog, and the page reads as unfinished.\nStakes if we pick wrong: users hesitate at the action row or hit a secondary action, and the redesign ships looking like the old form.\nRecommendation: 1A because DESIGN.md already names the token (filled #1d4ed8 with white text, ghosts for the rest) and the existing Button component supports it. Principle: hierarchy as service. \nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=3/10\nNet: 1A applies the approved system; 1B and 1C invent something DESIGN.md does not sanction.",
"header": "Save primary",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "1A: Filled Save, ghost others (recommended)",
"description": "✅ Matches DESIGN.md exactly: Save filled #1d4ed8 with white text, Reset/Cancel/Export neutral ghost buttons. ✅ Uses existing Button variants; no new styles, 44px geometry and focus ring unchanged. ❌ Ghost buttons rely on the existing Button component's neutral text color meeting AA; verify in QA. (human: ~1h / CC: ~5min)"
},
{
"label": "1B: Filled Save plus visual divider before Export",
"description": "✅ Also separates the non-destructive Export from the two discard actions. ✅ Keeps DOM and tab order intact. ❌ Adds a divider element DESIGN.md does not define, so it needs its own token and responsive rule at 640px. ❌ More chrome on an already busy header row. (human: ~2h / CC: ~10min)"
},
{
"label": "1C: Keep four equal buttons, bold the Save label only",
"description": "✅ Smallest change to the existing markup and stylesheet. ✅ No color work, so no contrast verification needed. ❌ Weight alone is a weak signal at a glance and violates DESIGN.md, which names Save the only filled action. ❌ Leaves the primary action undiscoverable for scanning users. (human: ~20min / CC: ~2min)"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 — Issue 1: Save is visually identical to Reset, Cancel, and Export. How should the primary action be distinguished?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-PXjOyl on main, design review of PLAN.md (Settings Page UI redesign).\nELI10: Four buttons in a row all look the same, so the person has to read every label to find the one they came for. Making Save the only filled button turns a reading task into a glance. The stakes: mis-taps on Reset or Cancel open a discard dialog, and the page reads as unfinished.\nStakes if we pick wrong: users hesitate at the action row or hit a secondary action, and the redesign ships looking like the old form.\nRecommendation: 1A because DESIGN.md already names the token (filled #1d4ed8 with white text, ghosts for the rest) and the existing Button component supports it. Principle: hierarchy as service. \nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=3/10\nNet: 1A applies the approved system; 1B and 1C invent something DESIGN.md does not sanction.": "1A: Filled Save, ghost others (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-21T17:11:29.350Z"
}
]
}
test/fixtures/design-count-sep21-header-first-call.json
Vendored
-41
View File
@@ -1,41 +0,0 @@
{
"provenance": {
"source": "September 21 design-count facts diagnostic",
"runId": "shared-libs-design-facts-sep21",
"sourceCallSha256": "37ff256f4b3485c59bf9e823bfa1b4d2c79e39757fdb68397339041b416126c2"
},
"calls": [
{
"sessionId": "f46fbe04-3291-4d12-98d7-bddda43b1681",
"toolUseId": "toolu_015hpK1GGLDc2UpK1e8RRodu",
"questions": [
{
"header": "Issue 1: Save",
"question": "D1 — Should Save become the only filled primary action in the header, per DESIGN.md?\n\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count on main, account-settings form conformance update.\nELI10: Right now Save, Reset, Cancel and Export look identical. A user scanning the header cannot tell which one finishes their task, and Reset and Cancel are destructive-ish choices sitting at the same visual weight as Save. Users satisfice: they click the first plausible button. Equal weight makes a wrong click as likely as a right one.\nStakes if we pick wrong: accidental Reset/Cancel taps on mobile, and a “which button do I press?” pause on every visit that drains goodwill.\nRecommendation: 1A because DESIGN.md already names the exact tokens and it keeps one accent color on the page (Hierarchy as service; Use conventions).\nCompleteness: 1A=10/10, 1B=8/10, 1C=2/10\nNet: one filled button versus a second tier that DESIGN.md does not define, versus leaving the page with no primary action.",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "1A) DESIGN.md primary (recommended)",
"description": "Save: filled #1d4ed8 with white text, 44px. Reset, Cancel, Export: neutral ghost buttons. ✅ Uses the exact approved tokens; nothing new to design or maintain. ✅ Single accent color keeps the header calm and the primary action obvious in a 3-second scan. ❌ Export loses any visual distinction from the two discard actions; its label must carry the meaning alone. (human: ~1h / CC: ~5min)"
},
{
"label": "1B) Three tiers: filled, outlined, ghost",
"description": "Save filled #1d4ed8; Export outlined #1d4ed8 border; Reset and Cancel ghost. ✅ Separates the non-destructive Export from the two discard actions at a glance. ✅ Still leaves Save as the only filled button. ❌ Adds a button variant DESIGN.md does not define, so it needs a new token and a DESIGN.md amendment. ❌ Two blue elements in one row compete for the first glance. (human: ~3h / CC: ~15min)"
},
{
"label": "1C) Keep four equal buttons",
"description": "No change; rely on position (Save first) alone. ✅ Zero implementation cost. ✅ No risk of visual drift from the current build. ❌ Leaves a known DESIGN.md violation and no primary action; on 640px and below, Save is full-width but still looks like the others. ❌ Lowers Pass 1 and Pass 5 final scores."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 — Should Save become the only filled primary action in the header, per DESIGN.md?\n\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count on main, account-settings form conformance update.\nELI10: Right now Save, Reset, Cancel and Export look identical. A user scanning the header cannot tell which one finishes their task, and Reset and Cancel are destructive-ish choices sitting at the same visual weight as Save. Users satisfice: they click the first plausible button. Equal weight makes a wrong click as likely as a right one.\nStakes if we pick wrong: accidental Reset/Cancel taps on mobile, and a “which button do I press?” pause on every visit that drains goodwill.\nRecommendation: 1A because DESIGN.md already names the exact tokens and it keeps one accent color on the page (Hierarchy as service; Use conventions).\nCompleteness: 1A=10/10, 1B=8/10, 1C=2/10\nNet: one filled button versus a second tier that DESIGN.md does not define, versus leaving the page with no primary action.": "1A) DESIGN.md primary (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-21T18:09:29.711Z"
}
]
}
test/fixtures/design-first-decision-af-retry.json
Vendored
-51
View File
@@ -1,51 +0,0 @@
{
"signature": "3a77230a-afb1-491e-a387-22238340005c:toolu_01566fjgee5qn44WyEc63K7F",
"promptSnippet": "Issue 1: Save D4 \u2014 Issue 1: Make Save the visible primary action? Project/branch/task: main, Pass 1 Information Architecture, gap G1. ELI10: Today Save, Reset, Cancel, and Export look identical in the header. A user scanning the page has to",
"options": [
{
"index": 1,
"label": "1A Filled Save, ghost others (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "1B Filled Save, outlined Export"
},
{
"index": 3,
"label": "1C Defer, keep four equal buttons"
}
],
"observedAtMs": 202968,
"preReview": true,
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "3a77230a-afb1-491e-a387-22238340005c",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01566fjgee5qn44WyEc63K7F",
"questions": [
{
"header": "Issue 1: Save",
"question": "D4 \u2014 Issue 1: Make Save the visible primary action?\nProject/branch/task: main, Pass 1 Information Architecture, gap G1.\nELI10: Today Save, Reset, Cancel, and Export look identical in the header. A user scanning the page has to read all four labels to find the one that stores their work. DESIGN.md already says Save is the only filled button (#1d4ed8 with white text) and the other three are neutral ghost buttons. This asks whether to apply that.\nStakes if we pick wrong: users hesitate at the moment they most want confidence, and the destructive Reset sits at the same visual weight as Save.\nRecommendation: 1A because it is the exact DESIGN.md token and closes the hierarchy gap with zero new vocabulary. Principle: every screen has a hierarchy; make the right choice the most visible choice.\nCompleteness: 1A=10/10, 1B=7/10, 1C=0/10\nNet: apply the approved token now versus inventing a second weight or shipping a header with no primary action.",
"options": [
{
"label": "1A Filled Save, ghost others (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Save becomes the single filled primary (#1d4ed8, white text); Reset/Cancel/Export become neutral ghost buttons exactly as DESIGN.md specifies \u2705 Reuses the existing Button component variants, no new component (human: ~1h / CC: ~5 min) \u274c Export loses visual weight, but it stays a clearly labeled button and its position is unchanged"
},
{
"label": "1B Filled Save, outlined Export",
"description": "\u2705 Save still reads as primary \u2705 Export gets a secondary emphasis for users who come mainly to download \u274c Adds a third button weight not in DESIGN.md and competes with Save (human: ~2h / CC: ~10 min)"
},
{
"label": "1C Defer, keep four equal buttons",
"description": "\u2705 No styling change this cycle \u2705 Zero risk of regressing button behavior \u274c Ships the documented violation; Pass 1 stays at 6/10 and the gap remains open"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D4 \u2014 Issue 1: Make Save the visible primary action?\nProject/branch/task: main, Pass 1 Information Architecture, gap G1.\nELI10: Today Save, Reset, Cancel, and Export look identical in the header. A user scanning the page has to read all four labels to find the one that stores their work. DESIGN.md already says Save is the only filled button (#1d4ed8 with white text) and the other three are neutral ghost buttons. This asks whether to apply that.\nStakes if we pick wrong: users hesitate at the moment they most want confidence, and the destructive Reset sits at the same visual weight as Save.\nRecommendation: 1A because it is the exact DESIGN.md token and closes the hierarchy gap with zero new vocabulary. Principle: every screen has a hierarchy; make the right choice the most visible choice.\nCompleteness: 1A=10/10, 1B=7/10, 1C=0/10\nNet: apply the approved token now versus inventing a second weight or shipping a header with no primary action.": "1A Filled Save, ghost others (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T23:45:57.477Z"
}
}
test/fixtures/design-first-decision-af.json
Vendored
-52
View File
@@ -1,52 +0,0 @@
{
"signature": "c06cd100-d350-4030-a14e-b091b9d42d42:toolu_0178gAV9n3Fkx2tXMDSUuGBS",
"promptSnippet": "Issue 1 D1 \u2014 Issue 1: Make Save the visible primary action? Project/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-Yf6fxy on main, design review of the settings-form plan. ELI10: Right now Save, Reset, Cancel, and Export all look the same. A user scanning ",
"options": [
{
"index": 1,
"label": "1A Filled primary Save (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "1B Primary Save, demote Export to text"
},
{
"index": 3,
"label": "1C Keep four identical buttons"
}
],
"observedAtMs": 166054,
"preReview": true,
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "c06cd100-d350-4030-a14e-b091b9d42d42",
"toolUseId": "toolu_0178gAV9n3Fkx2tXMDSUuGBS",
"questions": [
{
"header": "Issue 1",
"question": "D1 \u2014 Issue 1: Make Save the visible primary action?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-Yf6fxy on main, design review of the settings-form plan.\nELI10: Right now Save, Reset, Cancel, and Export all look the same. A user scanning the header cannot tell which one commits their work and which one throws it away. Users scan and satisfice, so the loudest button gets clicked. With four equal buttons, the loudest is whichever is first, not the safest.\nStakes if we pick wrong: users hesitate on every save, or hit Reset/Cancel by mistake and lose edits.\nRecommendation: 1A because DESIGN.md already names the token and the Button component already has the primary variant, so this is a class change with zero new design.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=2/10\nPrinciple: Hierarchy as service. What the user should see first is the one action that finishes their task.\nNet: adopt the approved primary token now, or ship a header where nothing wins.",
"options": [
{
"label": "1A Filled primary Save (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Matches DESIGN.md exactly: Save filled #1d4ed8 with white text; Reset, Cancel, Export as neutral ghost buttons. \u2705 Reuses the existing Button primary variant, no new CSS or component (human: ~30min / CC: ~3min). \u274c Export loses visual weight, which is fine only if the ghost style stays clearly a button."
},
{
"label": "1B Primary Save, demote Export to text",
"description": "\u2705 Sharpens the header further by making Export a plain text-style action. \u2705 Reduces button count competing with Save. \u274c Conflicts with the accepted requirement that Export remains a clearly labeled button, and counts as visual exploration the plan excludes."
},
{
"label": "1C Keep four identical buttons",
"description": "\u2705 No implementation work in this change (human: 0 / CC: 0). \u2705 Nothing to re-test visually. \u274c Leaves a documented DESIGN.md violation in place; users keep guessing which action is primary, and the pass stays capped near 6/10."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 \u2014 Issue 1: Make Save the visible primary action?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-Yf6fxy on main, design review of the settings-form plan.\nELI10: Right now Save, Reset, Cancel, and Export all look the same. A user scanning the header cannot tell which one commits their work and which one throws it away. Users scan and satisfice, so the loudest button gets clicked. With four equal buttons, the loudest is whichever is first, not the safest.\nStakes if we pick wrong: users hesitate on every save, or hit Reset/Cancel by mistake and lose edits.\nRecommendation: 1A because DESIGN.md already names the token and the Button component already has the primary variant, so this is a class change with zero new design.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=2/10\nPrinciple: Hierarchy as service. What the user should see first is the one action that finishes their task.\nNet: adopt the approved primary token now, or ship a header where nothing wins.": "1A Filled primary Save (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T23:35:58.344Z"
}
}
test/fixtures/design-first-issue-ai.json
Vendored
-441
View File
@@ -1,441 +0,0 @@
{
"sourceCommit": "12faead4636b97305348e25fc12258a56fcf6868",
"sourceObservation": {
"path": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/.context/ship-source-ai-delta-paid-20260910-v1/design-first-finding-evidence-v1/observation.json",
"sha256": "2ad38e3c492bdb15907b4c6e59c76d91b2bf26936b7496688f0a5affae7f6eed",
"bytes": 86983
},
"capture": {
"skill": "plan-design-review",
"runId": "ship-source-ai-delta-paid-20260910-v1-3",
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-UTP2FK/tmp/gstack-plan-count-XQbt40",
"claudeConfigDir": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-UTP2FK/tmp/gstack-hermetic-593109-2sknO2/with-skills/.claude",
"at": "2026-09-10T04:16:41.573Z"
},
"calls": [
{
"ordinal": 1,
"fingerprint": {
"signature": "ba2c03f0-6d75-4f7e-8140-d3fd03cfdbcf:toolu_01DRVrppFnbqJYBSwvwCSGvA",
"promptSnippet": "Routing D1 \u2014 Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md? Project/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-XQbt40 on main, one-time gstack onboarding before the PLAN.md design review. ELI10: gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE",
"options": [
{
"index": 1,
"label": "Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "No thanks, I'll invoke skills manually"
}
],
"observedAtMs": 58214,
"preReview": true,
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "ba2c03f0-6d75-4f7e-8140-d3fd03cfdbcf",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01DRVrppFnbqJYBSwvwCSGvA",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 \u2014 Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-XQbt40 on main, one-time gstack onboarding before the PLAN.md design review.\nELI10: gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules, so plain requests like \"review this diff\" or \"why is this failing\" route to the matching skill automatically instead of you typing the slash command. This is a one-time prompt per project. Plan mode is active, so if you say yes the CLAUDE.md edit and commit happen after plan mode exits, not now.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Without routing you invoke every skill by hand; with routing you get automatic skill dispatch you may not have wanted.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules make the skill suite discoverable with zero ongoing cost.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: automatic skill dispatch vs. fully manual invocation.",
"header": "Routing",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Requests like \"ship this\" or \"review the plan\" route to the right skill without remembering slash names\n\u2705 Applies to every future session in this repo, one small append to CLAUDE.md\n\u274c Adds a routing section to a checked-in file; deferred until plan mode exits (human: ~2 min / CC: ~10 sec)"
},
{
"label": "No thanks, I'll invoke skills manually",
"description": "\u2705 CLAUDE.md stays exactly as it is, nothing committed to the fixture repo\n\u2705 You keep full control over when a skill runs; nothing fires implicitly\n\u274c Every skill needs an explicit slash command; the prompt is suppressed until you re-enable it via gstack-config"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 \u2014 Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-XQbt40 on main, one-time gstack onboarding before the PLAN.md design review.\nELI10: gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules, so plain requests like \"review this diff\" or \"why is this failing\" route to the matching skill automatically instead of you typing the slash command. This is a one-time prompt per project. Plan mode is active, so if you say yes the CLAUDE.md edit and commit happen after plan mode exits, not now.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Without routing you invoke every skill by hand; with routing you get automatic skill dispatch you may not have wanted.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules make the skill suite discoverable with zero ongoing cost.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: automatic skill dispatch vs. fully manual invocation.": "Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T04:06:43.138Z"
}
}
},
{
"ordinal": 2,
"fingerprint": {
"signature": "ba2c03f0-6d75-4f7e-8140-d3fd03cfdbcf:toolu_01U2GkcaXuVnsnGGRqmrHAmf",
"promptSnippet": "Learnings D2 \u2014 Enable cross-project learnings search for gstack? Project/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-XQbt40 on main, one-time gstack setting before the PLAN.md design passes. ELI10: gstack records small lessons after each session (projec",
"options": [
{
"index": 1,
"label": "Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "Keep learnings project-scoped only"
}
],
"observedAtMs": 202103,
"preReview": true,
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "ba2c03f0-6d75-4f7e-8140-d3fd03cfdbcf",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01U2GkcaXuVnsnGGRqmrHAmf",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D2 \u2014 Enable cross-project learnings search for gstack?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-XQbt40 on main, one-time gstack setting before the PLAN.md design passes.\nELI10: gstack records small lessons after each session (project quirks, pitfalls). This setting decides whether reviews in this repo may also search lessons saved from your other projects on this machine. Everything stays local; no data leaves the machine. It helps solo developers reuse patterns; it is a concern if you work across client codebases that must not cross-contaminate.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Either you miss reusable lessons from other repos, or a lesson from one client's codebase surfaces while reviewing another's.\nRecommendation: A because this is a single-developer sandbox with no client separation concern.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: broader recall vs. strict per-project isolation.",
"header": "Learnings",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Reviews can surface pitfalls and patterns already learned in your other local repos\n\u2705 Compounding: every session on this machine makes later sessions smarter\n\u274c Lessons from unrelated codebases could appear where they do not apply"
},
{
"label": "Keep learnings project-scoped only",
"description": "\u2705 Strict isolation: nothing from another repo ever appears in this project's reviews\n\u2705 Safe default when you work on multiple client codebases\n\u274c Each project starts cold; shared pitfalls must be rediscovered per repo"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D2 \u2014 Enable cross-project learnings search for gstack?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-XQbt40 on main, one-time gstack setting before the PLAN.md design passes.\nELI10: gstack records small lessons after each session (project quirks, pitfalls). This setting decides whether reviews in this repo may also search lessons saved from your other projects on this machine. Everything stays local; no data leaves the machine. It helps solo developers reuse patterns; it is a concern if you work across client codebases that must not cross-contaminate.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Either you miss reusable lessons from other repos, or a lesson from one client's codebase surfaces while reviewing another's.\nRecommendation: A because this is a single-developer sandbox with no client separation concern.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: broader recall vs. strict per-project isolation.": "Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T04:09:07.019Z"
}
}
},
{
"ordinal": 3,
"fingerprint": {
"signature": "ba2c03f0-6d75-4f7e-8140-d3fd03cfdbcf:toolu_011W4vKp1KpSsVfiLgDLV9E9",
"promptSnippet": "Issue 1 D3 \u2014 Issue 1: How should Save be distinguished from Reset, Cancel, and Export? Project/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-XQbt40 on main, PLAN.md design review, Pass 1 Information Architecture. ELI10: The header shows four buttons that ",
"options": [
{
"index": 1,
"label": "1A: Save filled primary, others ghost (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "1B: Save primary, Export outlined secondary, Reset/Cancel ghost"
},
{
"index": 3,
"label": "1C: Leave all four buttons identical"
}
],
"observedAtMs": 242227,
"preReview": true,
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "ba2c03f0-6d75-4f7e-8140-d3fd03cfdbcf",
"toolUseId": "toolu_011W4vKp1KpSsVfiLgDLV9E9",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D3 \u2014 Issue 1: How should Save be distinguished from Reset, Cancel, and Export?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-XQbt40 on main, PLAN.md design review, Pass 1 Information Architecture.\nELI10: The header shows four buttons that look exactly alike. Users scan, they do not read, so the first glance has nothing that says \"this is the one you want\". Someone who just edited their email may hover between Save, Reset, and Cancel and pick wrong, which on Reset or Cancel means a confirmation dialog they did not want. DESIGN.md already says Save is the only filled primary button and the other three are neutral ghost buttons.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Users hesitate at the moment of commitment, or hit Reset/Cancel by mistake; the page reads as assembled rather than designed.\nRecommendation: 1A because DESIGN.md already prescribes the exact treatment and it makes Save the one visual anchor on the page (Principle 2: every screen has a hierarchy).\nCompleteness: 1A=10/10, 1B=7/10, 1C=3/10\nNet: exact design-system conformance vs. a three-tier hierarchy DESIGN.md does not define vs. leaving the gap open.",
"header": "Issue 1",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "1A: Save filled primary, others ghost (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Save is the only filled #1d4ed8 button with white text; Reset, Cancel, Export are neutral ghost buttons, exactly per DESIGN.md\n\u2705 One visual anchor; DOM/tab order and 44px targets unchanged, so no accessibility retest beyond contrast (human: ~1h / CC: ~5min)\n\u274c Export loses visual weight even though some users come to the page just to download"
},
{
"label": "1B: Save primary, Export outlined secondary, Reset/Cancel ghost",
"description": "\u2705 Three tiers: commit, download, destructive-ish, giving Export a bit more presence\n\u2705 Save is still the single filled anchor\n\u274c Adds an outlined button style DESIGN.md does not define, so it is a new token decision (human: ~2h / CC: ~10min)"
},
{
"label": "1C: Leave all four buttons identical",
"description": "\u2705 Zero styling work; nothing new to verify\n\u2705 Keeps the current look users have already seen\n\u274c Ships the documented violation; no primary action; litmus check 2 stays failed"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D3 \u2014 Issue 1: How should Save be distinguished from Reset, Cancel, and Export?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-XQbt40 on main, PLAN.md design review, Pass 1 Information Architecture.\nELI10: The header shows four buttons that look exactly alike. Users scan, they do not read, so the first glance has nothing that says \"this is the one you want\". Someone who just edited their email may hover between Save, Reset, and Cancel and pick wrong, which on Reset or Cancel means a confirmation dialog they did not want. DESIGN.md already says Save is the only filled primary button and the other three are neutral ghost buttons.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Users hesitate at the moment of commitment, or hit Reset/Cancel by mistake; the page reads as assembled rather than designed.\nRecommendation: 1A because DESIGN.md already prescribes the exact treatment and it makes Save the one visual anchor on the page (Principle 2: every screen has a hierarchy).\nCompleteness: 1A=10/10, 1B=7/10, 1C=3/10\nNet: exact design-system conformance vs. a three-tier hierarchy DESIGN.md does not define vs. leaving the gap open.": "1A: Save filled primary, others ghost (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T04:09:47.149Z"
}
}
},
{
"ordinal": 4,
"fingerprint": {
"signature": "ba2c03f0-6d75-4f7e-8140-d3fd03cfdbcf:toolu_01M52vsQMYt9bjoBfqJhH3aU",
"promptSnippet": "Issue 5 D4 \u2014 Issue 5: What does the user see while Save is pending for 2-5 seconds? Project/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-XQbt40 on main, PLAN.md design review, Pass 2 Interaction States. ELI10: After clicking Save, nothing changes on scre",
"options": [
{
"index": 1,
"label": "5A: Spinner + \u201cSaving\u2026\u201d inside disabled Save (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "5B: InlineStatus text \u201cSaving\u2026\u201d only, no spinner"
},
{
"index": 3,
"label": "5C: Full-form skeleton or overlay while saving"
}
],
"observedAtMs": 277337,
"preReview": true,
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "ba2c03f0-6d75-4f7e-8140-d3fd03cfdbcf",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01M52vsQMYt9bjoBfqJhH3aU",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D4 \u2014 Issue 5: What does the user see while Save is pending for 2-5 seconds?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-XQbt40 on main, PLAN.md design review, Pass 2 Interaction States.\nELI10: After clicking Save, nothing changes on screen for up to five seconds. People assume the click did not register, click again, or leave. The plan already disables repeat submissions, but a disabled button with no other change just looks broken. DESIGN.md already defines the pending pattern: a small spinner beside the word \"Saving\u2026\" inside the disabled Save button, aria-busy=true, and a non-animated fallback for reduced-motion users. Export already uses this exact pattern.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Users lose trust at the exact moment they commit their data; screen reader users get no pending announcement.\nRecommendation: 5A because it is the established pattern Export already uses and it keeps the user's edited fields fully visible (Principle 9: trust is earned at the pixel level).\nCompleteness: 5A=10/10, 5B=6/10, 5C=5/10\nNet: reuse the existing pending pattern vs. text-only feedback vs. hiding the form behind a skeleton.",
"header": "Issue 5",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "5A: Spinner + \u201cSaving\u2026\u201d inside disabled Save (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Exact DESIGN.md pattern, already implemented for Export, so it is reuse not new work (human: ~1h / CC: ~5min)\n\u2705 aria-busy=true plus the visible label change gives sighted and screen reader users the same signal; reduced-motion users get a static indicator\n\u274c Spinner lives only in the button; a user scrolled down to Notifications may not see it"
},
{
"label": "5B: InlineStatus text \u201cSaving\u2026\u201d only, no spinner",
"description": "\u2705 The live region announces the pending state wherever the user is on the page\n\u2705 No animation at all, so reduced-motion is trivially satisfied\n\u274c Deviates from the DESIGN.md pending pattern and leaves the Save button itself looking merely disabled (human: ~1h / CC: ~5min)"
},
{
"label": "5C: Full-form skeleton or overlay while saving",
"description": "\u2705 Impossible to miss; also blocks edits during the atomic save\n\u2705 Reuses the existing loading skeleton component\n\u274c Hides the values the user just typed, feels like a page reload, and is not the DESIGN.md pattern (human: ~3h / CC: ~15min)"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D4 \u2014 Issue 5: What does the user see while Save is pending for 2-5 seconds?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-XQbt40 on main, PLAN.md design review, Pass 2 Interaction States.\nELI10: After clicking Save, nothing changes on screen for up to five seconds. People assume the click did not register, click again, or leave. The plan already disables repeat submissions, but a disabled button with no other change just looks broken. DESIGN.md already defines the pending pattern: a small spinner beside the word \"Saving\u2026\" inside the disabled Save button, aria-busy=true, and a non-animated fallback for reduced-motion users. Export already uses this exact pattern.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Users lose trust at the exact moment they commit their data; screen reader users get no pending announcement.\nRecommendation: 5A because it is the established pattern Export already uses and it keeps the user's edited fields fully visible (Principle 9: trust is earned at the pixel level).\nCompleteness: 5A=10/10, 5B=6/10, 5C=5/10\nNet: reuse the existing pending pattern vs. text-only feedback vs. hiding the form behind a skeleton.": "5A: Spinner + \u201cSaving\u2026\u201d inside disabled Save (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T04:10:22.269Z"
}
}
},
{
"ordinal": 5,
"fingerprint": {
"signature": "ba2c03f0-6d75-4f7e-8140-d3fd03cfdbcf:toolu_016A6vzTEdsNaW8QDyaBPuPf",
"promptSnippet": "Issue 4 D5 \u2014 Issue 4: What type scale should form labels and section headings use? Project/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-XQbt40 on main, PLAN.md design review, Pass 4 AI Slop Risk (flat-type-hierarchy). ELI10: Labels on the form are set in",
"options": [
{
"index": 1,
"label": "4A: 16px labels/body/helper, 20px section headings (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "4B: Keep three sizes but define roles (14 helper, 16 label, 18 heading)"
},
{
"index": 3,
"label": "4C: Leave label sizes as they are"
}
],
"observedAtMs": 368189,
"preReview": true,
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "ba2c03f0-6d75-4f7e-8140-d3fd03cfdbcf",
"toolUseId": "toolu_016A6vzTEdsNaW8QDyaBPuPf",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D5 \u2014 Issue 4: What type scale should form labels and section headings use?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-XQbt40 on main, PLAN.md design review, Pass 4 AI Slop Risk (flat-type-hierarchy).\nELI10: Labels on the form are set in three different sizes (14, 16, 18px) with no rule behind which gets which. Three sizes doing one job reads as noise, and the 14px ones fall below the 16px body-text floor that keeps text readable for everyone. DESIGN.md defines exactly two roles: 16px for body, labels, and helper text, 20px for the Profile and Notifications headings.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Small labels stay hard to read on phones; the page keeps the \"assembled, not designed\" feel; a future engineer inherits an undefined scale.\nRecommendation: 4A because two roles are what DESIGN.md prescribes and they give a real hierarchy: headings clearly above everything else, everything else equal (Principle 3: specificity over vibes).\nCompleteness: 4A=10/10, 4B=5/10, 4C=3/10\nNet: the design-system scale vs. a documented three-size scale that keeps sub-16px text vs. leaving it undefined.",
"header": "Issue 4",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "4A: 16px labels/body/helper, 20px section headings (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Exactly the two DESIGN.md type roles; nothing on the form drops below 16px (human: ~1h / CC: ~5min)\n\u2705 Headings become the only larger text, so scanning by headline works and litmus check 3 stays YES\n\u274c Helper text at the same size as labels loses a subtle secondary cue; weight or color must carry it"
},
{
"label": "4B: Keep three sizes but define roles (14 helper, 16 label, 18 heading)",
"description": "\u2705 Codifies what exists today, so minimal visual change for returning users\n\u2705 Gives helper text a distinct size cue\n\u274c Contradicts DESIGN.md and keeps 14px text below the 16px readability floor (human: ~1h / CC: ~5min)"
},
{
"label": "4C: Leave label sizes as they are",
"description": "\u2705 No styling work now\n\u2705 Nothing to re-verify visually\n\u274c Ships the documented violation with an undefined scale and sub-16px labels"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D5 \u2014 Issue 4: What type scale should form labels and section headings use?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-XQbt40 on main, PLAN.md design review, Pass 4 AI Slop Risk (flat-type-hierarchy).\nELI10: Labels on the form are set in three different sizes (14, 16, 18px) with no rule behind which gets which. Three sizes doing one job reads as noise, and the 14px ones fall below the 16px body-text floor that keeps text readable for everyone. DESIGN.md defines exactly two roles: 16px for body, labels, and helper text, 20px for the Profile and Notifications headings.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Small labels stay hard to read on phones; the page keeps the \"assembled, not designed\" feel; a future engineer inherits an undefined scale.\nRecommendation: 4A because two roles are what DESIGN.md prescribes and they give a real hierarchy: headings clearly above everything else, everything else equal (Principle 3: specificity over vibes).\nCompleteness: 4A=10/10, 4B=5/10, 4C=3/10\nNet: the design-system scale vs. a documented three-size scale that keeps sub-16px text vs. leaving it undefined.": "4A: 16px labels/body/helper, 20px section headings (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T04:11:53.107Z"
}
}
},
{
"ordinal": 6,
"fingerprint": {
"signature": "ba2c03f0-6d75-4f7e-8140-d3fd03cfdbcf:toolu_01L3HDrnJUYBNKCbz234QRtg",
"promptSnippet": "Issue 2 D6 \u2014 Issue 2: What vertical spacing rhythm should the form use? Project/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-XQbt40 on main, PLAN.md design review, Pass 5 Design System Alignment. ELI10: Gaps between sections are 24px in one place, 32px i",
"options": [
{
"index": 1,
"label": "2A: 8px base: sections 32, field groups 24, label-to-input 8 (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "2B: Uniform 24px between everything"
},
{
"index": 3,
"label": "2C: Leave spacing as it is"
}
],
"observedAtMs": 404843,
"preReview": true,
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "ba2c03f0-6d75-4f7e-8140-d3fd03cfdbcf",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01L3HDrnJUYBNKCbz234QRtg",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D6 \u2014 Issue 2: What vertical spacing rhythm should the form use?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-XQbt40 on main, PLAN.md design review, Pass 5 Design System Alignment.\nELI10: Gaps between sections are 24px in one place, 32px in another, and 16px in a third. Spacing is how users know what belongs together (Gestalt proximity): a bigger gap says \"new section\", a smaller gap says \"this label belongs to this input\". Random gaps blur that grouping, so the eye cannot tell where Profile ends and Notifications begins. DESIGN.md defines an 8px base: 32px between sections, 24px between field groups, 8px from a label to its input.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Grouping stays ambiguous; the form reads as unfinished; each new field gets its own guessed margin.\nRecommendation: 2A because DESIGN.md already defines the scale and three distinct steps encode the three levels of grouping the form actually has (Principle 2: hierarchy; Gestalt proximity).\nCompleteness: 2A=10/10, 2B=6/10, 2C=3/10\nNet: the three-step design-system scale vs. one flat gap everywhere vs. leaving it inconsistent.",
"header": "Issue 2",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "2A: 8px base: sections 32, field groups 24, label-to-input 8 (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Exactly the DESIGN.md scale; every gap on the form maps to one of three named values (human: ~1h / CC: ~5min)\n\u2705 Section, field, and label grouping each get a distinct step, so proximity does the work without borders or cards\n\u274c Requires auditing every existing margin on the form, including the header action group and InlineStatus"
},
{
"label": "2B: Uniform 24px between everything",
"description": "\u2705 Simplest possible rule; one value to remember and verify\n\u2705 Still consistent, so the random-gap problem disappears\n\u274c Flattens section vs. field grouping (monotonous-spacing) and contradicts the DESIGN.md scale (human: ~30min / CC: ~3min)"
},
{
"label": "2C: Leave spacing as it is",
"description": "\u2705 No layout work now\n\u2705 No risk of shifting content users are used to\n\u274c Ships the documented violation; grouping stays ambiguous"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D6 \u2014 Issue 2: What vertical spacing rhythm should the form use?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-XQbt40 on main, PLAN.md design review, Pass 5 Design System Alignment.\nELI10: Gaps between sections are 24px in one place, 32px in another, and 16px in a third. Spacing is how users know what belongs together (Gestalt proximity): a bigger gap says \"new section\", a smaller gap says \"this label belongs to this input\". Random gaps blur that grouping, so the eye cannot tell where Profile ends and Notifications begins. DESIGN.md defines an 8px base: 32px between sections, 24px between field groups, 8px from a label to its input.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Grouping stays ambiguous; the form reads as unfinished; each new field gets its own guessed margin.\nRecommendation: 2A because DESIGN.md already defines the scale and three distinct steps encode the three levels of grouping the form actually has (Principle 2: hierarchy; Gestalt proximity).\nCompleteness: 2A=10/10, 2B=6/10, 2C=3/10\nNet: the three-step design-system scale vs. one flat gap everywhere vs. leaving it inconsistent.": "2A: 8px base: sections 32, field groups 24, label-to-input 8 (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T04:12:29.762Z"
}
}
},
{
"ordinal": 7,
"fingerprint": {
"signature": "ba2c03f0-6d75-4f7e-8140-d3fd03cfdbcf:toolu_01FpBzXVgEECyAaNDUCYP6pi",
"promptSnippet": "Issue 3 D7 \u2014 Issue 3: How should the error message meet WCAG AA contrast? Project/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-XQbt40 on main, PLAN.md design review, Pass 6 Responsive & Accessibility. ELI10: The error message is red text on light pink at",
"options": [
{
"index": 1,
"label": "3A: #991b1b text on #fef2f2 surface, icon + explicit text (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "3B: Darken the red on the current pink until it measures 4.5:1"
},
{
"index": 3,
"label": "3C: Leave the error styling as it is"
}
],
"observedAtMs": 441491,
"preReview": false,
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "ba2c03f0-6d75-4f7e-8140-d3fd03cfdbcf",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01FpBzXVgEECyAaNDUCYP6pi",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D7 \u2014 Issue 3: How should the error message meet WCAG AA contrast?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-XQbt40 on main, PLAN.md design review, Pass 6 Responsive & Accessibility.\nELI10: The error message is red text on light pink at about 3:1 contrast. WCAG AA requires 4.5:1 for text this size, so people with low vision or a dim phone screen may not be able to read the one message that tells them why their save failed. DESIGN.md defines the tokens: text #991b1b on surface #fef2f2 (about 7.6:1, passes AA and AAA) with an icon and explicit wording, so the state never depends on color alone.\nStakes if we pick wrong: The failure message is unreadable for the users most likely to need it; the page fails an accessibility audit.\nRecommendation: 3A because the DESIGN.md pair clears AA with room to spare and the icon plus text satisfy the never-color-alone rule (Principle 7: accessibility is not optional).\nCompleteness: 3A=10/10, 3B=6/10, 3C=3/10\nNet: the design-system error tokens vs. an ad hoc darker red on the current pink vs. leaving it below AA.",
"header": "Issue 3",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "3A: #991b1b text on #fef2f2 surface, icon + explicit text (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Exactly the DESIGN.md error tokens; measured contrast about 7.6:1, clearing AA (4.5:1) and AAA (7:1) (human: ~1h / CC: ~5min)\n\u2705 Icon plus explicit wording means the state is readable without color, for colorblind users and screen readers alike\n\u274c Every existing error surface (field errors, ErrorSummary, inline retry area) must be re-checked against the new pair"
},
{
"label": "3B: Darken the red on the current pink until it measures 4.5:1",
"description": "\u2705 Smallest visual change from what users see today\n\u2705 Meets the AA floor once measured\n\u274c Introduces a color pair DESIGN.md does not define and leaves the icon/explicit-text rule unaddressed (human: ~1h / CC: ~5min)"
},
{
"label": "3C: Leave the error styling as it is",
"description": "\u2705 No styling work now\n\u2705 Nothing to re-measure\n\u274c Ships a known WCAG AA failure on the most important message on the page"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D7 \u2014 Issue 3: How should the error message meet WCAG AA contrast?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-XQbt40 on main, PLAN.md design review, Pass 6 Responsive & Accessibility.\nELI10: The error message is red text on light pink at about 3:1 contrast. WCAG AA requires 4.5:1 for text this size, so people with low vision or a dim phone screen may not be able to read the one message that tells them why their save failed. DESIGN.md defines the tokens: text #991b1b on surface #fef2f2 (about 7.6:1, passes AA and AAA) with an icon and explicit wording, so the state never depends on color alone.\nStakes if we pick wrong: The failure message is unreadable for the users most likely to need it; the page fails an accessibility audit.\nRecommendation: 3A because the DESIGN.md pair clears AA with room to spare and the icon plus text satisfy the never-color-alone rule (Principle 7: accessibility is not optional).\nCompleteness: 3A=10/10, 3B=6/10, 3C=3/10\nNet: the design-system error tokens vs. an ad hoc darker red on the current pink vs. leaving it below AA.": "3A: #991b1b text on #fef2f2 surface, icon + explicit text (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T04:13:06.407Z"
}
}
},
{
"ordinal": 9,
"fingerprint": {
"signature": "ba2c03f0-6d75-4f7e-8140-d3fd03cfdbcf:toolu_016CKwnTbAj4y3ZBB45CT5pB",
"promptSnippet": "TODO D9 \u2014 Deferred debt TODO: replace the app-wide system-ui font with a chosen typeface? Project/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-XQbt40 on main, PLAN.md design review, post-pass TODO proposal. ELI10: The form inherits the app's font, system",
"options": [
{
"index": 1,
"label": "A: Add to TODOS.md (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "B: Skip, system-ui is intentional for this app"
},
{
"index": 3,
"label": "C: Choose a typeface in this PR"
}
],
"observedAtMs": 521371,
"preReview": false,
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "ba2c03f0-6d75-4f7e-8140-d3fd03cfdbcf",
"toolUseId": "toolu_016CKwnTbAj4y3ZBB45CT5pB",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D9 \u2014 Deferred debt TODO: replace the app-wide system-ui font with a chosen typeface?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-XQbt40 on main, PLAN.md design review, post-pass TODO proposal.\nELI10: The form inherits the app's font, system-ui, which means \"whatever the operating system uses\". The design checklist treats that as the \"gave up on typography\" signal because the product has no typographic voice of its own. This plan correctly keeps it: swapping fonts on one settings page would make that page look foreign, and DESIGN.md currently mandates system-ui. The question is only whether to record an app-wide typeface decision as future debt.\nWhat: Evaluate one chosen body/UI typeface app-wide and update DESIGN.md. Why: give the product a typographic voice instead of the OS default. Pros: stronger brand presence on every screen. Cons: app-wide change, font loading cost, DESIGN.md revision, visual regression across all pages. Context: flagged in Pass 4 of this review; explicitly out of scope for this form update. Depends on: /design-consultation and a DESIGN.md revision. TODOS.md does not exist yet and cannot be created in plan mode, so option A records the item in this plan and writes TODOS.md after plan mode exits.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Either the debt is forgotten, or time goes into an app-wide font change nobody asked for.\nRecommendation: A because it costs nothing now and keeps an explicit design decision from being lost, while B is a fully defensible choice for a native-feeling settings surface.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: record the debt vs. accept system-ui as intentional vs. widen this PR.",
"header": "TODO",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A: Add to TODOS.md (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 The typeface question becomes an explicit, findable decision with its context preserved\n\u2705 Zero work in this PR; the settings form ships unchanged\n\u274c Creates a TODOS.md file after plan mode exits; another item to triage later"
},
{
"label": "B: Skip, system-ui is intentional for this app",
"description": "\u2705 Native OS type is a legitimate choice for an OPERATE surface; nothing to track\n\u2705 No new files, no future triage\n\u274c The decision stays implicit; a future reviewer will raise it again"
},
{
"label": "C: Choose a typeface in this PR",
"description": "\u2705 Resolves the slop flag now rather than later\n\u2705 The settings form ships with the final type voice\n\u274c Contradicts the plan's explicit no-visual-exploration constraint and touches every page (human: ~2 days / CC: ~1h)"
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D9 \u2014 Deferred debt TODO: replace the app-wide system-ui font with a chosen typeface?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-XQbt40 on main, PLAN.md design review, post-pass TODO proposal.\nELI10: The form inherits the app's font, system-ui, which means \"whatever the operating system uses\". The design checklist treats that as the \"gave up on typography\" signal because the product has no typographic voice of its own. This plan correctly keeps it: swapping fonts on one settings page would make that page look foreign, and DESIGN.md currently mandates system-ui. The question is only whether to record an app-wide typeface decision as future debt.\nWhat: Evaluate one chosen body/UI typeface app-wide and update DESIGN.md. Why: give the product a typographic voice instead of the OS default. Pros: stronger brand presence on every screen. Cons: app-wide change, font loading cost, DESIGN.md revision, visual regression across all pages. Context: flagged in Pass 4 of this review; explicitly out of scope for this form update. Depends on: /design-consultation and a DESIGN.md revision. TODOS.md does not exist yet and cannot be created in plan mode, so option A records the item in this plan and writes TODOS.md after plan mode exits.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Either the debt is forgotten, or time goes into an app-wide font change nobody asked for.\nRecommendation: A because it costs nothing now and keeps an explicit design decision from being lost, while B is a fully defensible choice for a native-feeling settings surface.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: record the debt vs. accept system-ui as intentional vs. widen this PR.": "A: Add to TODOS.md (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T04:14:26.288Z"
}
}
}
]
}
test/fixtures/design-future-todo-aj.json
Vendored
-52
View File
@@ -1,52 +0,0 @@
{
"signature": "9aedb365-c1e6-4f04-ac07-e4fc5dd32b9c:toolu_01JzHqoCyg4cy5S94wCE5p3q",
"promptSnippet": "TODO 1 D10 \u2014 TODO proposal: record a deferred TODOS.md item to evaluate a real body typeface for the settings shell (replacing system-ui) in a later design pass? Project/branch/task: main, /plan-design-review of PLAN.md, post-pass TODOS.md ",
"options": [
{
"index": 1,
"label": "A Add to TODOS.md (recommended)"
},
{
"index": 2,
"label": "B Skip, not valuable enough"
},
{
"index": 3,
"label": "C Build it now in this PR"
}
],
"observedAtMs": 445568,
"preReview": false,
"nativeCall": {
"sessionId": "9aedb365-c1e6-4f04-ac07-e4fc5dd32b9c",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01JzHqoCyg4cy5S94wCE5p3q",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D10 \u2014 TODO proposal: record a deferred TODOS.md item to evaluate a real body typeface for the settings shell (replacing system-ui) in a later design pass?\nProject/branch/task: main, /plan-design-review of PLAN.md, post-pass TODOS.md updates.\nELI10: DESIGN.md and this plan keep system-ui as the app font, and you excluded visual exploration from this update, so nothing changes now. The only design-debt item left is that system-ui is the one AI-slop signal the review flagged: it is the default stack, not a chosen voice. This question is only about whether to write that down in TODOS.md so a future /design-consultation picks it up, not about changing anything here. What: evaluate one role-scoped sans (for example DM Sans, Instrument Sans, IBM Plex Sans) for the settings shell and controls. Why: a chosen typeface is the cheapest tell that the app was designed rather than assembled. Pros: brand voice across the whole app. Cons: touches every screen, needs a font-loading strategy and a DESIGN.md revision; not a settings-page task. Depends on: a DESIGN.md update via /design-consultation. Principle: subtraction default says do not add it now; the TODO just keeps the debt visible.\nStakes if we pick wrong: either the debt is forgotten, or a note lands in TODOS.md that you consider noise.\nRecommendation: A because the debt is real but explicitly out of scope, and a written TODO costs nothing.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: keep the typography debt visible vs. drop it.",
"header": "TODO 1",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A Add to TODOS.md (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 The one remaining design-debt item stays visible for the next /design-consultation run (human: ~5min / CC: ~1min to record). \u2705 Nothing changes in this update; DESIGN.md and system-ui stay as approved. \u274c Adds a TODOS.md file to a repo that does not have one yet (written after plan mode ends)."
},
{
"label": "B Skip, not valuable enough",
"description": "\u2705 No TODOS.md noise; system-ui is a deliberate design-system choice. \u2705 Zero follow-up work. \u274c The typography debt is not recorded anywhere and may be re-discovered later."
},
{
"label": "C Build it now in this PR",
"description": "\u2705 Removes the slop signal immediately across the settings page. \u2705 Fonts load with the existing shell. \u274c Directly contradicts the plan's \"no visual exploration\" and DESIGN.md's system-ui rule; app-wide scope in a settings-page PR."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D10 \u2014 TODO proposal: record a deferred TODOS.md item to evaluate a real body typeface for the settings shell (replacing system-ui) in a later design pass?\nProject/branch/task: main, /plan-design-review of PLAN.md, post-pass TODOS.md updates.\nELI10: DESIGN.md and this plan keep system-ui as the app font, and you excluded visual exploration from this update, so nothing changes now. The only design-debt item left is that system-ui is the one AI-slop signal the review flagged: it is the default stack, not a chosen voice. This question is only about whether to write that down in TODOS.md so a future /design-consultation picks it up, not about changing anything here. What: evaluate one role-scoped sans (for example DM Sans, Instrument Sans, IBM Plex Sans) for the settings shell and controls. Why: a chosen typeface is the cheapest tell that the app was designed rather than assembled. Pros: brand voice across the whole app. Cons: touches every screen, needs a font-loading strategy and a DESIGN.md revision; not a settings-page task. Depends on: a DESIGN.md update via /design-consultation. Principle: subtraction default says do not add it now; the TODO just keeps the debt visible.\nStakes if we pick wrong: either the debt is forgotten, or a note lands in TODOS.md that you consider noise.\nRecommendation: A because the debt is real but explicitly out of scope, and a written TODO costs nothing.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: keep the typography debt visible vs. drop it.": "A Add to TODOS.md (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T05:47:13.383Z"
}
}
test/fixtures/design-gap-z-calls.json
Vendored
-236
View File
@@ -1,236 +0,0 @@
{
"calls": [
{
"sessionId": "775fbf0c-b6aa-4363-9927-31d7fc15f6d4",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01N4SZ3Q3XtSxJn6UnBvskFb",
"questions": [
{
"question": "Gap 1 of 8 \u2014 Save button visual hierarchy: apply DESIGN.md primary button style?",
"header": "Gap 1: Button",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Apply DESIGN.md fix (recommended)",
"description": "Add to plan: Save gets #1d4ed8 filled + white text (primary); Reset, Cancel, Export get neutral ghost style. Closes the visual hierarchy gap exactly as DESIGN.md specifies. Implementation task T1 becomes committed."
},
{
"label": "Defer to implementation",
"description": "Leave the gap named but unresolved. Engineer decides the button styles at implementation time without a spec. Risk: inconsistency with the design system or re-work after review."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"Gap 1 of 8 \u2014 Save button visual hierarchy: apply DESIGN.md primary button style?": "Apply DESIGN.md fix (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T12:16:44.618Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "775fbf0c-b6aa-4363-9927-31d7fc15f6d4",
"toolUseId": "toolu_017zBFd8ifxP7MFxNBAC2TpV",
"questions": [
{
"question": "Gap 2 of 8 \u2014 Spacing: standardize to DESIGN.md 8px-base scale?",
"header": "Gap 2: Spacing",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Apply DESIGN.md fix (recommended)",
"description": "Add to plan: sections 32px apart, field groups 24px, label-to-input 8px. Removes the 16px outlier and gives implementation a single source of truth. Implementation task T2 becomes committed."
},
{
"label": "Defer to implementation",
"description": "Leave the inconsistency noted. Engineer picks spacing values during build. Risk: the 16px outlier persists and the form feels uneven at different scroll positions."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"Gap 2 of 8 \u2014 Spacing: standardize to DESIGN.md 8px-base scale?": "Apply DESIGN.md fix (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T12:17:07.703Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "775fbf0c-b6aa-4363-9927-31d7fc15f6d4",
"toolUseId": "toolu_018S3TMnN9HV9S75z8svkcUN",
"questions": [
{
"question": "Gap 3 of 8 \u2014 Error color contrast: apply DESIGN.md #991b1b on #fef2f2 tokens?",
"header": "Gap 3: Color",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Apply DESIGN.md fix (recommended)",
"description": "Add to plan: error text uses #991b1b on #fef2f2 surface with an icon. Brings error states to WCAG AA contrast (from the current ~3:1). Implementation task T3 becomes committed."
},
{
"label": "Defer to implementation",
"description": "Leave the contrast gap noted. Engineer resolves the color at build time. Risk: a shipped accessibility violation, since the current ~3:1 is below WCAG AA minimum of 4.5:1."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"Gap 3 of 8 \u2014 Error color contrast: apply DESIGN.md #991b1b on #fef2f2 tokens?": "Apply DESIGN.md fix (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T12:17:24.757Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "775fbf0c-b6aa-4363-9927-31d7fc15f6d4",
"toolUseId": "toolu_011rznHG5hrLyBFvZ4gCmt5s",
"questions": [
{
"question": "Gap 4 of 8 \u2014 Typography: consolidate to two sizes per DESIGN.md (16px + 20px)?",
"header": "Gap 4: Type",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Apply DESIGN.md fix (recommended)",
"description": "Add to plan: all body text, form labels, and helper text use 16px; section headings (h2) use 20px. The rogue 14px and 18px sizes are removed. Creates stronger two-level hierarchy. Task T4 committed."
},
{
"label": "Defer to implementation",
"description": "Leave the three-size inconsistency noted. Engineer picks which sizes to use at build time. Risk: the 14px text may persist and fail WCAG AA body-text contrast at small size."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"Gap 4 of 8 \u2014 Typography: consolidate to two sizes per DESIGN.md (16px + 20px)?": "Apply DESIGN.md fix (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T12:17:34.295Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "775fbf0c-b6aa-4363-9927-31d7fc15f6d4",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01BWGpyri31dDYV7Qn1ntbrq",
"questions": [
{
"question": "Gap 5 of 8 \u2014 Motion: add DESIGN.md spinner pattern for Save pending state?",
"header": "Gap 5: Motion",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Apply DESIGN.md fix (recommended)",
"description": "Add to plan: on Save click, disable the button, show an inline spinner beside 'Saving\u2026', set aria-busy=true. With reduced-motion: no spinner, text only. Success clears to 'Saved at HH:mm'. Task T5 committed."
},
{
"label": "Defer to implementation",
"description": "Leave the frozen-page gap noted. Engineer designs the loading state at build time. Risk: inconsistency with the established spinner pattern and a 2-5s blank page on every save."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"Gap 5 of 8 \u2014 Motion: add DESIGN.md spinner pattern for Save pending state?": "Apply DESIGN.md fix (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T12:17:43.823Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "775fbf0c-b6aa-4363-9927-31d7fc15f6d4",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01LngzQi1Ukw4EmxesxaSfDc",
"questions": [
{
"question": "Gap 6 of 8 \u2014 Export-while-dirty: specify that Export reads saved values only?",
"header": "Gap 6: Export",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Export reads last-saved values (recommended)",
"description": "Add to plan: Export downloads the last-saved preferences, ignoring unsaved edits. No implicit save triggered. Unsaved-changes status persists. Matches the atomic-save philosophy already in the plan."
},
{
"label": "Export reads current (unsaved) field values",
"description": "Add to plan: Export includes whatever is currently in the form fields, whether saved or not. The download reflects the user's in-progress state. Simpler to implement but may surprise users who export before saving."
},
{
"label": "Defer to implementation",
"description": "Leave this scenario unspecified. Engineer decides at build time. Risk: inconsistent behavior between implementations or user confusion when exported JSON differs from what they see in the form."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"Gap 6 of 8 \u2014 Export-while-dirty: specify that Export reads saved values only?": "Export reads last-saved values (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T12:17:59.395Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "775fbf0c-b6aa-4363-9927-31d7fc15f6d4",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01G1HXr6nAGLxkd2ntnqGpk7",
"questions": [
{
"question": "Gap 7 of 8 \u2014 Ghost button spec: reference existing component or add explicit values?",
"header": "Gap 7: Ghost btn",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Reference existing Button component ghost variant (recommended)",
"description": "Add to plan: 'Reset, Cancel, Export use the existing Button component ghost variant. No new CSS values are introduced.' Clean, DRY, ties to the component system."
},
{
"label": "State explicit CSS values in the plan",
"description": "Add to plan: ghost buttons have transparent background, 1px border #d1d5db, text #374151, hover background #f9fafb. Useful if the Button component doesn't yet have a ghost variant or its values are unclear."
},
{
"label": "Defer \u2014 leave ghost style unspecified",
"description": "Let the engineer look up or invent ghost button values at build time. Risk: visual inconsistency with other ghost buttons in the app."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"Gap 7 of 8 \u2014 Ghost button spec: reference existing component or add explicit values?": "Reference existing Button component ghost variant (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T12:18:20.487Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "775fbf0c-b6aa-4363-9927-31d7fc15f6d4",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01L28TR9p37GzvWFrLsMPZbH",
"questions": [
{
"question": "Gap 8 of 8 \u2014 InlineStatus during validation: specify it reads 'Unsaved changes'?",
"header": "Gap 8: LiveRegion",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Specify 'Unsaved changes' during validation (recommended)",
"description": "Add to plan: when validation errors fire, InlineStatus text is 'Unsaved changes' (the normal dirty state). The live region announces once; field errors and ErrorSummary announce separately via focus. No simultaneous conflicting announcements."
},
{
"label": "Defer \u2014 leave live region coordination unspecified",
"description": "Let the engineer decide what InlineStatus reads during validation. Risk: screen reader announces conflicting states simultaneously if the live region and error summary fire at the same moment."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"Gap 8 of 8 \u2014 InlineStatus during validation: specify it reads 'Unsaved changes'?": "Specify 'Unsaved changes' during validation (recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T12:18:41.580Z"
}
]
}
test/fixtures/design-handoff-l-calls.json
Vendored
-361
View File
@@ -1,361 +0,0 @@
{
"sessionId": "ad94ee0b-9951-401e-ba69-e78a4ead9424",
"calls": [
{
"sessionId": "ad94ee0b-9951-401e-ba69-e78a4ead9424",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01WShSEgWPsL8qaapH66Yquh",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 \u2014 Cross-project learnings: enable cross-project search? <gstack-qid:cross-project-learnings>",
"header": "Learnings",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Enable cross-project (Recommended)",
"description": "gstack searches learnings from all your projects on this machine to find patterns that apply here. Stays fully local \u2014 no data leaves your machine. Best for solo developers."
},
{
"label": "Project-scoped only",
"description": "Learnings search stays limited to this project. Choose if you work on multiple client codebases where cross-contamination would be a concern."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 \u2014 Cross-project learnings: enable cross-project search? <gstack-qid:cross-project-learnings>": "Enable cross-project (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-08T23:13:07.866Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "ad94ee0b-9951-401e-ba69-e78a4ead9424",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01GXrVhnMz2H74r5gCd7fWMH",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D2 \u2014 Pass 1 (Information Architecture): specify Save button visual prominence in the plan? <gstack-qid:plan-design-pass1-save-prominence>",
"header": "Info Arch",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Add DESIGN.md spec to plan (Recommended)",
"description": "Adds explicit wording: Save uses filled primary Button (#1d4ed8 bg, white text); Reset/Cancel/Export use ghost neutral. Implementer has an authoritative spec and cannot ship all-same-weight buttons."
},
{
"label": "Leave as gap description only",
"description": "The gap is named in the plan but no token-level fix is written in. Risk: implementer defaults to framework defaults or guesses, and the visual hierarchy problem ships as-is."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D2 \u2014 Pass 1 (Information Architecture): specify Save button visual prominence in the plan? <gstack-qid:plan-design-pass1-save-prominence>": "Add DESIGN.md spec to plan (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-08T23:13:27.915Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "ad94ee0b-9951-401e-ba69-e78a4ead9424",
"toolUseId": "toolu_013rVqxKYoYVvrpWF1emSUTx",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D3 \u2014 Pass 2 (Interaction States): add the DESIGN.md save-pending pattern to the plan? <gstack-qid:plan-design-pass2-save-pending>",
"header": "States",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Add pending-state spec to plan (Recommended)",
"description": "Writes the inline spinner + aria-busy=true + reduced-motion fallback into the plan explicitly. Reuses the existing DESIGN.md pattern \u2014 no new components. Implementer has a clear spec for all three cases: spinning, reduced-motion, and error recovery."
},
{
"label": "Leave as gap only",
"description": "The gap is named but the fix is not written in. Risk: implementer adds a custom spinner or defers the loading state, and users continue to see a frozen page during 2-5 second saves."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D3 \u2014 Pass 2 (Interaction States): add the DESIGN.md save-pending pattern to the plan? <gstack-qid:plan-design-pass2-save-pending>": "Add pending-state spec to plan (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-08T23:13:55.475Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "ad94ee0b-9951-401e-ba69-e78a4ead9424",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01WacHy5LF6fr6kNRX1AXmhZ",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D4 \u2014 Pass 3 (User Journey): add a journey storyboard and InlineStatus confidence rationale to the plan? <gstack-qid:plan-design-pass3-journey>",
"header": "Journey",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Add storyboard + rationale (Recommended)",
"description": "Adds the 6-step journey table and a one-line note that 'Saved at HH:mm' is the primary confidence anchor (not optional polish). Prevents implementers from treating InlineStatus as decorative or deferring it."
},
{
"label": "Skip \u2014 functional description is sufficient",
"description": "Leave the journey as prose. Risk: implementer deprioritizes InlineStatus or ships a generic 'Saved!' toast instead of the timestamp, breaking the confidence mechanism."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D4 \u2014 Pass 3 (User Journey): add a journey storyboard and InlineStatus confidence rationale to the plan? <gstack-qid:plan-design-pass3-journey>": "Add storyboard + rationale (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-08T23:14:40.578Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "ad94ee0b-9951-401e-ba69-e78a4ead9424",
"toolUseId": "toolu_011ypsWJjNNLoQzcRef7LPuR",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D5 \u2014 Pass 5A (Spacing): add the DESIGN.md 8px grid spec to the plan? <gstack-qid:plan-design-pass5a-spacing>",
"header": "Spacing",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Add 8px grid spec (Recommended)",
"description": "Writes 'sections 32px, field groups 24px, label-to-input 8px' as the authoritative spec. Implementer has a three-value contract to audit against before shipping. Deviations become verifiable bugs, not taste calls."
},
{
"label": "Leave as gap description only",
"description": "The inconsistency is named but no target values are written in. Risk: implementer uses CSS framework defaults or eyeballs it, and the three-way inconsistency ships or gets 'fixed' to a fourth value."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D5 \u2014 Pass 5A (Spacing): add the DESIGN.md 8px grid spec to the plan? <gstack-qid:plan-design-pass5a-spacing>": "Add 8px grid spec (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-08T23:15:46.251Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "ad94ee0b-9951-401e-ba69-e78a4ead9424",
"toolUseId": "toolu_016zDVUddTzEwCAqpusRKppx",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D6 \u2014 Pass 5B (Color / Error Contrast): specify DESIGN.md error tokens as the fix for the ~3:1 contrast gap? <gstack-qid:plan-design-pass5b-error-color>",
"header": "Color",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Lock error tokens to DESIGN.md (#991b1b on #fef2f2) (Recommended)",
"description": "Writes the explicit hex values into the plan as the compliant spec (~7.6:1, WCAG AAA). Eliminates ambiguity about which red/pink combination to use. Any other combination is explicitly a bug."
},
{
"label": "Leave as contrast gap without specifying the fix",
"description": "Risk: implementer picks a different red-on-pink combination that is WCAG AA compliant but doesn't match DESIGN.md, creating a new design system divergence."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D6 \u2014 Pass 5B (Color / Error Contrast): specify DESIGN.md error tokens as the fix for the ~3:1 contrast gap? <gstack-qid:plan-design-pass5b-error-color>": "Lock error tokens to DESIGN.md (#991b1b on #fef2f2) (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-08T23:15:52.266Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "ad94ee0b-9951-401e-ba69-e78a4ead9424",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Av9hr46JuFtQWTnG4ydo6j",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D7 \u2014 Pass 5C (Typography): enforce DESIGN.md two-size scale (16px body, 20px headings) in the plan? <gstack-qid:plan-design-pass5c-typography>",
"header": "Typography",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Enforce two-size scale per DESIGN.md (Recommended)",
"description": "Writes 'exactly 16px body/labels and 20px section headings' as the spec. Eliminates 14px and 18px as unauthorized sizes. Creates a verifiable typography contract the implementer can lint against."
},
{
"label": "Leave as gap description only",
"description": "Risk: implementer keeps 14px for helper text (common framework default) and the three-size drift ships as-is, weakening the visual hierarchy DESIGN.md was designed to establish."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D7 \u2014 Pass 5C (Typography): enforce DESIGN.md two-size scale (16px body, 20px headings) in the plan? <gstack-qid:plan-design-pass5c-typography>": "Enforce two-size scale per DESIGN.md (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-08T23:15:58.277Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "ad94ee0b-9951-401e-ba69-e78a4ead9424",
"toolUseId": "toolu_014yXhFvgZZvK8srj2fac4B8",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D8 \u2014 Pass 7A (Unresolved Decision): Reset button state when the form has no unsaved changes? <gstack-qid:plan-design-pass7a-reset-state>",
"header": "Reset State",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Disable Reset when form is clean (Recommended)",
"description": "Reset is disabled (visually muted, aria-disabled=true) when there are no unsaved changes. Eliminates the misleading 'Discard unsaved changes?' dialog on a clean form. Consistent with 'the button tells you what you can do right now'."
},
{
"label": "Keep Reset always enabled",
"description": "Reset always opens the confirmation dialog. When clean, the dialog can say 'Your saved values will be reloaded.' Slightly more complex dialog copy but avoids needing to track button enabled state separately from dirty state."
},
{
"label": "Leave unspecified in plan",
"description": "Implementer decides. Risk: different engineers make different calls at different points, or the misleading dialog ships. This is the highest-risk option."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D8 \u2014 Pass 7A (Unresolved Decision): Reset button state when the form has no unsaved changes? <gstack-qid:plan-design-pass7a-reset-state>": "Disable Reset when form is clean (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-08T23:16:57.934Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "ad94ee0b-9951-401e-ba69-e78a4ead9424",
"toolUseId": "toolu_015zWtpvUqFh4TbA4eNZ4F9a",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D9 \u2014 Pass 7B (Unresolved Decision): what is the Cancel button navigation target? <gstack-qid:plan-design-pass7b-cancel-nav>",
"header": "Cancel Nav",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "browser history.back() (Recommended)",
"description": "Cancel navigates to the previous page in browser history. Simple, conventional, works for traditional web apps. May not be reliable in SPA contexts if history stack is synthetic."
},
{
"label": "Hardcoded route (e.g., /account or /dashboard)",
"description": "Cancel navigates to a specific named route. Reliable in SPAs and server-rendered apps. Requires knowing the product's navigation structure and can break if routes change."
},
{
"label": "Leave unspecified",
"description": "Implementer decides. Risk: SPA implementers use router.back() which may navigate to an unexpected location (e.g., back into the settings page itself after a redirect)."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D9 \u2014 Pass 7B (Unresolved Decision): what is the Cancel button navigation target? <gstack-qid:plan-design-pass7b-cancel-nav>": "browser history.back() (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-08T23:17:03.945Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "ad94ee0b-9951-401e-ba69-e78a4ead9424",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Ec8vuJPoyXHTfoudjPd125",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D10 \u2014 TODO: add a task to verify the error contrast fix with a contrast checker before shipping? <gstack-qid:plan-design-todo-contrast-verify>",
"header": "TODO: Contrast",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Add to TODOS.md (Recommended)",
"description": "What: Run a contrast checker (e.g., APCA or WebAIM) on the live rendered error state to confirm #991b1b on #fef2f2 achieves 4.5:1+ in the implemented output. Why: calculated ratios can differ from rendered output due to anti-aliasing, sub-pixel rendering, and component overrides. A quick manual check before ship saves a WCAG audit finding."
},
{
"label": "Skip \u2014 calculation is sufficient",
"description": "Trust the ~7.6:1 calculation and DESIGN.md token enforcement. No additional verification step."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D10 \u2014 TODO: add a task to verify the error contrast fix with a contrast checker before shipping? <gstack-qid:plan-design-todo-contrast-verify>": "Add to TODOS.md (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-08T23:17:29.518Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "ad94ee0b-9951-401e-ba69-e78a4ead9424",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01F9u26ZMSJxaGjfBPEjBmHJ",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D11 \u2014 TODO: add a task to test the Cancel history.back() behavior in the SPA router? <gstack-qid:plan-design-todo-cancel-nav>",
"header": "TODO: Cancel",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Add to TODOS.md (Recommended)",
"description": "What: Manually test Cancel navigation from at least two entry points (direct URL, nav link from dashboard) to confirm history.back() lands the user somewhere meaningful. Why: SPA routers sometimes push synthetic history entries; history.back() from a settings page opened via redirect may not go where the user expects."
},
{
"label": "Skip \u2014 history.back() is standard, no test needed",
"description": "Trust that history.back() works as expected across all navigation paths. No additional verification."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D11 \u2014 TODO: add a task to test the Cancel history.back() behavior in the SPA router? <gstack-qid:plan-design-todo-cancel-nav>": "Add to TODOS.md (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-08T23:17:35.531Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "ad94ee0b-9951-401e-ba69-e78a4ead9424",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01JSZyHEGFZSzKbE4fRHGfXJ",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D12 \u2014 Next steps: design review complete (6/10 \u2192 9/10, 7 decisions made). What's next? <gstack-qid:plan-design-next-steps>",
"header": "Next Steps",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Run /plan-eng-review (Recommended)",
"description": "Architecture and tests review \u2014 the required gate before shipping. This design review added interaction specs (Reset state, Cancel nav, pending pattern) that eng review should validate for implementation approach."
},
{
"label": "Skip to implementation",
"description": "Start implementing the 7 tasks directly. Skip /plan-eng-review for now. Note: eng review is the required shipping gate and would need to run before the PR lands."
},
{
"label": "Run /plan-ceo-review first",
"description": "Product/scope review before eng. Useful if there are open questions about whether Reset-when-disabled or Cancel-nav decisions align with broader product goals. Not flagged as a critical gap by this review."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D12 \u2014 Next steps: design review complete (6/10 \u2192 9/10, 7 decisions made). What's next? <gstack-qid:plan-design-next-steps>": "Run /plan-eng-review (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-08T23:20:17.109Z"
}
],
"planReadyRequests": [
{
"sessionId": "ad94ee0b-9951-401e-ba69-e78a4ead9424",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01PyebCrv7DApLZp9RL8zdef",
"timestamp": "2026-09-08T23:20:25.168Z",
"failed": false
}
]
}
test/fixtures/design-handoff-u-calls.json
Vendored
-234
View File
@@ -1,234 +0,0 @@
[
{
"sessionId": "ab2c7ff1-970e-40ec-84b1-59560fcd165a",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01MxehX219oH2HnxmXrNBL52",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 \u2014 Pass 2/3/5: The plan identifies that saving takes 2-5 seconds with no feedback (frozen page). DESIGN.MD fully specifies the fix: inline spinner beside \"Saving\u2026\" inside the disabled Save button, aria-busy=true, reduced-motion support. The plan names this as a gap but adds no implementation task. Should we add it? <gstack-qid:plan-design-review-save-spinner>",
"header": "Save spinner",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Add implementation task (Recommended)",
"description": "Add a concrete task: apply DESIGN.MD pending-state pattern \u2014 spinner + 'Saving\u2026' in disabled button, aria-busy=true, prefers-reduced-motion support. Fix: ~30 min CC / ~2h human. Resolves Issues 2.1, 3 (step 6 emotional arc), and 5.5 in one task."
},
{
"label": "Leave as gap description",
"description": "Keep the gap named but untasked. Developer reads the plan gap section and decides implementation during build. Risk: the pattern is non-trivial and may ship without reduced-motion support."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 \u2014 Pass 2/3/5: The plan identifies that saving takes 2-5 seconds with no feedback (frozen page). DESIGN.MD fully specifies the fix: inline spinner beside \"Saving\u2026\" inside the disabled Save button, aria-busy=true, reduced-motion support. The plan names this as a gap but adds no implementation task. Should we add it? <gstack-qid:plan-design-review-save-spinner>": "Add implementation task (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T07:53:07.541Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "ab2c7ff1-970e-40ec-84b1-59560fcd165a",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01AZ2KWABJtBzHYDoPAhQo14",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D2 \u2014 Pass 5: Visual Hierarchy. Save, Reset, Cancel, and Export are all rendered identically \u2014 same size, weight, and color. Nothing signals which is primary. DESIGN.MD specifies: Save is the only filled primary action (#1d4ed8 bg, white text); Reset, Cancel, Export are neutral ghost buttons. The plan names this gap but adds no implementation task. Should we add it? <gstack-qid:plan-design-review-primary-button>",
"header": "Primary button",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Add implementation task (Recommended)",
"description": "Add task: Apply Button primary variant (#1d4ed8 fill, white text) to Save; ghost variant to Reset, Cancel, Export. Fix aligns with DESIGN.MD exactly. ~15 min CC / ~1h human. Resolves Issue 5.1."
},
{
"label": "Leave as gap description",
"description": "Keep gap named but untasked. Risk: developer ships all four buttons identical, user has no visual cue which action is primary \u2014 most critical UX gap on this page."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D2 \u2014 Pass 5: Visual Hierarchy. Save, Reset, Cancel, and Export are all rendered identically \u2014 same size, weight, and color. Nothing signals which is primary. DESIGN.MD specifies: Save is the only filled primary action (#1d4ed8 bg, white text); Reset, Cancel, Export are neutral ghost buttons. The plan names this gap but adds no implementation task. Should we add it? <gstack-qid:plan-design-review-primary-button>": "Add implementation task (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T07:53:15.554Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "ab2c7ff1-970e-40ec-84b1-59560fcd165a",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01A5JA2y1jfNUU6d78Ma6G5B",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D3 \u2014 Pass 5: Spacing. The plan reports 16px spacing appearing in a third location, alongside 24px (field groups) and 32px (sections) which match DESIGN.MD. But the plan doesn't say WHERE the 16px appears. DESIGN.MD's scale has no 16px slot: sections=32px, field groups=24px, label-to-input=8px. How should we handle this? <gstack-qid:plan-design-review-spacing-16px>",
"header": "Spacing fix",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Add task to locate and correct 16px spacing (Recommended)",
"description": "Add task: audit spacing in the header action group and between InlineStatus and first fieldset \u2014 most likely candidates for the 16px outlier. Replace with the correct DESIGN.MD value (8px, 24px, or 32px depending on context). ~20 min CC / ~30 min human."
},
{
"label": "Leave location ambiguous",
"description": "Keep gap named without specifying location. Developer hunts during implementation. Risk: they fix the wrong instance, or the 16px inconsistency survives because its location was never pinned."
},
{
"label": "Escalate \u2014 need clarification on exact location",
"description": "Pause for the user to identify which spacing element uses 16px. Safest if you know where it is. Adds one more conversation round before work begins."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D3 \u2014 Pass 5: Spacing. The plan reports 16px spacing appearing in a third location, alongside 24px (field groups) and 32px (sections) which match DESIGN.MD. But the plan doesn't say WHERE the 16px appears. DESIGN.MD's scale has no 16px slot: sections=32px, field groups=24px, label-to-input=8px. How should we handle this? <gstack-qid:plan-design-review-spacing-16px>": "Add task to locate and correct 16px spacing (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T07:53:25.574Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "ab2c7ff1-970e-40ec-84b1-59560fcd165a",
"toolUseId": "toolu_018Cx5mafCD7jxsaibDvoWa1",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D4 \u2014 Pass 5/6: Error Color \u2014 WCAG AA failure. The current error style (red text on light pink background) has ~3:1 contrast. WCAG AA requires 4.5:1 for normal-weight text. This fails both accessibility law and DESIGN.MD, which specifies: error.text #991b1b on error.surface #fef2f2, with an icon and explicit text. The plan names the gap but adds no implementation task. Should we add it? <gstack-qid:plan-design-review-error-contrast>",
"header": "Error contrast",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Add implementation task (Recommended)",
"description": "Add task: Set error text to #991b1b on #fef2f2 background, add icon + explicit error text label. Fixes both the WCAG AA violation and DESIGN.MD alignment. ~15 min CC / ~1h human. Resolves Issues 5.3 and 6.1."
},
{
"label": "Leave as gap description",
"description": "Keep gap named but untasked. Risk: WCAG AA violation ships \u2014 legal and accessibility liability, plus poor experience for users with low vision or in challenging lighting."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D4 \u2014 Pass 5/6: Error Color \u2014 WCAG AA failure. The current error style (red text on light pink background) has ~3:1 contrast. WCAG AA requires 4.5:1 for normal-weight text. This fails both accessibility law and DESIGN.MD, which specifies: error.text #991b1b on error.surface #fef2f2, with an icon and explicit text. The plan names the gap but adds no implementation task. Should we add it? <gstack-qid:plan-design-review-error-contrast>": "Add implementation task (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T07:53:35.599Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "ab2c7ff1-970e-40ec-84b1-59560fcd165a",
"toolUseId": "toolu_012vDse8oLT3o1hM7CqHd1sn",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D5 \u2014 Pass 5: Typography. Three font sizes are used (14px, 16px, 18px) across form labels. DESIGN.MD specifies two roles only: 16px body/form labels/helper text; 20px section headings. The 14px violates the Universal Rule (body text must be \u226516px) and WCAG readability. The 18px conflicts with section heading size (20px) creating a muddled hierarchy. Should we add a consolidation task? <gstack-qid:plan-design-review-typography-sizes>",
"header": "Typography",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Add implementation task (Recommended)",
"description": "Add task: audit all form label and helper text sizes; replace 14px with 16px and 18px with 16px or 20px depending on element role. Verify no occurrence of 14px or 18px ships. ~20 min CC / ~1h human. Resolves Issue 5.4 and the <16px universal rule violation."
},
{
"label": "Leave as gap description",
"description": "Keep gap named but untasked. Risk: 14px text ships (below minimum; violates Universal Rules), and the muddled 18px/20px near-match confuses hierarchy for sighted users and may confuse screen reader users too."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D5 \u2014 Pass 5: Typography. Three font sizes are used (14px, 16px, 18px) across form labels. DESIGN.MD specifies two roles only: 16px body/form labels/helper text; 20px section headings. The 14px violates the Universal Rule (body text must be \u226516px) and WCAG readability. The 18px conflicts with section heading size (20px) creating a muddled hierarchy. Should we add a consolidation task? <gstack-qid:plan-design-review-typography-sizes>": "Add implementation task (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T07:53:43.615Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "ab2c7ff1-970e-40ec-84b1-59560fcd165a",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Mkr9iX2J2GTch2YMHxuTU7",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D6 \u2014 Pass 6: Reduced-motion save behavior. The plan says 'Respect reduced motion' and DESIGN.MD says the spinner has 'reduced-motion support' \u2014 but neither specifies what the user actually sees when prefers-reduced-motion: reduce is active. An animated spinner that ignores reduced-motion ships a broken accessibility experience. Which behavior should be specified? <gstack-qid:plan-design-review-reduced-motion>",
"header": "Reduced motion",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Static spinner + 'Saving\u2026' text (Recommended)",
"description": "Under prefers-reduced-motion: reduce, render the spinner as a static (non-animating) icon beside 'Saving\u2026'. Users still get visual feedback but no motion. Matches what most spinner libraries produce under reduced-motion."
},
{
"label": "'Saving\u2026' text only, no spinner",
"description": "Hide the spinner entirely under reduced-motion; show 'Saving\u2026' text alone inside the disabled button. Simpler, zero animation artifacts, but removes the visual progress indicator entirely."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D6 \u2014 Pass 6: Reduced-motion save behavior. The plan says 'Respect reduced motion' and DESIGN.MD says the spinner has 'reduced-motion support' \u2014 but neither specifies what the user actually sees when prefers-reduced-motion: reduce is active. An animated spinner that ignores reduced-motion ships a broken accessibility experience. Which behavior should be specified? <gstack-qid:plan-design-review-reduced-motion>": "Static spinner + 'Saving\u2026' text (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T07:53:51.630Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "ab2c7ff1-970e-40ec-84b1-59560fcd165a",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01KkdZitbTn6SvNCpZpKA2rq",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D7 \u2014 Pass 7: InlineStatus layout stability. The persistent status area transitions between three states: blank (before first save), 'Unsaved changes', and 'Saved at HH:mm'. If no minimum height is reserved, the content below it (Profile fieldset) will shift up/down each time the text appears or disappears. Neither the plan nor DESIGN.MD specifies whether a min-height should hold the space. What should the plan specify? <gstack-qid:plan-design-review-inline-status-height>",
"header": "Status height",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Reserve min-height equal to one text line (Recommended)",
"description": "Add spec: InlineStatus container has min-height: 1 line-height (approximately 24px). Blank state renders empty space; text transitions without layout shift. Matches the 'Unsaved changes' line height as the stable baseline."
},
{
"label": "Allow layout shift (no min-height)",
"description": "No min-height; content shifts when status text appears. Simpler CSS. Risk: noticeable layout jump on first edit or save \u2014 may feel broken, especially combined with the focus ring on the Save button."
},
{
"label": "Defer \u2014 decide during implementation",
"description": "Leave this unspecified; let the developer decide during build. Risk: inconsistent between future form pages if not codified."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D7 \u2014 Pass 7: InlineStatus layout stability. The persistent status area transitions between three states: blank (before first save), 'Unsaved changes', and 'Saved at HH:mm'. If no minimum height is reserved, the content below it (Profile fieldset) will shift up/down each time the text appears or disappears. Neither the plan nor DESIGN.MD specifies whether a min-height should hold the space. What should the plan specify? <gstack-qid:plan-design-review-inline-status-height>": "Reserve min-height equal to one text line (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T07:54:07.678Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "ab2c7ff1-970e-40ec-84b1-59560fcd165a",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01QeeStZr3jXcFNm2spvvn3S",
"questions": [
{
"question": "Design review complete (6/10 \u2192 9/10). 7 decisions resolved, 6 implementation tasks added, 0 deferred. The design review added significant interaction specs (spinner pending-state, reduced-motion behavior, layout stability) that have architectural implications. Eng review is the required shipping gate. What next? <gstack-qid:plan-design-review-next-step>",
"header": "Next step",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Run /plan-eng-review next (Recommended)",
"description": "Eng review is the required gate before shipping. This design review added spinner behavior, reduced-motion spec, and InlineStatus layout constraints \u2014 architectural implications worth validating before implementation starts."
},
{
"label": "Skip \u2014 handle next steps manually",
"description": "Exit plan mode and proceed on your own. You have 6 concrete implementation tasks ready to build from."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"Design review complete (6/10 \u2192 9/10). 7 decisions resolved, 6 implementation tasks added, 0 deferred. The design review added significant interaction specs (spinner pending-state, reduced-motion behavior, layout stability) that have architectural implications. Eng review is the required shipping gate. What next? <gstack-qid:plan-design-review-next-step>": "Run /plan-eng-review next (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T07:57:37.838Z"
}
]
Loaded 100 of 668 files, more files were not shown because too many files have changed in this diff. Show more