CalvinBackup/gstack
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/garrytan/gstack.git synced 2026-09-16 09:55:29 +02:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

v1.86.0.0 feat: route outside reviews by harness (#2850)

Browse Source 
* feat: add a restricted and supervised Claude Code runner

Preserve configured authentication and models while enforcing tool access, strict completion JSON, bounded output and process cleanup. Cover argv, failure handling, session metadata and Windows process containment.

* feat: route outside reviews by harness and migrate wrapper installs

Use Claude Code from Codex and Codex from other supported hosts, with shared invocation rendering, positive gate validation and per-phase provenance. Rename /claude to /claude-code, repair managed shared and copied installations safely, and generate native Kiro skills. Add installed-workflow, failure-injection and live cross-harness regression coverage.

* test: recognize CEO mode labels without terminal spacing

The paid workflow rendered SCOPEEXPANSION at option 4, but its driver required a literal space. Match the leading mode title without cursor-spacing artifacts and ignore adjacent preview text. Preserve missing-target failures and downstream posture assertions.

* test: isolate plan-count fixtures before starting review workflows

Seed the complete test plan in a private git repository before launching Claude, so a bare slash command cannot review the live workspace while a delayed fixture message remains queued. Preserve count thresholds, parsers and budgets. Add initial-context and installed-discovery tests, and retain startup/terminal diagnostics on failed evaluations.

* test: stabilize review fixtures and Claude eval startup

Preserve source boundaries in workflow judge inputs, isolate CEO mode plans, and wait for interactive trust input readiness. Keep startup failure evidence and retain existing models, budgets, and assertions.

Co-Authored-By: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com>

* test: classify collapsed review modes and isolate seeded findings

Keep review questions out of the setup count when terminal cursor positioning removes spaces. State existing webhook safeguards so the five-finding control measures its seeded defects without accidental extra security and concurrency gaps. Preserve question bands and the paired control.

Co-Authored-By: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com>

* test: isolate browser daemon state across free shards

Co-Authored-By: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com>

* test: stabilize native review counting and interactive navigation

Co-Authored-By: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com>

* chore: prepare v1.82.0.0 release

Co-Authored-By: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com>

* fix: eliminate browser and process-cleanup test flakes

Pin every CI surface to Bun 1.4.0 to avoid extra-stdio finalizers closing
reused live sockets. Add an isolated GC/listener regression that fails on
Bun 1.3.13, and prevent coordinated rollback to an affected CI runtime.

Check renderer cleanup against the render's own staging directory so
concurrent renders cannot invalidate the assertion. Make the no-pgrep
process-tree walk tolerate disappearing /proc entries, and synchronize
its test fixture through child readiness and pipe EOF instead of sleeps.

Validation: 9,157 passed, 31 skipped, zero failures across 556 files with
retries disabled. Build, all-host generation freshness, and skill checks
passed. All three races have failing-before/passing-after regressions.

* fix: count completed native review questions in evals

* fix: drive review navigation from confirmed native choices

* fix: require complete section-loading eval reports

* test: isolate telemetry HTTP transport from local assertions

* fix: keep review input on the active native question

* test: let tunnel revocation daemon choose an available port

* test: allocate available ports for pairing and watchdog fixtures

* fix: stabilize planning eval navigation and phase reporting

* test: isolate installed runtime paths in planning evals

* test: stabilize review evidence and concurrent refresh fixtures

* fix: resolve design findings before editing the plan

* fix: honor and persist disabled outside plan reviews

* fix: preserve planning decisions and terminal evidence

Load installed host reviews at autoplan phase entry and wait for completed
reviewers and saved artifacts. Reuse approved remedies while preserving
individual finding decisions.

Drive interactive evals from the current terminal viewport, bind native
questions across scrolling, and require complete native report evidence.
Cover captured stale menus, permission lifecycles, setup classification,
and disabled-review tool availability with deterministic regressions.

Advance release metadata and the upgrade migration to the unclaimed
1.83.0.0 slot.

* fix: drive native review questions and preserve current plans

Use the native single-choice keyboard protocol and current terminal viewport,
with per-question navigation inside packets and completed-call coverage.
Keep permissions, multi-select menus, and Submit controls distinct.

Send Autoplan reviewers the amended implementation plan, keep its review record
separate, and supply retained application contracts in the chain fixture.
Clarify individual DevEx decisions and complete CEO fix options; use one active
plan destination for the section-loading report.

* fix: preserve complete plan-review decisions

* fix: recognize native plan dialogs and reviewer controls

* fix: preserve review decisions and phase completion

* fix: recognize completed reviews without losing findings

* fix: preserve review continuity and native eval completion

* test: fix native review completion and eval retry isolation

* test: handle native review menus and complete eval fixtures

* test: fix native review setup, completion, and isolation failures

* test: limit native skill discovery to runtime assets

* fix: bind Autoplan reviews to full ordered phase inputs

* test: fix planning eval routing, counting, and timeout handling

* chore: advance queued release to v1.84.0.0

* fix: preserve complete review inputs and planning decisions

* fix: reconcile review approvals and preserve phase obligations

* fix: preserve review obligations and unblock eval permissions

Carry recorded Autoplan requirements into blind phase inputs, require Eng
review approvals before exit, and exercise combined asynchronous flows in
CEO reviews. Correct native finding and handoff classification and unblock
repeated report edits using scoped request identities.

* fix: retain plan requirements and complete native review dialogs

* fix: complete native review prompts and retain plan references

* fix: preserve review inputs and classify native eval evidence

* fix: check competing completion orders in CEO reviews

* fix: recognize review decisions and require phase methodology

Require the current phase methodology before Autoplan snapshots. Correct
substantive decision, closed handoff, and cache-finding classification, and
honor the recommended implementation approach in native review dialogs.

Add captured-transcript regressions without changing review thresholds,
provider models, retries, or deadlines.

* test: bind native review decisions and close completed handoffs

* fix: complete review dialogs and verify methodology delivery

* fix: preserve review evidence and unblock native eval prompts

* fix: handle native review question completions

* fix: recognize native review narration and controls

* fix: count native review decisions and isolate eval fixtures

* test: verify seeded review coverage and current artifact permissions

* test: isolate model and brain-aware skill renders

* fix: repair native workflow evaluation and clarify review steps

* fix: stabilize workflow eval evidence and review guidance

* test: repair native workflow observation and fixture isolation

* fix: recognize completed workflow evidence and owned skill reads

* test: repair seeded workflow delivery and completion evidence

* test: recognize current review evidence across native forms

* test: handle native review variants and permission redraws

* fix: honor review preferences and recognize native eval evidence

* test: recognize completed review decisions and queued permissions

* test: match current review contracts and partial-line edits

* test: recognize completed workflow evidence and bounded human waits

* fix: preserve review entry gates and native eval interactions

* fix: recognize native workflow evidence and preserve review gates

* test: recognize current review evidence and preconfigure workflow fixtures

* test: recognize completed review findings and scoped artifact permissions

* fix: stabilize native workflow review and permission evidence

* fix: recognize current review evidence and scoped edit confirmations

Clarify Design and engineering review entry instructions and Design scoring.
Recognize required legacy coverage and public Autoplan completion recaps.
Bind the pending Edit confirmation to its exact file, ordered digest, and
one-request approval when a preceding command display remains visible.
Keep reviews within their existing size limits and preserve scope gates
when extracting workflow fixtures from either supported preamble header.

Keep failure outcomes, review thresholds, provider choices, and eval budgets.

* fix: recover review workflow progress and eval evidence

* fix: recognize valid review evidence and scope selection

* test: fix review evidence parsing and repeated artifact prompts

* test: recognize valid review decisions and pending native cards

* fix(plan-eng-review): keep final navigation consistent with approved tasks

* test: recognize valid review evidence and bind legacy diff requests

* fix: stabilize review eval evidence and harness repair guidance

* docs: update project documentation for v1.85.0.0

Co-Authored-By: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com>

* test: fix Windows CI fixtures and credential scan

Rebase captured JSON values and filesystem evidence using the appropriate
path convention. Compile native fake CLIs on Windows and synchronize pipe
holder readiness, with cleanup retained when assertions fail.

Assemble synthetic credential fixtures at runtime so the added-line scan
keeps enforcing the same gate without flagging its own rejection controls.

Discover generated skills directly for the empty-find regression check,
avoiding a recursive scan through saved evaluation artifacts and dependencies.

* fix: preserve source renders on Windows

Compare canonical generator paths using native separators so an output
sidecar pointing at the source cannot overwrite its skill or metadata.
Keep the regression fixture isolated from the real checkout and expose
freshness diagnostics before asserting subprocess status.

Detach Windows drain-test pipe holders from the fake provider's automatic
child cleanup while preserving the enclosing runner job and its assertions.

* fix: clarify outside review fallback and CEO decisions

Render one applicable own-harness fallback path and retain native review,
disabled policy, and missing-coverage semantics. Align report field names
and mode labels, and make the existing per-cut scope approval explicit.

Regenerate skill outputs and keep the workflow judge's model, thresholds,
and retry policy unchanged.

* chore: move release to free version slot (v1.86.0.0)

PR #2852 now claims v1.85.0.0. Align the release metadata and
rename migration so upgrades from that version still receive it.

Co-Authored-By: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com>

* fix: include engineering review prerequisites and restore branch context

* fix: recognize coverage diagrams and clarify design review instructions

* fix: preserve file identities and join Windows test processes

---------

Co-authored-by: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com>
This commit is contained in:
Garry Tan
2026-09-14 14:32:45 -07:00
committed by GitHub
co-authored by OpenAI Codex
parent 71f6048e8a
commit 9f81911136
767 changed files with 127420 additions and 3917 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
test/fixtures/auto-decide-retry-ai.json
Vendored
+454
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,454 @@
{
"transcript": {
"status": "ready",
"calls": [],
"assistantMessages": [
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"text": "I'll invoke the `/plan-ceo-review` skill against the draft plan.",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:21:58.556Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"text": "Running the preamble first, then a light system audit so the mode question is grounded in the actual listing code.",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:22:10.706Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"text": "Found the relevant code paths. Running the question-tuning check for the mode question and handling the onboarding markers, then I'll present the mode decision.",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:23:41.654Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"text": "Heads-up from the preamble: unshipped work on this branch, so `/review` then `/ship` when you're ready. Also, gstack follows the **Boil the Ocean** principle: do the complete thing when AI makes the marginal cost near zero. Read more at https://garryslist.org/posts/boil-the-ocean if you'd like.\n\n**Review mode: HOLD SCOPE.**\n\nAuto-decided \"Select review mode\" \u2192 HOLD SCOPE (your saved preference on `plan-ceo-review-mode`). Change with /plan-tune.\n\nWhy this mode fits the draft:\n\n- **It is a correctness fix to an existing path, not a new capability.** Skill listings should not change order between machines or filesystems. The context default for bug fixes and refactors is HOLD SCOPE.\n- **The draft already states its invariants.** Membership, aliases, metadata and text/JSON formats stay unchanged. The review's job is to make those invariants bulletproof, not to widen them.\n- **The codebase confirms the problem is real.** The census helper enumerates skills with no sort at all. The context-bill code sorts with the default code-point comparator, so a mixed-case name like `Zeta` lands before `alpha`. Both are places the deep review should pin with tests.\n\nWhat I deliberately left open for the later invocation, at your request:\n\n1. **The implementation approach decision** (a shared case-insensitive comparator versus per-site sorts). The skill requires your explicit approval there before the deep review.\n2. **Which listing path the draft means.** The census helper, the context-bill CLI, or both. This changes the file list.\n3. **Onboarding prompts** (continuous checkpoint feature, cross-project learnings) and the Office Hours offer. Their markers are untouched, so they will fire again next healthy run.\n\nThe plan file at `.claude/plans/please-review-the-following-melodic-kernighan.md` records the mode, the audit findings with file and line references, and the three open items. I have not called ExitPlanMode since the review workflow is paused rather than complete.\n\nSTATUS: DONE. No durable learnings this session.",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:24:41.750Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "a836788b-1676-4ac3-a39d-bb86b873bf03",
"text": "I'll invoke the /plan-ceo-review skill against your draft plan.",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:32:12.533Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "a836788b-1676-4ac3-a39d-bb86b873bf03",
"text": "Running the skill preamble and base-branch detection first.",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:32:27.444Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "a836788b-1676-4ac3-a39d-bb86b873bf03",
"text": "Base branch is `main`. Checking your question-tuning preference for the mode question before I render it.",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:33:00.854Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "a836788b-1676-4ac3-a39d-bb86b873bf03",
"text": "Heads-up from gstack: there is unshipped work on this branch, so `/review` then `/ship` when you get to it.\n\n**D1 \u2014 Review mode for the deterministic skill-list ordering draft**\n\nAuto-decided \"Review mode: push scope up, cherry-pick expansions, hold scope, or cut to minimum?\" \u2192 **HOLD SCOPE** (your preference). Change with /plan-tune.\n\nWhy HOLD SCOPE is the recommendation the auto-decide landed on:\n\n- **The draft is a determinism fix to an existing path,** not a new capability. The skill's context defaults map bug fixes and refactors to HOLD SCOPE.\n- **The draft already draws hard boundaries.** Membership, aliases, metadata, and text/JSON formats stay unchanged. That is a hold-scope posture written into the plan itself.\n- **The value is in rigor, not ambition.** The interesting questions are locale-independent comparison for mixed-case names, whether the sort happens once at the listing path or leaks into other enumerators, and how the tests force differing directory order. Those are HOLD SCOPE questions.\n\nSkipped in this invocation, per your request:\n\n- **Office Hours offer and onboarding prompts.** The preamble fired two one-time setup prompts. I did not answer or mark them, so they re-fire on your next healthy run.\n- **Approach selection (0C-bis).** The skill normally wants an approved implementation approach before mode selection. Since you asked for only the mode decision, this is still pending. Expect it as the first question when you run the substantive review.\n- **The 11-section deep review and plan file.** Not started. No plan file was written, so there is no review report and I did not exit plan mode.\n\nNo durable learnings this session.\n\nNext: when you are ready, re-run `/plan-ceo-review` with the draft. Tell it \"HOLD SCOPE already selected\" so it skips D1 and goes straight to approach selection and the deep review.",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:33:46.197Z"
}
]
},
"tools": [
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:22:00.757Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01D1z8pVbfkEeHZGgi6JdPZk",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Skill",
"input": {
"skill": "plan-ceo-review",
"args": "Draft: deterministic skill-list ordering. Users compare skill listings in scripts and reviews. Make the existing listing path sort registered skill names deterministically before rendering them. Keep skill membership, aliases, metadata and text/JSON output formats unchanged. Cover mixed-case names and differing directory enumeration order with tests. Review-mode decision only for this invocation."
}
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:22:02.528Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01D1z8pVbfkEeHZGgi6JdPZk",
"kind": "result",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:22:12.591Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01B89LH3gWatoKLbFjkW1duv",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Bash",
"input": {
"command": "_SS=\"$HOME/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-skill-start\"\n[ -x \"$_SS\" ] || _SS=\".claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-skill-start\"\n\"$_SS\" --skill \"plan-ceo-review\" --model \"claude\" --parent-pid \"$PPID\" \\\n || echo \"SKILL_START: unavailable \u2014 stale install; run ./setup or /gstack-upgrade (preamble degraded, continue the user's task)\"",
"description": "Run gstack skill-start preamble"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:22:15.395Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01B89LH3gWatoKLbFjkW1duv",
"kind": "result",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:22:42.272Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_011L1hSC8vSZLDVGpfiokh1h",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Bash",
"input": {
"command": "git remote get-url origin 2>/dev/null; echo \"---LOG\"; git log --oneline -15; echo \"---STAT\"; git diff main --stat 2>/dev/null | tail -5; echo \"---STASH\"; git stash list | head; echo \"---DESIGN\"; SLUG=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/browse/bin/remote-slug 2>/dev/null || basename \"$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null || pwd)\"); BRANCH=$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD 2>/dev/null | tr '/' '-'); echo \"SLUG=$SLUG BRANCH=$BRANCH\"; ls -t ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/*-design-*.md 2>/dev/null | head -1; ls -t docs/designs/*.md 2>/dev/null | head -3; ls -t ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/*-$BRANCH-ceo-handoff-*.md 2>/dev/null | head -1 || echo NO_HANDOFF; echo \"---LEARN\"; ~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get cross_project_learnings 2>/dev/null || echo unset; ~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-learnings-search --limit 5 2>/dev/null | head -20",
"description": "System audit: remote, log, diff, stash, design doc, learnings"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:22:43.881Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_011L1hSC8vSZLDVGpfiokh1h",
"kind": "result",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:22:54.173Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Jpe19C6Qy7iLjhxsVVFZEM",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Bash",
"input": {
"command": "cd /home/vercel-sandbox/gstack; ls bin | grep -i -E \"skill|list|catalog|census|route\" ; echo \"---GREP\"; grep -rl -i -E \"list.*skills|skills.*list|listSkills|skill-list|skills list\" --include=*.ts --include=*.sh --include=*.tmpl bin scripts lib _gstack-command setup 2>/dev/null | grep -v node_modules | head -30; echo \"---TODOS\"; grep -n -i -E \"sort|order|determin|listing\" TODOS.md | head -20",
"description": "Locate skill listing code and related TODOs"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:22:54.300Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Jpe19C6Qy7iLjhxsVVFZEM",
"kind": "result",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:23:06.413Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_013RE2TjYQMdqe8nLecHC4vw",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Bash",
"input": {
"command": "cd /home/vercel-sandbox/gstack; grep -n -E '\"(skill:check|skill:list|skills|list|catalog|context-bill)[^\"]*\":' package.json; echo \"---REGISTRY\"; grep -rn -i -E \"registered skill|registeredSkills|skill registry|SKILL_REGISTRY|listRegistered|registerSkill\" --include=*.ts --include=*.sh scripts lib bin test/helpers 2>/dev/null | grep -v node_modules | head -15; echo \"---READDIR\"; grep -rn -E \"readdirSync\\(\" scripts/gen-skill-docs.ts scripts/skill-check.ts scripts/skill-health.ts test/helpers/skill-census.ts lib/*.ts 2>/dev/null | head -20; echo \"---JSON\"; grep -rln -E \"\\-\\-json\" bin scripts --include=* 2>/dev/null | head -20",
"description": "Find skill enumeration and JSON-listing code"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:23:06.508Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_013RE2TjYQMdqe8nLecHC4vw",
"kind": "result",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:23:13.375Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_013Ee9LJJQ8R1fR2sQFPGwkj",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Read",
"input": {
"file_path": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/test/helpers/skill-census.ts",
"offset": 40,
"limit": 50
}
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:23:13.401Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_013Ee9LJJQ8R1fR2sQFPGwkj",
"kind": "result",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:23:14.737Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01BU2xpwy4uMyx1Xp4quu9bj",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Read",
"input": {
"file_path": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/lib/context-bill.ts",
"offset": 195,
"limit": 30
}
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:23:14.759Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01BU2xpwy4uMyx1Xp4quu9bj",
"kind": "result",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:23:16.384Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_013aumciUHw2Bqjaaq27g1EV",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Bash",
"input": {
"command": "cd /home/vercel-sandbox/gstack; grep -n -E \"json|text|format|\\.sort\\(|localeCompare\" lib/context-bill.ts | head -30; echo \"---BIN\"; grep -n -E \"json|sort|format\" bin/gstack-context-bill | head -15; echo \"---SKILLCHECK\"; grep -n -E \"json|\\.sort\\(\" scripts/skill-check.ts | head",
"description": "Check output formats and sorting in listing candidates"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:23:16.450Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_013aumciUHw2Bqjaaq27g1EV",
"kind": "result",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:23:26.286Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_015mJBMXZtpHKA6hWxDwTo8j",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Read",
"input": {
"file_path": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/lib/context-bill.ts",
"offset": 335,
"limit": 50
}
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:23:26.306Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_015mJBMXZtpHKA6hWxDwTo8j",
"kind": "result",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:23:28.306Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01H7ZHzRW7U18u8zh3L6yKFH",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Bash",
"input": {
"command": "cd /home/vercel-sandbox/gstack; grep -n -E \"json|JSON|renderText|function render|function format\" bin/gstack-context-bill.ts bin/gstack-context-bill 2>/dev/null | head -20; ls bin | grep context-bill; echo \"---TESTS\"; ls test | grep -i -E \"context-bill|census|catalog\"; echo \"---GBRAIN\"; grep -n -E \"\\.skills\\b|skills:\" lib/context-bill.ts | head -10",
"description": "Find context-bill CLI output formats and tests"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:23:28.376Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01H7ZHzRW7U18u8zh3L6yKFH",
"kind": "result",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:23:45.519Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01BHQiS1mU8LZfxsWwFbGADs",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Bash",
"input": {
"command": "cd /home/vercel-sandbox/gstack; grep -n -i -E \"plan-ceo-review.*(mode|scope)|ceo.*mode\" ~/.claude/skills/gstack/scripts/question-registry.ts | head -5; echo \"---CHECK\"; printf '%s' \"Select review mode (expansion/selective/hold/reduction) for deterministic skill-list ordering plan\" | ~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-question-preference --check \"plan-ceo-review-mode-selection\" --summary-stdin 2>&1 | head -5; echo \"---MARKERS\"; touch \"/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-pNXtSA/tmp/gstack-auto-decide-w2UU3e/.completeness-intro-seen\" && echo \"lake-intro marker touched\"",
"description": "Question-tuning check and lake-intro marker"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:23:47.061Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01BHQiS1mU8LZfxsWwFbGADs",
"kind": "result",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:23:53.288Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Fz4MuCGi9tb8sPCq6SswEB",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Bash",
"input": {
"command": "cd /home/vercel-sandbox/gstack; printf '%s' \"Select review mode (expansion/selective/hold/reduction) for deterministic skill-list ordering plan\" | ~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-question-preference --check \"plan-ceo-review-mode\" --summary-stdin 2>&1 | head -3",
"description": "Re-run tuning check with registered question id"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:23:54.770Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Fz4MuCGi9tb8sPCq6SswEB",
"kind": "result",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:24:12.317Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01YHaTDadr9x4vFfuus4vamb",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Bash",
"input": {
"command": "cd /home/vercel-sandbox/gstack; ~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-question-log '{\"skill\":\"plan-ceo-review\",\"question_id\":\"plan-ceo-review-mode\",\"question_summary\":\"Select review mode for deterministic skill-list ordering plan\",\"category\":\"routing\",\"door_type\":\"two-way\",\"options_count\":4,\"user_choice\":\"C\",\"recommended\":\"C\",\"session_id\":\"634003-1789014135-1db98f5a\"}' 2>/dev/null && echo \"question logged\" || echo \"question-log unavailable\"; ~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-skill-end --skill \"plan-ceo-review\" --outcome success --session-id \"634003-1789014135-1db98f5a\" --tel-start \"1789014135\" --used-browse no --error-message \"\" --failed-step \"\" 2>/dev/null && echo \"telemetry ok\" || echo \"telemetry skipped\"",
"description": "Log auto-decided mode question and run skill-end telemetry"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:24:14.288Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01YHaTDadr9x4vFfuus4vamb",
"kind": "result",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:24:26.317Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01EVSYPhAqVAdZhoeTZ9bU1r",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Write",
"input": {
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-pNXtSA/tmp/gstack-hermetic-633854-8JWnVY/with-skills/.claude/plans/please-review-the-following-melodic-kernighan.md",
"content": "# Plan: deterministic skill-list ordering (CEO review \u2014 mode decision only)\n\n## Context\n\nUsers compare skill listings in scripts and reviews. Today the ordering of\nregistered skill names depends on directory enumeration order and, where a\nsort exists, on JavaScript's default code-point sort (uppercase before\nlowercase). The draft plan makes the existing listing path sort registered\nskill names deterministically before rendering, keeping membership, aliases,\nmetadata and text/JSON output formats unchanged, with tests for mixed-case\nnames and differing enumeration order.\n\nThis invocation covered ONLY the /plan-ceo-review mode decision, at the\nuser's request. Office Hours, onboarding/setup prompts, the implementation\napproach decision (0C-bis), and the 11-section deep review are deferred to a\nlater invocation.\n\n## System audit (light, for mode grounding)\n\n- Branch `edinburgh-v1`, clean tree, far ahead of `main` (633 files); no stash.\n- No per-branch design doc, no CEO handoff note.\n- Skill enumeration paths found in the repo:\n - `test/helpers/skill-census.ts:63` \u2014 `readdirSync` with NO sort; registry\n is a `Set`, so insertion order follows enumeration order.\n - `lib/context-bill.ts:382` \u2014 `findSkillDirs` returns `out.sort()`\n (code-point sort on full paths; mixed case orders `Z` before `a`).\n - `lib/context-bill.ts:461` \u2014 `diffBills` sorts merged skill names with the\n default comparator (same mixed-case caveat).\n - `scripts/skill-check.ts:101` \u2014 `readdirSync(hostDir).sort()`.\n- Related tests: `test/skill-census.test.ts`, `test/context-bill.test.ts`,\n `test/catalog-budget.test.ts`.\n\n## Review mode decision\n\n**Mode: HOLD SCOPE** (auto-decided from the user's saved preference on\n`plan-ceo-review-mode`; change with /plan-tune).\n\nWhy HOLD SCOPE: this is a small correctness fix / refactor to an existing\npath, with explicit invariants (membership, aliases, metadata, formats\nunchanged). The context-dependent default for bug fixes and refactors is\nHOLD SCOPE. The value is in rigor: a single shared comparator, mixed-case\nand enumeration-order tests, and no silent behavior change in text or JSON\noutput.\n\n## Open before the substantive review\n\n1. 0C-bis implementation approaches (minimal vs shared comparator helper)\n still need an explicit approval.\n2. Confirm which listing path the draft means (\"the existing listing path\"):\n the census helper, the context-bill CLI, or both.\n3. Deep review per `sections/review-sections.md`, then the\n `## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT` section.\n"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:24:26.395Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01EVSYPhAqVAdZhoeTZ9bU1r",
"kind": "result",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "a836788b-1676-4ac3-a39d-bb86b873bf03",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:32:13.463Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01TjWu1RBRGNXRWZ47Yro3ZT",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Skill",
"input": {
"skill": "plan-ceo-review"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "a836788b-1676-4ac3-a39d-bb86b873bf03",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:32:14.680Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01TjWu1RBRGNXRWZ47Yro3ZT",
"kind": "result",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "a836788b-1676-4ac3-a39d-bb86b873bf03",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:32:29.695Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01YWrQccueekQXWmbEqyiRfV",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Bash",
"input": {
"command": "_SS=\"$HOME/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-skill-start\"\n[ -x \"$_SS\" ] || _SS=\".claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-skill-start\"\n\"$_SS\" --skill \"plan-ceo-review\" --model \"claude\" --parent-pid \"$PPID\" \\\n || echo \"SKILL_START: unavailable \u2014 stale install; run ./setup or /gstack-upgrade (preamble degraded, continue the user's task)\"",
"description": "Run gstack skill-start preamble"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "a836788b-1676-4ac3-a39d-bb86b873bf03",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:32:31.475Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01YWrQccueekQXWmbEqyiRfV",
"kind": "result",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "a836788b-1676-4ac3-a39d-bb86b873bf03",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:32:48.387Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01G8mYVmSDWTrxTxuTBS8qbU",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Bash",
"input": {
"command": "git remote get-url origin 2>/dev/null; echo \"---PR---\"; gh pr view --json baseRefName -q .baseRefName 2>&1 | head -2; echo \"---DEFAULT---\"; gh repo view --json defaultBranchRef -q .defaultBranchRef.name 2>&1 | head -2; echo \"---SYMREF---\"; git symbolic-ref refs/remotes/origin/HEAD 2>/dev/null | sed 's|refs/remotes/origin/||'; git rev-parse --verify origin/main >/dev/null 2>&1 && echo \"origin/main exists\"",
"description": "Detect platform and base branch"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "a836788b-1676-4ac3-a39d-bb86b873bf03",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:32:49.956Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Mn1fJWAVFxQKg4c9nDCTFz",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Bash",
"input": {
"command": "git log --oneline -8; echo \"---STASH---\"; git stash list | head -3; echo \"---DIFF vs main---\"; git diff main --stat 2>/dev/null | tail -3",
"description": "Quick system audit: log, stash, diff"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "a836788b-1676-4ac3-a39d-bb86b873bf03",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:32:50.104Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01G8mYVmSDWTrxTxuTBS8qbU",
"kind": "result",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "a836788b-1676-4ac3-a39d-bb86b873bf03",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:32:50.377Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Mn1fJWAVFxQKg4c9nDCTFz",
"kind": "result",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "a836788b-1676-4ac3-a39d-bb86b873bf03",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:32:51.506Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01SA5VsDgqehzwJQMweeZNKi",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Bash",
"input": {
"command": "grep -n -i \"mode\\|ceo\" \"$HOME/.claude/skills/gstack/scripts/question-registry.ts\" 2>/dev/null | head -20",
"description": "Find question_id for CEO mode selection"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "a836788b-1676-4ac3-a39d-bb86b873bf03",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:32:51.542Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01SA5VsDgqehzwJQMweeZNKi",
"kind": "result",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "a836788b-1676-4ac3-a39d-bb86b873bf03",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:32:52.860Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01ATJDNJ62fCiTEdmPJ7qm4N",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Bash",
"input": {
"command": "grep -rn -i \"skill.*list\\|listSkills\\|list-skills\\|skills list\" --include=*.ts --include=*.sh -l bin setup lib scripts 2>/dev/null | head -15",
"description": "Locate the skill-listing code path the draft targets"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "a836788b-1676-4ac3-a39d-bb86b873bf03",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:32:52.908Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01ATJDNJ62fCiTEdmPJ7qm4N",
"kind": "result",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "a836788b-1676-4ac3-a39d-bb86b873bf03",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:33:01.877Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Bwwgt4wwfrmyJDS7ZQMrpy",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Bash",
"input": {
"command": "printf '%s' \"Review mode for deterministic skill-list ordering draft: expansion, selective expansion, hold scope, or reduction\" | \"$HOME/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-question-preference\" --check \"plan-ceo-review-mode\" --summary-stdin 2>&1",
"description": "Check question-tuning preference for mode question"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "a836788b-1676-4ac3-a39d-bb86b873bf03",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:33:03.484Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Bwwgt4wwfrmyJDS7ZQMrpy",
"kind": "result",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "a836788b-1676-4ac3-a39d-bb86b873bf03",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:33:28.691Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_016K5grRiHEAyfUEUpX3dNxE",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Bash",
"input": {
"command": "\"$HOME/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-question-log\" '{\"skill\":\"plan-ceo-review\",\"question_id\":\"plan-ceo-review-mode\",\"question_summary\":\"Review mode for deterministic skill-list ordering draft\",\"category\":\"routing\",\"door_type\":\"two-way\",\"options_count\":4,\"user_choice\":\"C\",\"recommended\":\"C\",\"session_id\":\"656632-1789014751-94b2b37a\"}' 2>&1 || true",
"description": "Log auto-decided mode question"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "a836788b-1676-4ac3-a39d-bb86b873bf03",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:33:30.094Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_016K5grRiHEAyfUEUpX3dNxE",
"kind": "result",
"isError": false
}
],
"options": {
"skillName": "plan-ceo-review",
"sessionId": "a836788b-1676-4ac3-a39d-bb86b873bf03",
"commandStartedAt": 1789014725874,
"now": 1789015327103
}
}
test/fixtures/auto-decide-saved-ai.json
Vendored
+291
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,291 @@
{
"transcript": {
"status": "ready",
"calls": [],
"assistantMessages": [
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"text": "I'll invoke the `/plan-ceo-review` skill against the draft plan.",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:21:58.556Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"text": "Running the preamble first, then a light system audit so the mode question is grounded in the actual listing code.",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:22:10.706Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"text": "Found the relevant code paths. Running the question-tuning check for the mode question and handling the onboarding markers, then I'll present the mode decision.",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:23:41.654Z"
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"text": "Heads-up from the preamble: unshipped work on this branch, so `/review` then `/ship` when you're ready. Also, gstack follows the **Boil the Ocean** principle: do the complete thing when AI makes the marginal cost near zero. Read more at https://garryslist.org/posts/boil-the-ocean if you'd like.\n\n**Review mode: HOLD SCOPE.**\n\nAuto-decided \"Select review mode\" \u2192 HOLD SCOPE (your saved preference on `plan-ceo-review-mode`). Change with /plan-tune.\n\nWhy this mode fits the draft:\n\n- **It is a correctness fix to an existing path, not a new capability.** Skill listings should not change order between machines or filesystems. The context default for bug fixes and refactors is HOLD SCOPE.\n- **The draft already states its invariants.** Membership, aliases, metadata and text/JSON formats stay unchanged. The review's job is to make those invariants bulletproof, not to widen them.\n- **The codebase confirms the problem is real.** The census helper enumerates skills with no sort at all. The context-bill code sorts with the default code-point comparator, so a mixed-case name like `Zeta` lands before `alpha`. Both are places the deep review should pin with tests.\n\nWhat I deliberately left open for the later invocation, at your request:\n\n1. **The implementation approach decision** (a shared case-insensitive comparator versus per-site sorts). The skill requires your explicit approval there before the deep review.\n2. **Which listing path the draft means.** The census helper, the context-bill CLI, or both. This changes the file list.\n3. **Onboarding prompts** (continuous checkpoint feature, cross-project learnings) and the Office Hours offer. Their markers are untouched, so they will fire again next healthy run.\n\nThe plan file at `.claude/plans/please-review-the-following-melodic-kernighan.md` records the mode, the audit findings with file and line references, and the three open items. I have not called ExitPlanMode since the review workflow is paused rather than complete.\n\nSTATUS: DONE. No durable learnings this session.",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:24:41.750Z"
}
]
},
"tools": [
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:22:00.757Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01D1z8pVbfkEeHZGgi6JdPZk",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Skill",
"input": {
"skill": "plan-ceo-review",
"args": "Draft: deterministic skill-list ordering. Users compare skill listings in scripts and reviews. Make the existing listing path sort registered skill names deterministically before rendering them. Keep skill membership, aliases, metadata and text/JSON output formats unchanged. Cover mixed-case names and differing directory enumeration order with tests. Review-mode decision only for this invocation."
}
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:22:02.528Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01D1z8pVbfkEeHZGgi6JdPZk",
"kind": "result",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:22:12.591Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01B89LH3gWatoKLbFjkW1duv",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Bash",
"input": {
"command": "_SS=\"$HOME/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-skill-start\"\n[ -x \"$_SS\" ] || _SS=\".claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-skill-start\"\n\"$_SS\" --skill \"plan-ceo-review\" --model \"claude\" --parent-pid \"$PPID\" \\\n || echo \"SKILL_START: unavailable \u2014 stale install; run ./setup or /gstack-upgrade (preamble degraded, continue the user's task)\"",
"description": "Run gstack skill-start preamble"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:22:15.395Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01B89LH3gWatoKLbFjkW1duv",
"kind": "result",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:22:42.272Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_011L1hSC8vSZLDVGpfiokh1h",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Bash",
"input": {
"command": "git remote get-url origin 2>/dev/null; echo \"---LOG\"; git log --oneline -15; echo \"---STAT\"; git diff main --stat 2>/dev/null | tail -5; echo \"---STASH\"; git stash list | head; echo \"---DESIGN\"; SLUG=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/browse/bin/remote-slug 2>/dev/null || basename \"$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null || pwd)\"); BRANCH=$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD 2>/dev/null | tr '/' '-'); echo \"SLUG=$SLUG BRANCH=$BRANCH\"; ls -t ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/*-design-*.md 2>/dev/null | head -1; ls -t docs/designs/*.md 2>/dev/null | head -3; ls -t ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/*-$BRANCH-ceo-handoff-*.md 2>/dev/null | head -1 || echo NO_HANDOFF; echo \"---LEARN\"; ~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get cross_project_learnings 2>/dev/null || echo unset; ~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-learnings-search --limit 5 2>/dev/null | head -20",
"description": "System audit: remote, log, diff, stash, design doc, learnings"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:22:43.881Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_011L1hSC8vSZLDVGpfiokh1h",
"kind": "result",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:22:54.173Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Jpe19C6Qy7iLjhxsVVFZEM",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Bash",
"input": {
"command": "cd /home/vercel-sandbox/gstack; ls bin | grep -i -E \"skill|list|catalog|census|route\" ; echo \"---GREP\"; grep -rl -i -E \"list.*skills|skills.*list|listSkills|skill-list|skills list\" --include=*.ts --include=*.sh --include=*.tmpl bin scripts lib _gstack-command setup 2>/dev/null | grep -v node_modules | head -30; echo \"---TODOS\"; grep -n -i -E \"sort|order|determin|listing\" TODOS.md | head -20",
"description": "Locate skill listing code and related TODOs"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:22:54.300Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Jpe19C6Qy7iLjhxsVVFZEM",
"kind": "result",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:23:06.413Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_013RE2TjYQMdqe8nLecHC4vw",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Bash",
"input": {
"command": "cd /home/vercel-sandbox/gstack; grep -n -E '\"(skill:check|skill:list|skills|list|catalog|context-bill)[^\"]*\":' package.json; echo \"---REGISTRY\"; grep -rn -i -E \"registered skill|registeredSkills|skill registry|SKILL_REGISTRY|listRegistered|registerSkill\" --include=*.ts --include=*.sh scripts lib bin test/helpers 2>/dev/null | grep -v node_modules | head -15; echo \"---READDIR\"; grep -rn -E \"readdirSync\\(\" scripts/gen-skill-docs.ts scripts/skill-check.ts scripts/skill-health.ts test/helpers/skill-census.ts lib/*.ts 2>/dev/null | head -20; echo \"---JSON\"; grep -rln -E \"\\-\\-json\" bin scripts --include=* 2>/dev/null | head -20",
"description": "Find skill enumeration and JSON-listing code"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:23:06.508Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_013RE2TjYQMdqe8nLecHC4vw",
"kind": "result",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:23:13.375Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_013Ee9LJJQ8R1fR2sQFPGwkj",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Read",
"input": {
"file_path": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/test/helpers/skill-census.ts",
"offset": 40,
"limit": 50
}
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:23:13.401Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_013Ee9LJJQ8R1fR2sQFPGwkj",
"kind": "result",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:23:14.737Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01BU2xpwy4uMyx1Xp4quu9bj",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Read",
"input": {
"file_path": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/lib/context-bill.ts",
"offset": 195,
"limit": 30
}
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:23:14.759Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01BU2xpwy4uMyx1Xp4quu9bj",
"kind": "result",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:23:16.384Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_013aumciUHw2Bqjaaq27g1EV",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Bash",
"input": {
"command": "cd /home/vercel-sandbox/gstack; grep -n -E \"json|text|format|\\.sort\\(|localeCompare\" lib/context-bill.ts | head -30; echo \"---BIN\"; grep -n -E \"json|sort|format\" bin/gstack-context-bill | head -15; echo \"---SKILLCHECK\"; grep -n -E \"json|\\.sort\\(\" scripts/skill-check.ts | head",
"description": "Check output formats and sorting in listing candidates"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:23:16.450Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_013aumciUHw2Bqjaaq27g1EV",
"kind": "result",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:23:26.286Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_015mJBMXZtpHKA6hWxDwTo8j",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Read",
"input": {
"file_path": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/lib/context-bill.ts",
"offset": 335,
"limit": 50
}
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:23:26.306Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_015mJBMXZtpHKA6hWxDwTo8j",
"kind": "result",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:23:28.306Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01H7ZHzRW7U18u8zh3L6yKFH",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Bash",
"input": {
"command": "cd /home/vercel-sandbox/gstack; grep -n -E \"json|JSON|renderText|function render|function format\" bin/gstack-context-bill.ts bin/gstack-context-bill 2>/dev/null | head -20; ls bin | grep context-bill; echo \"---TESTS\"; ls test | grep -i -E \"context-bill|census|catalog\"; echo \"---GBRAIN\"; grep -n -E \"\\.skills\\b|skills:\" lib/context-bill.ts | head -10",
"description": "Find context-bill CLI output formats and tests"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:23:28.376Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01H7ZHzRW7U18u8zh3L6yKFH",
"kind": "result",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:23:45.519Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01BHQiS1mU8LZfxsWwFbGADs",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Bash",
"input": {
"command": "cd /home/vercel-sandbox/gstack; grep -n -i -E \"plan-ceo-review.*(mode|scope)|ceo.*mode\" ~/.claude/skills/gstack/scripts/question-registry.ts | head -5; echo \"---CHECK\"; printf '%s' \"Select review mode (expansion/selective/hold/reduction) for deterministic skill-list ordering plan\" | ~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-question-preference --check \"plan-ceo-review-mode-selection\" --summary-stdin 2>&1 | head -5; echo \"---MARKERS\"; touch \"/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-pNXtSA/tmp/gstack-auto-decide-w2UU3e/.completeness-intro-seen\" && echo \"lake-intro marker touched\"",
"description": "Question-tuning check and lake-intro marker"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:23:47.061Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01BHQiS1mU8LZfxsWwFbGADs",
"kind": "result",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:23:53.288Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Fz4MuCGi9tb8sPCq6SswEB",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Bash",
"input": {
"command": "cd /home/vercel-sandbox/gstack; printf '%s' \"Select review mode (expansion/selective/hold/reduction) for deterministic skill-list ordering plan\" | ~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-question-preference --check \"plan-ceo-review-mode\" --summary-stdin 2>&1 | head -3",
"description": "Re-run tuning check with registered question id"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:23:54.770Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01Fz4MuCGi9tb8sPCq6SswEB",
"kind": "result",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:24:12.317Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01YHaTDadr9x4vFfuus4vamb",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Bash",
"input": {
"command": "cd /home/vercel-sandbox/gstack; ~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-question-log '{\"skill\":\"plan-ceo-review\",\"question_id\":\"plan-ceo-review-mode\",\"question_summary\":\"Select review mode for deterministic skill-list ordering plan\",\"category\":\"routing\",\"door_type\":\"two-way\",\"options_count\":4,\"user_choice\":\"C\",\"recommended\":\"C\",\"session_id\":\"634003-1789014135-1db98f5a\"}' 2>/dev/null && echo \"question logged\" || echo \"question-log unavailable\"; ~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-skill-end --skill \"plan-ceo-review\" --outcome success --session-id \"634003-1789014135-1db98f5a\" --tel-start \"1789014135\" --used-browse no --error-message \"\" --failed-step \"\" 2>/dev/null && echo \"telemetry ok\" || echo \"telemetry skipped\"",
"description": "Log auto-decided mode question and run skill-end telemetry"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:24:14.288Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01YHaTDadr9x4vFfuus4vamb",
"kind": "result",
"isError": false
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:24:26.317Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01EVSYPhAqVAdZhoeTZ9bU1r",
"kind": "use",
"name": "Write",
"input": {
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-pNXtSA/tmp/gstack-hermetic-633854-8JWnVY/with-skills/.claude/plans/please-review-the-following-melodic-kernighan.md",
"content": "# Plan: deterministic skill-list ordering (CEO review \u2014 mode decision only)\n\n## Context\n\nUsers compare skill listings in scripts and reviews. Today the ordering of\nregistered skill names depends on directory enumeration order and, where a\nsort exists, on JavaScript's default code-point sort (uppercase before\nlowercase). The draft plan makes the existing listing path sort registered\nskill names deterministically before rendering, keeping membership, aliases,\nmetadata and text/JSON output formats unchanged, with tests for mixed-case\nnames and differing enumeration order.\n\nThis invocation covered ONLY the /plan-ceo-review mode decision, at the\nuser's request. Office Hours, onboarding/setup prompts, the implementation\napproach decision (0C-bis), and the 11-section deep review are deferred to a\nlater invocation.\n\n## System audit (light, for mode grounding)\n\n- Branch `edinburgh-v1`, clean tree, far ahead of `main` (633 files); no stash.\n- No per-branch design doc, no CEO handoff note.\n- Skill enumeration paths found in the repo:\n - `test/helpers/skill-census.ts:63` \u2014 `readdirSync` with NO sort; registry\n is a `Set`, so insertion order follows enumeration order.\n - `lib/context-bill.ts:382` \u2014 `findSkillDirs` returns `out.sort()`\n (code-point sort on full paths; mixed case orders `Z` before `a`).\n - `lib/context-bill.ts:461` \u2014 `diffBills` sorts merged skill names with the\n default comparator (same mixed-case caveat).\n - `scripts/skill-check.ts:101` \u2014 `readdirSync(hostDir).sort()`.\n- Related tests: `test/skill-census.test.ts`, `test/context-bill.test.ts`,\n `test/catalog-budget.test.ts`.\n\n## Review mode decision\n\n**Mode: HOLD SCOPE** (auto-decided from the user's saved preference on\n`plan-ceo-review-mode`; change with /plan-tune).\n\nWhy HOLD SCOPE: this is a small correctness fix / refactor to an existing\npath, with explicit invariants (membership, aliases, metadata, formats\nunchanged). The context-dependent default for bug fixes and refactors is\nHOLD SCOPE. The value is in rigor: a single shared comparator, mixed-case\nand enumeration-order tests, and no silent behavior change in text or JSON\noutput.\n\n## Open before the substantive review\n\n1. 0C-bis implementation approaches (minimal vs shared comparator helper)\n still need an explicit approval.\n2. Confirm which listing path the draft means (\"the existing listing path\"):\n the census helper, the context-bill CLI, or both.\n3. Deep review per `sections/review-sections.md`, then the\n `## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT` section.\n"
}
},
{
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T04:24:26.395Z",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01EVSYPhAqVAdZhoeTZ9bU1r",
"kind": "result",
"isError": false
}
],
"options": {
"skillName": "plan-ceo-review",
"sessionId": "bd12c284-1989-47ed-9ffb-548b3d75a3ad",
"commandStartedAt": 1789014113697,
"now": 1789014714476
}
}
test/fixtures/autoplan-artifact-permission-ad-v3.json
Vendored
+87
View File
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
test/fixtures/autoplan-artifact-stall-as.json
Vendored
+1590
View File
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
test/fixtures/autoplan-clipped-suffix-aq.json
Vendored
+93
View File
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
test/fixtures/autoplan-command-prefix-au.json
Vendored
+940
View File
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
test/fixtures/autoplan-cropped-command-av.json
Vendored
+156
View File
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
test/fixtures/autoplan-cropped-gate-av.json
Vendored
+81
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@
{
"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-digests-al.json
Vendored
+46
View File
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
test/fixtures/autoplan-edit-edges-an.json
Vendored
+120
View File
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
test/fixtures/autoplan-edit-header-ag.json
Vendored
+727
View File
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
test/fixtures/autoplan-edit-panel-aj.json
Vendored
+34
View File
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
test/fixtures/autoplan-edit-prefix-ai.json
Vendored
+53
View File
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
test/fixtures/autoplan-edit-queue-am.json
Vendored
+211
View File
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
test/fixtures/autoplan-final-gate-ao.json
Vendored
+322
View File
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
test/fixtures/autoplan-method-read-aa-events.json
Vendored
+231
View File
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
test/fixtures/autoplan-overwrite-progress-ax.json
Vendored
+61
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
{
"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-pending-artifact-ae.json
Vendored
+1115
View File
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
test/fixtures/autoplan-phase-dash-ao.json
Vendored
+190
View File
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
test/fixtures/autoplan-public-narration-ad.json
Vendored
+18
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
{
"provenance": {
"kind": "Retained public narration text; synthetic schema-only signature envelope",
"label": "ship-source-ad-full-paid-20260909-v1",
"sessionId": "8f4d4357-07f8-45bb-98b4-0c3d94e2e2a0",
"uuid": "15ec6b49-9b23-4f07-9d4c-4e4265255ed5",
"timestamp": "2026-09-09T18:31:15.976Z",
"textSha256": "65a0f544c2031cbd86ee5afe366aadcb86887448cbfb35d8cef604c1b14e96ab",
"attributionReceiptSha256": "42b71fb70382755268d811ebd7293ba36fa02a997668c2897a1761b9f0668a14",
"frozenCliSha256": "26d020351e8112f4006790f3cfce43b4c9df0c1bb1d0e542364d64151b81d5ba",
"signature": "Synthetic protobuf tag path 2\u21921\u21928=narration. Original opaque signature and all non-narration thinking text are excluded. This tests classification, not cryptographic verification."
},
"block": {
"type": "thinking",
"thinking": "Phase 1 is done: the Claude subagent found 14 issues (3 critical, 5 high, 6 medium), with 6 taste disagreements and 1 premise flagged for the gate. I've updated the implementation plan with 10 tasks and saved the CEO plan, and I'm now moving into Phase 2 (Design, since UI scope was detected).",
"signature": "Eg0KC0IJbmFycmF0aW9u"
}
}
test/fixtures/autoplan-rendered-batch-at.json
Vendored
+543
View File
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
test/fixtures/autoplan-repeated-header-ak.json
Vendored
+41
View File
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
test/fixtures/autoplan-routing-label-ap.json
Vendored
+82
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
{
"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-manual-skills-ac.json
Vendored
+36
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
{
"provenance": {
"run": "ship-source-ac-full-paid-20260909-1635",
"attempt": "autoplan-1788971690010-15FrK3",
"sourceHead": "7b08fbfe568fe60c441b7509570b92e1cbd2d111",
"observationSha256": "b1b04168c7973832dafdd4dacb36d1637ffe9f6713fa4fc446e3d6b6a997a8c2",
"screenSha256": "2d864538e34d0fe2ddc6482ee9cba917ed876bdf05d4463cd05f9a5472603862",
"state": "unsupported_setup",
"actualUnansweredCall": true,
"testUse": "Offline public call and exact final renderer frame; no old attempt receives new coverage."
},
"call": {
"sessionId": "b33933f1-fd8e-45c1-92ce-1146991a751b",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01X1hQiqsRYQac1f2GMhH3wQ",
"questions": [
{
"header": "Routing",
"question": "D1 \u2014 Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-autoplan-chain-aarN51 on main, about to /autoplan the User Dashboard plan.\nELI10: gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules. Right now this repo has no CLAUDE.md, so future sessions won't know to route \"review this plan\" to /autoplan or \"fix this bug\" to /investigate. Adding a short routing section means the assistant picks the right skill automatically instead of you typing slash commands each time. This is a one-time prompt per project.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Skip it and future sessions default to generic behavior and you invoke skills by hand; add it and you get one small committed file in the repo root.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules are cheap, reversible, and make every later session sharper.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: a 15-line committed CLAUDE.md section vs. manual skill invocation forever. Note: in plan mode the file write and commit will be applied after this review completes, not now. <gstack-qid:routing-injection>",
"options": [
{
"label": "Add routing rules (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Future sessions auto-route requests to the right gstack skill without slash commands\n\u2705 Creates CLAUDE.md with a committed, reviewable 15-line section you can edit any time\n\u274c Adds one new file and one chore commit to the repo (applied after plan mode exits)"
},
{
"label": "No thanks, manual skills",
"description": "\u2705 Repo stays untouched; no CLAUDE.md or extra commit lands in your history\n\u2705 You keep full control over when skills run by typing them yourself\n\u274c Every future session must be told which skill to use; this prompt will not re-appear"
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": false,
"failed": false
},
"visible": "\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-aarN51 BRANCH=main\n PROJ=/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-ZzrXOs/tmp/gstack-native-review-state-qDbP4B/projects/gstack-autoplan-chain-aarN51\n total 4 \n \u2026 +30 lines (ctrl+o to expand)\n \u23bf \u00a0Allowed by auto mode classifier\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-ZzrXOs/tmp/gstack-hermetic-412905-XY2oZm/with-skills/.claude/plans/velvet-gathering-penguin.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 Routing\n\n\u2502 D1 \u2014 Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\n\u2502 Project/branch/task: gstack-autoplan-chain-aarN51 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. Right now this repo has no\n\u2502 CLAUDE.md, so future sessions won't know to route \"review this plan\" to /autoplan or \"fix this bug\" to /investigate.\n\u2502 Adding a short routing section means the assistant picks the right skill automatically instead of you typing slash\n\u2502 commands each time. This is a one-time prompt per project.\n\u2502 Stakes if we pick wrong: Skip it and future sessions default to generic behavior and you invoke skills by hand; add it\n\u2502 and you get one small committed file in the repo root.\n\u2502 Recommendation: A because routing rules are cheap, reversible, and make every later session sharper.\n\u2502 Note: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\n\u2502 Net: a 15-line committed CLAUDE.md section vs. manual skill invocation forever. Note: in plan mode the file write and\n\u2502 commit will be applied after this review completes, not now. <gstack-qid:routing-injection>\n\n\u276f 1. Add routing rules (recommended)\n \u2705 Future sessions auto-route requests to the right gstack skill without slash commands\ufffd\u2705 Creates CLAUDE.md with a\n committed, reviewable 15-line section you can edit any time\ufffd\u274c Adds one new file and one chore commit to the repo\n (applied after plan mode exits)\n 2. No thanks, manual skills\n \u2705 Repo stays untouched; no CLAUDE.md or extra commit lands in your history\ufffd\u2705 You keep full control over when\n skills run by typing them yourself\ufffd\u274c Every future session must be told which skill to use; this prompt will not\n re-appear\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 \u2191/\u2193 to navigate \u00b7 Esc to cancel\n"
}
test/fixtures/autoplan-routing-n-screen.txt
Vendored
+39
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
│ 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
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
⎿  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
@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
{
"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-packet-o-call.json
Vendored
+38
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
{
"sessionId": "fe085d51-f2f2-4d26-9d49-f450afe82ade",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01ARahLsLhgiE5Qto8VGoQqg",
"answered": false,
"failed": false,
"questions": [
{
"question": "gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules. Add them now?",
"header": "Routing setup",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (Recommended)",
"description": "Creates CLAUDE.md in the project root with gstack skill routing rules so Claude knows when to invoke each skill automatically. One-time setup, committed to git."
},
{
"label": "No thanks, I'll invoke skills manually",
"description": "Skip CLAUDE.md setup — you'll continue invoking skills with /slash commands when needed."
}
]
},
{
"question": "No design doc found for this branch. /office-hours produces a structured problem statement, premise challenge, and explored alternatives — sharper input for the review. Run it first or proceed with standard review?",
"header": "Prerequisite doc",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Skip — proceed with standard review (Recommended)",
"description": "The plan is detailed enough (77 lines, clear scope, existing contracts documented) to run the full review pipeline now. /office-hours adds value for exploratory or ambiguous plans."
},
{
"label": "Run /office-hours first",
"description": "Produces a structured design doc with premise challenge and alternatives before the review starts. Adds ~10 min but sharpens the CEO phase significantly."
}
]
}
]
}
test/fixtures/autoplan-setup-packet-o-screen.txt
Vendored
+40
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
Read 1 file, listed 2 directories, ran 2 shell commands
● Running context recovery and Phase 0 setup.
Ran 4 shell commands
● I see the plan. Setting up ACTIVE_PLAN and running scope detection before the routing AskUserQuestion.
Searched for 1 pattern, ran 1 shell command
● Codex passes skipped (codex_reviews disabled) — running Claude adversarial only.
Now writing the ACTIVE_PLAN and handling the routing instruction.
● Updated plan
⎿  /plan to preview
Ran 1 shell command
● No design doc found. I'll surface both the routing setup and the prerequisite check in one pass.
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Planning:
/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-KqNWnL/tmp/gstack-hermetic-1924999-9eI1jB/with-skills/.claude/plans/lexical-rolling-boole.md
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
← ☐ Routing setup ☐ Prerequisite doc ✔ Submit →
│ gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules. Add them now?
❯ 1. Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md (Recommended)
Creates CLAUDE.md in the project root with gstack skill routing rules so Claude knows when to invoke each skill
automatically. One-time setup, committed to git.
2. No thanks, I'll invoke skills manually
Skip CLAUDE.md setup — you'll continue invoking skills with /slash commands when needed.
3. Type something.
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
4. Chat about this
Enter to select · Tab/Arrow keys to navigate · Esc to cancel
test/fixtures/autoplan-setup-z-packet.json
Vendored
+41
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
{
"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/autoplan-with-result-au.json
Vendored
+11
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
{
"sessionId": "78ce9c42-e5f7-4595-81ea-7d9bb8b4345c",
"text": "Phase 2.5 wrapped up with DX improved to 8/10 and TTHW down to under 5 min; the Claude subagent review found 22 issues (6 high-severity), all accepted, while Codex remained disabled. Moving to Phase 3 (Eng Review), starting by loading the eng phase section and its methodology pointer.\n\n",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T21:35:46.209Z",
"provenance": {
"kind": "Claude Code public narration summary",
"cliVersion": "2.1.263",
"publicTerminalSHA256": "79b01906d51fbf87451004e2fb10a191ab46442ecfb877c8ceba626556ea9314",
"originalPaidOutcome": "failed: missing DX phase marker"
}
}
test/fixtures/autoplan/t-ceo-omitted-obligations.json
Vendored
+8
View File
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
test/fixtures/autoplan/u-ceo-original-loss.json
Vendored
+6
View File
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
test/fixtures/autoplan/v-ceo-dangling-references.json
Vendored
+6
View File
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
test/fixtures/batching-permission-at.json
Vendored
+46
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
{
"provenance": {
"sourceHead": "5301119aa8f6f681fe3cae3cd229a3263e5419ab",
"originalOutcome": "timeout",
"originalReviewCount": 5,
"paidOutcomeReclassified": false,
"sourcePublicProofSHA256": "c903530934f014824cccde4f5dd17cc6c9d92b4966caaf1174772fdad268ab5c",
"sourceVisibleSHA256": "1449a832d6a3c79b599bce30a8b89ead5803393536f0a1dae53ba83d46a9ed54",
"sourceScreenSHA256": "c5e480ba5231235956f8c71dae152999fa5e3f8623b35e1ad1a24f7fc44e88fe",
"projection": "Exact terminal screen and last acknowledged public same-file Edit/result pair. No pending native ID was retained; test hook epochs are explicitly synthetic."
},
"screen": " 176 -_Test coverage decision and further sections follow._ \n 176 +### Issue 5 [P1] (confidence: 8/10) PLAN.md:15-18 — no tests for the retry framework \n 177 +**Decision: 5A (approved).** Every GAP in the diagram gets a test in this PR, \n 178 +written alongside the code, not after: \n 179 + \n 180 +| Test file (placeholder names) | Kind | Asserts | \n 181 +|---|---|---| \n 182 +| `jobs/retry/backoffStrategy.test` | unit | delay ∈ [0, min(cap, base·2^n)] for n=0..maxAttempts; never > maxDela\n +yMs; two calls at same attempt differ (jitter); attempt ≥ maxAttempts returns terminal sentinel | \n 183 +| `jobs/retry/classify.test` | unit | timeout, ECONNRESET, 5xx, 429 → retryable; 4xx≠429, validation, unknown → te\n +rminal (table-driven, one row per error type) | \n 184 +| `jobs/retry/withRetry.test` | unit | success → no failure row; retryable → ledger row + rethrow; terminal → Unre\n +coverable and no rethrow-to-retry; ledger write failure → retry still scheduled + error logged | \n 185 +| `jobs/retry/policy.test` | unit | defaults match table in Issue 3; per-worker override validated; invalid values\n + rejected | \n 186 +| `workers/<each>.test` (x5) | unit | handler invoked through withRetry with the expected policy | \n 187 +| `webhooks/ledger.test` | unit | one row per attempt, attempt strictly increasing; concurrent duplicate for same \n +event id → single delivery | \n 188 +| `processWebhookJob.regression.test` | E2E | **CRITICAL** 2xx-then-timeout → no duplicate distinct event, same ev\n +ent id, one `delivered` row; 4xx → one attempt | \n 189 +| `webhooks/delivery.e2e.test` | E2E | transient 5xx then 2xx → one event id, delivered; 4xx → rejected, no retry;\n + 429 → retried | \n 190 +| `jobs/retry/dlq.e2e.test` | E2E | exhaustion → DLQ + exactly one alert; maxAge exceeded → DLQ; replay → new chai\n +n, same event id | \n 191 + \n 192 +E2E tests run against the real job library and a fake HTTP receiver; no \n 193 +mocking of the retry hook. \n 194 + \n 195 +## 4. Performance \n 196 + \n 197 +_Decision follows._ \n╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌\n Do you want to make this edit to gstack-test-plan-eng-batching.md?\n ❯ 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-dY0BU1/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-eng-batching-PfFS0a for this session\n (shift+tab)\n 3. No\n\n Esc to cancel · Tab to amend",
"priorCompletedEdit": [
{
"line": 138,
"kind": "use",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T19:53:42.858Z",
"sessionId": "66c806c5-6230-4227-a9c1-265da2f39ab0",
"messageId": "msg_011CevLsKGJurCS3hVnUXESC",
"requestId": "req_011CevLsHryRJ5H8QEHxGJ3u",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01XkYcRRq69pesUitEzJLF5Q",
"name": "Edit",
"input": {
"replace_all": false,
"file_path": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-dY0BU1/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-eng-batching-PfFS0a/gstack-test-plan-eng-batching.md",
"old_string": "## 2. Code Quality (decisions)\n\n_Further sections follow as they are agreed._",
"new_string": "## 2. Code Quality (decisions)\n\n### Issue 4 [P1] (confidence: 9/10) PLAN.md:11-13 — retry envelope duplicated across 5 workers\n**Decision: 4A (approved).** Extract one `withRetry(policy, handler)` wrapper\nin a shared module (e.g. `jobs/retry/withRetry`) before touching any worker,\nthen convert all 5 workers to thin call sites in this PR. The wrapper owns:\nerror classification (retryable vs terminal), attempt logging, ledger write\n(decision 2A), and hand-off to the library retry hook (decision 1A). Workers\nown only their handler body. Order: wrapper + tests first, then workers one\ncommit each (structural change, then behavioral change; never both at once).\n\n```\n worker file (x5) shared module (x1)\n ┌────────────────────┐ ┌──────────────────────────────────┐\n │ export default │ │ withRetry(policy, handler) │\n │ withRetry( │ ──────► │ try handler(job) │\n │ policy, │ │ catch e: │\n │ handleXJob) │ │ classify(e) → terminal|retry │\n └────────────────────┘ │ ledger.record(job, attempt) │\n │ terminal → throw Unrecoverable│\n │ retry → rethrow (library) │\n └──────────────────────────────────┘\n backoffStrategy(attempt) → delayMs (1A/3A)\n```\n\n## 3. Tests\n\nTest framework: none detectable in this repo (only PLAN.md and CLAUDE.md are\nchecked in). Coverage diagram produced; concrete test file names use the\n`*.test.ts` convention as a placeholder and must match the real repo.\n\n### REGRESSION (mandatory, CRITICAL, no approval needed)\n`processWebhookJob()` is rewritten (PLAN.md:16-17). Its prior at-most-once\nbehavior is existing behavior with no planned test. Per the regression rule\nthis test is added as a critical requirement:\n\n- **`processWebhookJob.regression.test`** — given a receiver that returns 2xx\n then the connection drops before the response is read (or the worker crashes\n after a 2xx), assert the receiver observes exactly one delivery with the\n same `X-Webhook-Event-Id` on any second attempt, and the ledger shows one\n `delivered` row. Also assert that a 4xx (≠429) response produces exactly one\n attempt and no retry. This pins the new contract: at-least-once with a\n stable dedupe key, never a second *distinct* event.\n\n### Coverage diagram\n\n```\nCODE PATHS USER / OPERATOR FLOWS\n[+] jobs/retry/backoffStrategy [+] Webhook receiver\n ├── [GAP] attempt 0..n → delay within [0, cap] ├── [GAP] [→E2E] transient 5xx then 2xx: one event id, delivered\n ├── [GAP] delay never exceeds maxDelayMs ├── [GAP] [→E2E] 4xx: single attempt, marked rejected\n ├── [GAP] jitter: two calls same attempt differ └── [CRITICAL] [→E2E] 2xx then timeout: no duplicate event (regression)\n └── [GAP] attempt ≥ maxAttempts → -1 / terminal\n[+] jobs/retry/withRetry [+] Operator\n ├── [GAP] handler succeeds → no ledger failure row ├── [GAP] job exhausts → lands in DLQ, alert fires once\n ├── [GAP] retryable error → ledger row + rethrow ├── [GAP] job older than maxAge → stops retrying, DLQ\n ├── [GAP] terminal error → Unrecoverable, no retry └── [GAP] replay from DLQ → new attempt chain, same event id\n ├── [GAP] classify(): timeout / conn reset / 5xx / 429\n ├── [GAP] classify(): 4xx ≠ 429 / validation / unknown\n └── [GAP] ledger write fails → retry still scheduled, error logged\n[+] jobs/retry/policy\n └── [GAP] defaults + per-worker override validation\n[+] workers/* (x5)\n └── [GAP] each worker: handler invoked via withRetry with expected policy\n[+] webhook ledger\n ├── [GAP] one row per attempt, monotonically increasing attempt\n └── [GAP] concurrent duplicate job for same event id → single delivery\n\nCOVERAGE: 0/20 paths tested (0%) | Code paths: 0/14 | Flows: 0/6\nQUALITY: none yet | GAPS: 20 (3 E2E, 1 CRITICAL regression, 0 eval)\n```\n\nLegend: ★★★ behavior + edge + error | ★★ happy path | ★ smoke | [→E2E] integration test\n\n_Test coverage decision and further sections follow._"
}
},
{
"line": 139,
"kind": "result",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T19:53:43.195Z",
"sessionId": "66c806c5-6230-4227-a9c1-265da2f39ab0",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01XkYcRRq69pesUitEzJLF5Q",
"isError": false,
"content": "The file /tmp/gstack-paid-shard-dY0BU1/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-eng-batching-PfFS0a/gstack-test-plan-eng-batching.md has been updated successfully. (file state is current in your context — no need to Read it back)"
}
],
"pendingEditId": null,
"expectedPath": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-dY0BU1/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-eng-batching-PfFS0a/gstack-test-plan-eng-batching.md",
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-dY0BU1/tmp/gstack-plan-count-g6ojGV",
"sessionId": "66c806c5-6230-4227-a9c1-265da2f39ab0",
"lastMatchedDisplayCompletion": "⎿ Added 17 lines",
"laterNativeCompletionHasDisplayMatch": false
}
test/fixtures/ceo-annotation-aj.json
Vendored
+457
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,457 @@
{
"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
@@ -0,0 +1,252 @@
{
"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
@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
{
"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
@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
{
"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
@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
{
"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
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
{
"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
@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
{
"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
@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
{
"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
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
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-approach-z-call.json
Vendored
+32
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
{
"sessionId": "464da04e-2bf6-4d64-99c5-9914341b0493",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01ChdWcWJGU68XdpoR6qv18o",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D3 \u2014 Which implementation approach should this plan follow?\nProject/branch: gstack-plan-count-kMoX7Y / main \u2014 new StripePaymentWebhookHandler\nELI10: The plan has a SQL injection bug baked in \u2014 it explicitly says an external string goes raw into a SQL query. That\u2019s a hard blocker regardless of approach. The question is what else to fix in the same pass: just the blocker, everything, or send the plan back for a full rewrite.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Approach A ships fast but leaves N+1 queries and no tests; approach C delays ship by days with no guarantee the rewrite is better.\nRecommendation: B because at CC+gstack speed, fixing all 5 issues costs ~15 minutes of implementation time versus ~5 for the minimal fix \u2014 the gap is negligible and the result is far more solid.\nCompleteness: A=7/10, B=10/10, C=8/10\nPros / cons:\nA) Minimal Fix: patch SQL injection + email error handling, defer N+1 and tests (recommended)\n \u2705 Fastest path to a secure, shippable handler \u2014 blocks the critical vulnerability immediately\n \u2705 Smallest diff; least risk of introducing new issues in the same PR\n \u274c N+1 queries remain and will create database load at payment burst volume\n \u274c No automated tests \u2014 next refactor touching shared utils could silently break payment handling\nB) Proper Integration: fix all 5 issues (SQL, email, N+1, tests, dispatcher) (recommended)\n \u2705 Fully secure and observable \u2014 parameterized queries, isolated email errors, eager-loaded orders\n \u2705 WebhookDispatcher integration means future webhooks get the same patterns automatically\n \u2705 Tests prevent silent regressions in shared utilities that touch this handler\n \u274c More scope than minimal; requires understanding WebhookDispatcher internals before integrating\nC) Reject and Redesign: return the plan for rewrite before any implementation\n \u2705 Forces author to internalize secure patterns from scratch \u2014 no bandaging a broken foundation\n \u2705 Cleanest outcome if the plan\u2019s author needs to own the security thinking themselves\n \u274c Delays ship by ~2 days (human) while the plan is rewritten\n \u274c No guarantee the rewrite arrives with better architecture without a structured redesign process\nNet: This is a tradeoff between implementation speed and completeness \u2014 B costs almost nothing extra in CC time, so \u201cminimal viable\u201d reasoning doesn\u2019t apply here the way it would in human-only development. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-approach-selection>",
"header": "Approach",
"options": [
{
"label": "A \u2014 Minimal Fix",
"description": "Fix SQL injection and email error handling only. Defer N+1 fix, tests, and dispatcher integration."
},
{
"label": "B \u2014 Proper Integration (recommended)",
"description": "Fix all 5 issues: SQL injection, email handling, N+1 queries, tests, WebhookDispatcher integration."
},
{
"label": "C \u2014 Reject and Redesign",
"description": "Return the plan for a full rewrite before any implementation proceeds."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D3 \u2014 Which implementation approach should this plan follow?\nProject/branch: gstack-plan-count-kMoX7Y / main \u2014 new StripePaymentWebhookHandler\nELI10: The plan has a SQL injection bug baked in \u2014 it explicitly says an external string goes raw into a SQL query. That\u2019s a hard blocker regardless of approach. The question is what else to fix in the same pass: just the blocker, everything, or send the plan back for a full rewrite.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Approach A ships fast but leaves N+1 queries and no tests; approach C delays ship by days with no guarantee the rewrite is better.\nRecommendation: B because at CC+gstack speed, fixing all 5 issues costs ~15 minutes of implementation time versus ~5 for the minimal fix \u2014 the gap is negligible and the result is far more solid.\nCompleteness: A=7/10, B=10/10, C=8/10\nPros / cons:\nA) Minimal Fix: patch SQL injection + email error handling, defer N+1 and tests (recommended)\n \u2705 Fastest path to a secure, shippable handler \u2014 blocks the critical vulnerability immediately\n \u2705 Smallest diff; least risk of introducing new issues in the same PR\n \u274c N+1 queries remain and will create database load at payment burst volume\n \u274c No automated tests \u2014 next refactor touching shared utils could silently break payment handling\nB) Proper Integration: fix all 5 issues (SQL, email, N+1, tests, dispatcher) (recommended)\n \u2705 Fully secure and observable \u2014 parameterized queries, isolated email errors, eager-loaded orders\n \u2705 WebhookDispatcher integration means future webhooks get the same patterns automatically\n \u2705 Tests prevent silent regressions in shared utilities that touch this handler\n \u274c More scope than minimal; requires understanding WebhookDispatcher internals before integrating\nC) Reject and Redesign: return the plan for rewrite before any implementation\n \u2705 Forces author to internalize secure patterns from scratch \u2014 no bandaging a broken foundation\n \u2705 Cleanest outcome if the plan\u2019s author needs to own the security thinking themselves\n \u274c Delays ship by ~2 days (human) while the plan is rewritten\n \u274c No guarantee the rewrite arrives with better architecture without a structured redesign process\nNet: This is a tradeoff between implementation speed and completeness \u2014 B costs almost nothing extra in CC time, so \u201cminimal viable\u201d reasoning doesn\u2019t apply here the way it would in human-only development. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-approach-selection>": "A \u2014 Minimal Fix"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T12:05:36.962Z"
}
test/fixtures/ceo-approach-z-screen.txt
Vendored
+39
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
☐ Approach
│ D3 — Which implementation approach should this plan follow?
│ Project/branch: gstack-plan-count-kMoX7Y / main — new StripePaymentWebhookHandler
│ ELI10: The plan has a SQL injection bug baked in — it explicitly says an external string goes raw into a SQL query.
│ That’s a hard blocker regardless of approach. The question is what else to fix in the same pass: just the blocker,
│ everything, or send the plan back for a full rewrite.
│ Stakes if we pick wrong: Approach A ships fast but leaves N+1 queries and no tests; approach C delays ship by days
│ with no guarantee the rewrite is better.
│ Recommendation: B because at CC+gstack speed, fixing all 5 issues costs ~15 minutes of implementation time versus ~5
│ for the minimal fix — the gap is negligible and the result is far more solid.
│ Completeness: A=7/10, B=10/10, C=8/10
│ Pros / cons:
│ A) Minimal Fix: patch SQL injection + email error handling, defer N+1 and tests (recommended)
│ ✅ Fastest path to a secure, shippable handler — blocks the critical vulnerability immediately
│ ✅ Smallest diff; least risk of introducing new issues in the same PR
│ ❌ N+1 queries remain and will create database load at payment burst volume
│ ❌ No automated tests — next refactor touching shared utils could silently break payment handling
│ B) Proper Integration: fix all 5 issues (SQL, email, N+1, tests, dispatcher) (recommended)
│ ✅ Fully secure and observable — parameterized queries, isolated email errors, eager-loaded orders
│ ✅ WebhookDispatcher integration means future webhooks get the same patterns automatically
│ ✅ Tests prevent silent regressions in shared utilities that touch this handler
│ ❌ More scope than minimal; requires understanding WebhookDispatcher internals before integrating
│ C) Reject and Redesign: return the plan for rewrite before any implementation
│ ✅ Forces author to internalize secure patterns from scratch — no bandaging a broken foundation
│ ✅ Cleanest outcome if the plan’s author needs to own the security thinking themselves
│ ❌ Dela…
❯ 1. A — Minimal Fix
Fix SQL injection and email error handling only. Defer N+1 fix, tests, and dispatcher integration.
2. B — Proper Integration (recommended)
Fix all 5 issues: SQL injection, email handling, N+1 queries, tests, WebhookDispatcher integration.
3. C — Reject and Redesign
Return the plan for a full rewrite before any implementation proceeds.
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
@@ -0,0 +1,229 @@
{
"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-barless-submit-ac.json
Vendored
+100
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,100 @@
{
"provenance": {
"nativePath": ".context/ship-source-ac-full-paid-20260909-1635/native-observation/pinned-native/429317-237662/21669d56-936c-4ad6-ba28-f1533cf1ff06/74fad60b1be6c00d362cc6cba2cf2a6cf220c18d825b3bca1a0fe1fa08702e2a.jsonl",
"nativeSha256": "74fad60b1be6c00d362cc6cba2cf2a6cf220c18d825b3bca1a0fe1fa08702e2a",
"modeRequestAt": "2026-09-09T16:41:03.857Z",
"modeReplyAt": "2026-09-09T16:41:05.676Z",
"selectionLowerBound": "Native mode request timestamp; actual JavaScript selectionStartedAt was not retained.",
"logPath": ".context/ship-source-ac-full-paid-20260909-1635/gstack-paid-shard-skill-e2e-plan-ceo-mode-routing-2026-09-09T16-36-59-163Z-412001-7.log",
"logSha256": "166d14ffbaea7c16ef9e5e90f920b19cbc36df160a52beca6d89eee65e9a4f9b",
"actualRenderedTail": "Exact retained truncated first HOLD failure tail; it does not contain a complete barless frame or native pending packet.",
"projectedControls": "The four questions below and the complete tab/Submit screens constructed by the test are explicitly synthetic, shaped like the observed review. No claim that these were the unpublished native packet."
},
"modeCall": {
"sessionId": "21669d56-936c-4ad6-ba28-f1533cf1ff06",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01AJPrVjeKa9dVyfFN3VSxAr",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D5 \u2014 Which review mode should I run for the rest of this review?\nProject/branch/task: plan-count fixture on `main`, PLAN.md \"Add saved project views\" under Approach B.\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for the 11 review sections. EXPANSION pushes scope up and recommends every extra enthusiastically. SELECTIVE EXPANSION holds the current scope as the baseline, reviews it rigorously, then shows you each extra (shared views, default view, keyboard shortcut, and so on) one at a time so you cherry-pick. HOLD SCOPE reviews only what's there and surfaces no extras. REDUCTION strips to the bare minimum. In every mode, every scope change is an individual opt-in; nothing is added or removed silently.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too expansive and the pilot ships late with features nobody asked for; too narrow and obvious 30-minute wins (like shareable links) get missed.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is a feature enhancement on an existing task list, and Approach B already produces a few cheap adjacent wins worth showing you individually.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: how much ambition I bring to the table versus how tightly I hold the plan as written. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-mode>",
"header": "Mode",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Full rigor on the accepted scope, plus each expansion candidate presented individually with neutral effort and risk. \u2705 Rejected candidates land in NOT in scope, so nothing is lost or silently added. \u274c Adds several cherry-pick questions before the deep review starts."
},
{
"label": "SCOPE EXPANSION",
"description": "\u2705 Dreams big: 10x version, platonic ideal, and at least five delight items, each recommended enthusiastically. \u2705 Best when you want this to become the flagship way people navigate tasks. \u274c Pushes toward shared views and a view platform the two-week pilot did not ask for."
},
{
"label": "HOLD SCOPE",
"description": "\u2705 Maximum rigor on Approach B exactly as approved; no expansion questions at all. \u2705 Fastest path to a bulletproof, shippable plan. \u274c Cheap adjacent wins like shareable filter links never get surfaced for a decision."
},
{
"label": "SCOPE REDUCTION",
"description": "\u2705 Finds the absolute minimum that ships value, everything else deferred to follow-ups. \u2705 Lowest pilot risk and smallest rollback surface. \u274c Likely cuts auto-restore or named views, undoing the reason Approach B was chosen."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T16:41:05.676Z",
"answers": {
"D5 \u2014 Which review mode should I run for the rest of this review?\nProject/branch/task: plan-count fixture on `main`, PLAN.md \"Add saved project views\" under Approach B.\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for the 11 review sections. EXPANSION pushes scope up and recommends every extra enthusiastically. SELECTIVE EXPANSION holds the current scope as the baseline, reviews it rigorously, then shows you each extra (shared views, default view, keyboard shortcut, and so on) one at a time so you cherry-pick. HOLD SCOPE reviews only what's there and surfaces no extras. REDUCTION strips to the bare minimum. In every mode, every scope change is an individual opt-in; nothing is added or removed silently.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too expansive and the pilot ships late with features nobody asked for; too narrow and obvious 30-minute wins (like shareable links) get missed.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is a feature enhancement on an existing task list, and Approach B already produces a few cheap adjacent wins worth showing you individually.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: how much ambition I bring to the table versus how tightly I hold the plan as written. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-mode>": "HOLD SCOPE"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": []
},
"actualTruncatedTail": "\ned\n\u2502 stats). Without aversion,old stored viewsbreaksilentlywhenthefiltershapechanges.Withone,atiny\n\u2502upgrader function can migrate old shapes on read, and the app can log exactlywhich version i saw.\n\u2502Stakes if w pick wong: Without a version, the firstfilter-shape changeafter launch turnsevery savedview into\n\u2502a silent 400 or anemptylist.\n\u2502 Recommendaton:Abecauseasingleintegercolumncostsnothingnowandistheonlywaytokeepstoredviews\n \u2502 working across filter changes, which is required correctness for a persistence feature.\n\u2502 ompleteness: A=10/10,B=7/10\n\u2502Net:oneextraintegerfieldnowversusaguaranteedbreakagethefirsttimethefiltershapeevolves.\n \u2502 <gstack-qid:pln-ceo-review-hld-flter-encoding>\n\u2192A:Mirrortask-listparams+schema_versionint+validateonread(recommended)\n\u2502\u25cfD8\u2014Whathappenswhenastoredfilterreferencessomethingthatnolongerexists?\n\u2502Project/branch/task:plan-countfixtureon`main`,ApproachBapply-viewpath,HOLDSCOPE.\n\u2502ELI10:Asavedviewmightfilterbyalabelthatwaslaterdeletedoranassigneewholefttheproject.Whenthe\n\n\u2502memberappliesit,theapphastodosomethingwiththatdeadclause.Droppingitsilentlywouldshowawiderlist\n\n\u2502thanthememberexpectsandtheywouldneverknowwhy.Failingthewholeviewissafebutmakestheviewuseless\n\n\u2502overonestaleclause.Themiddlepathappliesthevalidclauses,showsavisiblenoticenamingwhatwasdropped,\n\n\u2502andofferstoupdatetheview.\n\n\u2502Stakesifwepickwrong:Silentwideningisexactlythekindofinvisiblefailurethisreviewexiststocatch;hard\n\n\u2502failuremakesviewsfeelfragile.\n\n\u2502Recommendation:Abecauseitkeepstheviewusable,makesthedegradationvisibletothemember,andlogsitsothe\n\n\u2502teamcanseehowoftenfiltersgostale.\n\n\u2502Completeness:A=10/10,B=8/10,C=3/10\n\n\u2502Net:gracefulandloudversusstrictandsafeversussilentandwrong.\n\n\u2502<gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-hold-stale-references>\n\n\u2192A:Applyvalidclauses,showanamednotice,offerUpdateview(recommended)\n\n\u2502\u25cfD9\u2014Whenamembereditsfiltersafterapplyingasavedview,whathappenstotheview?\n\n\u2502Project/branch/task:plan-countfixtureon`main`,ApproachBpicker+saveaction,HOLDSCOPE.\n\n\u2502ELI10:Amemberpickstheview\"Myopenbugs\",thenaddsafilter.Shouldtheviewsilentlyupdatetothenew\n\n\u2502filters,orshouldthepickershow\"Myopenbugs(modified)\"andletthememberchooseUpdatevieworSaveasnew?\n\n\u2502Auto-saveiszero-clickbutdestroysthesaveddefinitionbyaccident,andthereisnoundo.Dirtystateisthe\n\n\u2502patterneverymainstreamtrackeruses.Eitherwaythelast-usedstate(auto-restore)stillupdatessoreloading\n\n\u2502returnsthemembertowhattheywerelookingat.\n\n\u2502Stakesifwepickwrong:Auto-savesilentlyrewritesviewsthememberrelieson;missingdirtystatemakesmembers\n\n\u2502unsurewhethertheirchangestuck.\n\n\u2502Recommendation:Abecauseitisexplicitoverclever,matcheseverymainstreamtracker,andkeepsauto-restore\n\n\u2502workingthroughthelast-usedstateregardless.\n\n\u2502Completeness:A=10/10,B=6/10\n\n\u2502Net:anexplicittwo-buttondirtystateversusasilentoverwritewithnoundo.\n\n\u2502<gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-hold-dirty-state>\n\n\u2192A:DirtystatewithUpdateview/Saveasnew;last-usedalwaysupdates(recommended)\n\n\n\nReadytosubmityouranswers?\n\n\n\n\u276f1.Submitanswers\n\n2.Cancel\n\n",
"projectedQuestions": [
{
"header": "Filter encoding",
"question": "D7 \u2014 How should persisted filters remain readable?\nProject: saved views, HOLD SCOPE.\nRequire a schema version and validation when a stored view is reopened.",
"options": [
{
"label": "Version and validate (recommended)"
},
{
"label": "Store opaque filters"
}
]
},
{
"header": "Stale references",
"question": "D8 \u2014 What happens when a saved filter names a deleted label?\nProject: saved views, HOLD SCOPE.\nShow a clear warning for invalid clauses; never silently widen the result.",
"options": [
{
"label": "Validate and show a warning (recommended)"
},
{
"label": "Apply every clause unchanged"
}
]
},
{
"header": "Dirty state",
"question": "D9 \u2014 How should edits affect an applied saved view?\nProject: saved views, HOLD SCOPE.\nRequire explicit Update or Save as new; silent overwrites destroy the saved definition.",
"options": [
{
"label": "Explicit update or save (recommended)"
},
{
"label": "Overwrite automatically"
}
]
},
{
"header": "Access failure",
"question": "D10 \u2014 How should an unauthorized saved view fail?\nProject: saved views, HOLD SCOPE.\nReturn a visible error and preserve the current filters.",
"options": [
{
"label": "Show an access error (recommended)"
},
{
"label": "Clear all filters silently"
}
]
}
]
}
test/fixtures/ceo-checkbox-l.screen.txt
Vendored
+39
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
● User answered Claude's questions:
⎿  · D4 — Beyond the nil/empty guard (D3), should the plan add format validation on userId — e.g., verify it matches
the expected format (integer ID or UUID) before querying the database? <gstack-qid:ceo-userid-format-validation> →
A) Add format validation (recommended)
● User answered Claude's questions:
⎿  · D5 — The handler updates user records on payment success but adds no explicit structured log of the write (which
user, what amount, what event). The ingress logs event-level outcomes, but not the per-user payment update itself.
Should the plan add an audit log line? <gstack-qid:ceo-payment-audit-log> → A) Add structured audit log
(recommended)
● D4 and D5 approved. Sections 4–5 — findings resolved by prior decisions (approach A + D3/D4). Section 6 (Tests):
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Planning:
/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-qZv1YV/tmp/gstack-hermetic-612079-1ymnnq/with-skills/.claude/plans/dapper-launching-fog.md
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
← ☐ Test specification ✔ Submit →
│ D6 — Approach A approved 2-3 smoke tests. Which specific tests should the plan specify?
│ <gstack-qid:ceo-test-specification>
❯ 1. [ ] 1) Happy path: payment updates user record (recommended)
The most fundamental correctness check: a valid event updates the correct user’s record. Without this, nothing is
verified.
2. [ ] 2) Email failure does not abort the payment update (recommended)
Validates the try/catch from Approach A is correct: killing the email service must not prevent the user record from
being updated.
3. [ ] 3) Nil/empty userId returns 200 without DB write (recommended)
Validates the guard from D3: degenerate Stripe metadata does not crash the handler or corrupt any data.
4. [ ] 4) SQL-injection string does not modify any DB row
Validates the parameterized query from Approach A: a malicious userId string causes no DB change. Optional but
provides the clearest proof of S-1 fix.
5. [ ] Type something
Submit
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
6. Chat about this
Enter to select · ↑/↓ to navigate · Esc to cancel
test/fixtures/ceo-completion-handoff-calls.json
Vendored
+248
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,248 @@
{
"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
@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
{
"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
@@ -0,0 +1,422 @@
{
"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
@@ -0,0 +1,268 @@
{
"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-m-call.json
Vendored
+562
View File
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
test/fixtures/ceo-completion-handoff-o-call.json
Vendored
+232
View File
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
test/fixtures/ceo-completion-handoff-q-call.json
Vendored
+270
View File
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
test/fixtures/ceo-completion-handoff-r-calls.json
Vendored
+119
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,119 @@
[
{
"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
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
test/fixtures/ceo-completion-handoff-u-call.json
Vendored
+189
View File
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
test/fixtures/ceo-completion-handoff-v-call.json
Vendored
+255
View File
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
test/fixtures/ceo-completion-handoff-w-call.json
Vendored
+252
View File
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
test/fixtures/ceo-contract-assertions-ag-retry.json
Vendored
+175
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,175 @@
{
"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
@@ -0,0 +1,131 @@
{
"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
@@ -0,0 +1,191 @@
{
"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
@@ -0,0 +1,157 @@
{
"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
@@ -0,0 +1,538 @@
{
"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-ad-v2.json
Vendored
+2430
View File
File diff suppressed because it is too large Load Diff
test/fixtures/ceo-count-mode-ab-call.json
Vendored
+36
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
{
"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-mode-preview-aa-screen.txt
Vendored
+39
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
o TODO/FIXME comments.
… +442 lines (ctrl+o to expand)
● Now I have a clear picture of the plan's critical issues. Following the skill workflow, I need to start the question
chain. First: no design doc was found, so I must offer /office-hours before proceeding.
● User answered Claude's questions:
⎿  · D1 — No design doc found for this branch. Run /office-hours first or proceed directly with the review?
<gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-prereq-skill> → Skip — proceed with standard review (Recommended)
● Skipping /office-hours — proceeding with standard review. Now the key decision: which implementation approach to use.
● User answered Claude's questions:
⎿  · D2 — Which implementation approach should this plan use? The current plan (Approach A) has a documented SQL
injection vulnerability and zero tests. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-approach> → Approach B: Fix security + tests,
keep inline email (Recommended)
● Approach B selected — fix security + tests within the existing scope. Now selecting the review mode.
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
☐ Review mode
│ D3 — Which review mode should we use for this plan? The plan adds a new payment webhook handler (a concrete, scoped
│ feature). We've selected Approach B (fix security within existing scope). <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-mode>
❯ 1. HOLD SCOPE — make it ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
bulletproof (Recommended) │ Mode: HOLD SCOPE │
2. SELECTIVE EXPANSION — │ Scope baseline: StripePaymentWebhookHandler │
hold scope + surface │ Goal: Parameterized SQL, explicit email rescue, │
extras │ handler tests, N+1 fix │
3. SCOPE REDUCTION — strip │ No new features surfaced │
to minimum └─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
4. SCOPE EXPANSION — dream
bigger Notes: press n to add notes
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Chat about this
Enter to select · ↑/↓ to navigate · n to add notes · Esc to cancel
test/fixtures/ceo-count-s-distinct.json
Vendored
+137
View File
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
test/fixtures/ceo-count-s-paired.json
Vendored
+169
View File
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
test/fixtures/ceo-count-w-paired.json
Vendored
+105
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,105 @@
{
"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
@@ -0,0 +1,332 @@
{
"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-omission-ap.json
Vendored
+361
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,361 @@
{
"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-decision-prefix-al.json
Vendored
+70
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
{
"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
@@ -0,0 +1,341 @@
{
"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-expansion-auq-ac.json
Vendored
+221
View File
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
test/fixtures/ceo-finding-alias-af.json
Vendored
+105
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,105 @@
{
"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
@@ -0,0 +1,317 @@
{
"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-n-calls.json
Vendored
+252
View File
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
test/fixtures/ceo-handoff-y-call.json
Vendored
+218
View File
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
test/fixtures/ceo-handoff-z-call.json
Vendored
+221
View File
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
test/fixtures/ceo-hold-commitment-ar.json
Vendored
+58
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
{
"provenance": {
"source": ".context/ship-source-ar-delta-paid-20260910-v1/mode-first-public-ledger-v1/plan-ceo-review-mode-1789053995791-VjvB4e/observation.json",
"sha256": "55925007512824556322bb8eb40c88172677eb6f4814ba89594d476803fd5e99",
"sourceCommit": "1e303f1002d3d71c77e60281b1175ee834d91215",
"actualState": "failed",
"projection": "Exact public native mode call and post-answer assistant statement. Other setup and downstream calls omitted. No private blocks."
},
"selectionStartedAt": 1789054158242,
"transcript": {
"status": "ready",
"calls": [
{
"sessionId": "7986b7ff-9ba7-43a2-ac3c-03ff580da641",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01E1HnYjRCz79826bo7nNnoK",
"questions": [
{
"header": "Review mode",
"question": "D3 \u2014 Which review mode for the saved views plan? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-mode>\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-VuDWLW on main, PLAN.md \u2014 saved project views, approach B (future-proof schema) approved.\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for the rest of the review. It decides whether I push for a bigger product, hold the current scope and harden it, or cut it down. Every scope change is still your explicit opt-in; the mode only changes what I surface.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Expansion on a plan you want small wastes your decisions on ideas you'll reject; hold-scope on a plan with obvious adjacent wins means you never hear about them.\nRecommendation: Selective expansion because this is an enhancement to an existing task list, the baseline is sound, and the landscape check surfaced two or three adjacent ideas (last-used state, default view, shared views) worth a yes/no each rather than a blanket push.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: how ambitious you want this review to be, not what ends up in scope \u2014 that stays your call per item.",
"options": [
{
"label": "Selective expansion (recommended)",
"description": "Hold the current scope as the baseline and harden it, then present each expansion opportunity as its own yes/defer/skip decision with neutral effort and risk. \u2705 You hear every adjacent win but pick only the ones you want. \u2705 The baseline still gets the full rigor pass: errors, edge cases, observability, deployment. \u274c More decisions to answer than hold-scope; roughly five or six extra questions."
},
{
"label": "Scope expansion",
"description": "Dream big: describe the 10x version and the platonic ideal, then propose each piece enthusiastically for your opt-in. \u2705 Best chance of finding the version that makes members love the task list. \u2705 Surfaces platform potential (views as shared objects, defaults, per-project home). \u274c Risks turning a two-day feature into a quarter; every proposal still needs your yes."
},
{
"label": "Hold scope",
"description": "The plan's scope is right. Maximum rigor on what is there: failure modes, error map, tests, observability, rollout. No expansions surfaced. \u2705 Fewest questions; fastest path to a bulletproof plan. \u2705 Keeps the pilot honest by measuring exactly the feature the plan describes. \u274c Adjacent wins such as remembering the last-used filter go unmentioned."
},
{
"label": "Scope reduction",
"description": "Strip to the minimum that ships value, then review that. \u2705 Fastest ship if the goal is only to validate demand in the pilot. \u2705 Forces a clear must-ship vs follow-up split. \u274c Conflicts with the approach you just approved; I would need to re-open D2 to drop the validation layer."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D3 \u2014 Which review mode for the saved views plan? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-mode>\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-VuDWLW on main, PLAN.md \u2014 saved project views, approach B (future-proof schema) approved.\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for the rest of the review. It decides whether I push for a bigger product, hold the current scope and harden it, or cut it down. Every scope change is still your explicit opt-in; the mode only changes what I surface.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Expansion on a plan you want small wastes your decisions on ideas you'll reject; hold-scope on a plan with obvious adjacent wins means you never hear about them.\nRecommendation: Selective expansion because this is an enhancement to an existing task list, the baseline is sound, and the landscape check surfaced two or three adjacent ideas (last-used state, default view, shared views) worth a yes/no each rather than a blanket push.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: how ambitious you want this review to be, not what ends up in scope \u2014 that stays your call per item.": "Hold scope"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T15:29:18.292Z"
}
],
"assistantMessages": [
{
"sessionId": "7986b7ff-9ba7-43a2-ac3c-03ff580da641",
"text": "I'll keep scope fixed to PLAN.md's four bullets plus the approved schema, pressure-testing every stated behavior for failure modes, errors, tests, and production visibility while deferring anything extra rather than adding it silently. Complexity checks out under the smell threshold, so next I'll draft the plan file alongside the deep-review temporal interrogation of decisions the implementer will face in hours two through six.\n\n",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T15:29:58.097Z"
}
]
}
}
test/fixtures/ceo-hold-posture-ag.json
Vendored
+58
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
{
"provenance": {
"source": ".context/ship-source-ag-delta-paid-20260910-v1/mode-hold-first-evidence-v1/observation.json",
"sha256": "b910133feb5451f3619617b04fc5aa09b94593616bdb3be1149e0de3292622c6",
"sourceCommit": "8d8537e5d341cc9f3d186822f06efb245ec7b8fd",
"actualState": "failed",
"projection": "Exact parsed public mode call and assistant message; surrounding setup and unrelated decisions omitted. No private blocks included."
},
"selectionStartedAt": 1789005223823,
"transcript": {
"status": "ready",
"calls": [
{
"sessionId": "4ed728c7-5e5f-437a-9037-a83ea82de1a6",
"toolUseId": "toolu_011bt3yabPDSEsPNm97EhqV4",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D2 \u2014 Which review mode should I apply to this plan? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-mode>\nProject/branch/task: main, reviewing PLAN.md (saved project views) with approach B (canonical validated view entity) approved.\nELI10: The approach is settled. Now choose my posture for the rest of the review. I can push the plan bigger and pitch every expansion for your approval, hold the current scope as the baseline and let you cherry-pick extras one at a time, hold scope with no extras and only harden it, or strip it to the smallest version that still fixes the pain. Every scope change in every mode is your explicit opt-in.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too ambitious and the two-week pilot ships late with features nobody asked for. Too narrow and we ship a picker that cannot be updated in place, the failure the research flags most.\nRecommendation: Selective Expansion because this is a feature added to an existing task list: the baseline scope is sound, and there are a handful of small adjacent wins (default view, deep link, shared views) worth an individual yes or no.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: how much I argue for more versus how much I only harden what is already written.",
"header": "Review mode",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Selective Expansion (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Baseline scope reviewed with full rigor; nothing added without your explicit yes.\n\u2705 Each expansion candidate shown individually with effort and risk, neutral posture.\n\u274c More decision prompts than Hold Scope; you must judge each cherry-pick."
},
{
"label": "Scope Expansion",
"description": "\u2705 I describe the 10x version and pitch each expansion enthusiastically.\n\u2705 Best if you want saved views to become the primary navigation model now.\n\u274c Risks a much bigger first release before the pilot proves demand."
},
{
"label": "Hold Scope",
"description": "\u2705 Maximum rigor on exactly what PLAN.md says; no expansions surfaced at all.\n\u2705 Fewest decisions; fastest path to a bulletproof baseline.\n\u274c Adjacent 30-minute wins like a default view or deep links go unmentioned."
},
{
"label": "Scope Reduction",
"description": "\u2705 Finds the smallest version that still removes the filter-rebuilding pain.\n\u2705 Fastest pilot; defers anything not essential to a follow-up.\n\u274c Approach B's validator and dirty-state UI may get cut, reintroducing silent breakage."
}
]
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D2 \u2014 Which review mode should I apply to this plan? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-mode>\nProject/branch/task: main, reviewing PLAN.md (saved project views) with approach B (canonical validated view entity) approved.\nELI10: The approach is settled. Now choose my posture for the rest of the review. I can push the plan bigger and pitch every expansion for your approval, hold the current scope as the baseline and let you cherry-pick extras one at a time, hold scope with no extras and only harden it, or strip it to the smallest version that still fixes the pain. Every scope change in every mode is your explicit opt-in.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too ambitious and the two-week pilot ships late with features nobody asked for. Too narrow and we ship a picker that cannot be updated in place, the failure the research flags most.\nRecommendation: Selective Expansion because this is a feature added to an existing task list: the baseline scope is sound, and there are a handful of small adjacent wins (default view, deep link, shared views) worth an individual yes or no.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: how much I argue for more versus how much I only harden what is already written.": "Hold Scope"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T01:53:43.872Z"
}
],
"assistantMessages": [
{
"sessionId": "4ed728c7-5e5f-437a-9037-a83ea82de1a6",
"text": "I'm locking scope to the four PLAN.md bullets from approach B, flagging anything beyond that (defaults, sharing, deep links) as out of scope, and hunting for silent failure modes\u2014constraints, error handling, UI edge cases, access-rule leaks\u2014that need explicit yes/no repairs. The file count (10\u201312) crosses the smell line but is justified by standard layering, so next I'll surface the implementer's hour-2 decisions one at a time, starting with whether to defer the position column.\n\n",
"timestamp": "2026-09-10T01:54:26.393Z"
}
]
}
}
test/fixtures/ceo-hold-posture-l.json
Vendored
+233
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,233 @@
{
"records": [
{
"parentUuid": "bbff4cf2-dc57-429b-b691-079e1140cc4f",
"isSidechain": false,
"message": {
"model": "claude-sonnet-4-6",
"id": "msg_011CerqJoYMmh9juaJEs7GKw",
"type": "message",
"role": "assistant",
"content": [
{
"type": "tool_use",
"id": "toolu_01RjhYKZNarHh3QP5C6zssRZ",
"name": "AskUserQuestion",
"input": {
"questions": [
{
"question": "Which review mode should I run for this plan?",
"header": "Review mode",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)",
"description": "Hold the plan's scope as baseline and make it bulletproof. Then surface each expansion opportunity individually so you can cherry-pick. Best fit: new feature on an existing system with clear expansion opportunities (team views, default view, analytics)."
},
{
"label": "SCOPE EXPANSION",
"description": "Dream big \u2014 push scope up and propose the ambitious version. Every expansion is presented individually for your approval. Best for: greenfield or when you want to hear the full cathedral vision first."
},
{
"label": "HOLD SCOPE",
"description": "Maximum rigor on the plan as written. No expansions surfaced. Review every failure mode, edge case, security path, and deployment concern. Best for: bug fixes, hotfixes, or when scope is locked."
},
{
"label": "SCOPE REDUCTION",
"description": "Find the minimum viable version that ships value. Cut everything else ruthlessly. Best for: overbuilt plans or when you need to ship faster than the plan allows."
}
]
}
]
},
"caller": {
"type": "direct"
}
}
],
"container": null,
"stop_reason": "tool_use",
"stop_sequence": null,
"stop_details": null,
"usage": {
"input_tokens": 1,
"cache_creation_input_tokens": 717,
"cache_read_input_tokens": 55101,
"output_tokens": 544,
"output_tokens_details": {
"thinking_tokens": 196
},
"server_tool_use": {
"web_search_requests": 0,
"web_fetch_requests": 0
},
"service_tier": "standard",
"cache_creation": {
"ephemeral_1h_input_tokens": 0,
"ephemeral_5m_input_tokens": 717
},
"inference_geo": "global",
"iterations": [
{
"input_tokens": 1,
"output_tokens": 544,
"cache_read_input_tokens": 55101,
"cache_creation_input_tokens": 717,
"cache_creation": {
"ephemeral_5m_input_tokens": 717,
"ephemeral_1h_input_tokens": 0
},
"type": "message"
}
],
"speed": "standard"
},
"diagnostics": null,
"context_management": null
},
"apiBlockIndex": 2,
"requestId": "req_011CerqJnvtmKtqJNQCGh1cN",
"attributionSkill": "plan-ceo-review",
"type": "assistant",
"uuid": "de9c9227-0eba-440b-9dab-681948337463",
"timestamp": "2026-09-08T23:23:47.560Z",
"effort": "high",
"session_id": "78b8a483-a24e-4ec0-9ceb-4b01b12bb989",
"userType": "external",
"entrypoint": "cli",
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-rYcbG2/tmp/gstack-plan-count-4OALAV",
"sessionId": "78b8a483-a24e-4ec0-9ceb-4b01b12bb989",
"version": "2.1.257",
"gitBranch": "main",
"slug": "shimmering-mapping-peacock"
},
{
"parentUuid": "de9c9227-0eba-440b-9dab-681948337463",
"isSidechain": false,
"promptId": "1bea30b8-627b-4f0c-adae-0bde48bbda2d",
"type": "user",
"message": {
"role": "user",
"content": [
{
"type": "tool_result",
"content": "Your questions have been answered: \"Which review mode should I run for this plan?\"=\"HOLD SCOPE\". You can now continue with these answers in mind.",
"tool_use_id": "toolu_01RjhYKZNarHh3QP5C6zssRZ"
}
]
},
"uuid": "2c643dda-3fea-4ad8-9795-35058f9abbb4",
"timestamp": "2026-09-08T23:23:49.350Z",
"toolUseResult": {
"questions": [
{
"question": "Which review mode should I run for this plan?",
"header": "Review mode",
"options": [
{
"label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)",
"description": "Hold the plan's scope as baseline and make it bulletproof. Then surface each expansion opportunity individually so you can cherry-pick. Best fit: new feature on an existing system with clear expansion opportunities (team views, default view, analytics)."
},
{
"label": "SCOPE EXPANSION",
"description": "Dream big \u2014 push scope up and propose the ambitious version. Every expansion is presented individually for your approval. Best for: greenfield or when you want to hear the full cathedral vision first."
},
{
"label": "HOLD SCOPE",
"description": "Maximum rigor on the plan as written. No expansions surfaced. Review every failure mode, edge case, security path, and deployment concern. Best for: bug fixes, hotfixes, or when scope is locked."
},
{
"label": "SCOPE REDUCTION",
"description": "Find the minimum viable version that ships value. Cut everything else ruthlessly. Best for: overbuilt plans or when you need to ship faster than the plan allows."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answers": {
"Which review mode should I run for this plan?": "HOLD SCOPE"
},
"annotations": {}
},
"sourceToolAssistantUUID": "de9c9227-0eba-440b-9dab-681948337463",
"session_id": "78b8a483-a24e-4ec0-9ceb-4b01b12bb989",
"userType": "external",
"entrypoint": "cli",
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-rYcbG2/tmp/gstack-plan-count-4OALAV",
"sessionId": "78b8a483-a24e-4ec0-9ceb-4b01b12bb989",
"version": "2.1.257",
"gitBranch": "main",
"slug": "shimmering-mapping-peacock"
},
{
"parentUuid": "9945efd1-126a-4179-8ef0-e2e4e5664f8b",
"isSidechain": false,
"message": {
"model": "claude-sonnet-4-6",
"id": "msg_011CerqKz7si6tjYfmS8PQ3a",
"type": "message",
"role": "assistant",
"content": [
{
"type": "text",
"text": "HOLD SCOPE confirmed. Approach B (personal DB views, 7/10) is the implementation baseline.\n\nNow running 0D (HOLD SCOPE analysis) and 0E (temporal interrogation), then loading the 11-section review.\n\n**0D: HOLD SCOPE complexity check**\n- Files touched: ~5 (migration, model, controller/router, UI picker component, tests). Well under the 8-file threshold. No complexity smell.\n- Minimum set to achieve the goal: all four plan items are load-bearing (table, CRUD endpoints, UI picker, access rules adherence). No obvious deferrable scope within the stated goal \u2014 except the pilot measurement infrastructure, which needs specifics.\n\n**0E: Temporal Interrogation**\n```\nHOUR 1 (foundations):\n What columns? name, filters (JSON blob), sort_order (JSON blob),\n member_id, project_id, created_at, updated_at, id\n What is the filter serialization format? Must decide NOW \u2014 blob\n shape is implicit API contract that's painful to change later.\n Existing filter state serialization: is there one to reuse?\n\nHOUR 2-3 (core logic):\n Auth: can a member CRUD only their own views? What prevents\n member A from updating member B's view via direct ID?\n Update semantics: full replace (PUT) or partial (PATCH)?\n \"Keep existing task access rules\" \u2014 what exactly gates a\n saved view application? Re-fetch with normal member access?\n\nHOUR 4-5 (integration):\n URL deep-link: does applying a saved view update the URL?\n Shareable link? (Scope question that needs an answer now.)\n Filter schema drift: what happens when a view references a\n filter field that was removed from the product?\n Max views per member per project: no limit = runaway storage.\n Empty state when member has 0 views \u2014 design needed.\n\nHOUR 6+ (polish/tests):\n \"Reopening after task changes\" \u2014 test spec is ambiguous:\n does it mean task list refreshes through the saved filters?\n Pilot measurement: what event do you log for a \"view reuse\"?\n Where does that event go? Without implementation, pilot\n measurement is wishful thinking, not a plan.\n```\n\nNow loading the review sections."
}
],
"container": null,
"stop_reason": "tool_use",
"stop_sequence": null,
"stop_details": null,
"usage": {
"input_tokens": 1,
"cache_creation_input_tokens": 617,
"cache_read_input_tokens": 55818,
"output_tokens": 1521,
"output_tokens_details": {
"thinking_tokens": 865
},
"server_tool_use": {
"web_search_requests": 0,
"web_fetch_requests": 0
},
"service_tier": "standard",
"cache_creation": {
"ephemeral_1h_input_tokens": 0,
"ephemeral_5m_input_tokens": 617
},
"inference_geo": "global",
"iterations": [
{
"input_tokens": 1,
"output_tokens": 1521,
"cache_read_input_tokens": 55818,
"cache_creation_input_tokens": 617,
"cache_creation": {
"ephemeral_5m_input_tokens": 617,
"ephemeral_1h_input_tokens": 0
},
"type": "message"
}
],
"speed": "standard"
},
"diagnostics": null,
"context_management": null
},
"apiBlockIndex": 1,
"requestId": "req_011CerqKxkGcKTQa1py98BRg",
"attributionSkill": "plan-ceo-review",
"type": "assistant",
"uuid": "2979b5b4-bacd-4d61-90e8-e2a337a5c783",
"timestamp": "2026-09-08T23:24:23.054Z",
"effort": "high",
"session_id": "78b8a483-a24e-4ec0-9ceb-4b01b12bb989",
"userType": "external",
"entrypoint": "cli",
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-rYcbG2/tmp/gstack-plan-count-4OALAV",
"sessionId": "78b8a483-a24e-4ec0-9ceb-4b01b12bb989",
"version": "2.1.257",
"gitBranch": "main",
"slug": "shimmering-mapping-peacock"
}
]
}
test/fixtures/ceo-metadata-brief-ax.json
Vendored
+68
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
{
"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-mode-colon-at.json
Vendored
+36
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
{
"sessionId": "c626cea5-23d8-4535-b903-5e329fc89a6a",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01XY3qPeSuJZa3H2uCfatJ8b",
"questions": [
{
"header": "Review mode",
"question": "D4 \u2014 Which review mode for the saved-views plan? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-mode>\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count fixture on main, PLAN.md with approach B (versioned filter-spec views) approved.\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for the rest of the review. Expansion means I pitch the ambitious version and you opt in item by item. Selective expansion means I make the current scope bulletproof and separately show you expansion candidates to cherry-pick with no sales pitch. Hold scope means rigor only, no new ideas. Reduction means I cut to the smallest thing that removes the pain. Whatever you pick, no scope changes without your explicit yes.\nStakes if we pick wrong: too expansive and a two-week pilot feature grows sharing and defaults before anyone has used it; too narrow and obvious adjacent wins (a default view, a dirty-state prompt) never get considered.\nRecommendation: B (Selective Expansion) because this iterates on an existing task list, and the landscape shows adjacent features (shared views, default view) that deserve a look but should not be assumed.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nA) Scope Expansion\n \u2705 Surfaces the full cathedral: shared views, project defaults, view-driven digests, in one pass\n \u2705 Best when the feature is greenfield and the team wants the 10x version now\n \u274c Pushes hard toward more scope before the pilot has proven anyone reuses a view\nB) Selective Expansion (recommended)\n \u2705 Holds approach B as the baseline and reviews it with full rigor first\n \u2705 Presents each expansion candidate individually with neutral effort and risk so you cherry-pick\n \u274c More decision prompts than Hold Scope; roughly 5-6 extra questions\nC) Hold Scope\n \u2705 Fastest path: architecture, security, edge cases, observability, deployment only\n \u2705 Zero risk of scope creep before the pilot\n \u274c Adjacent 30-minute wins are never raised, even ones the landscape says drive adoption\nD) Scope Reduction\n \u2705 Finds the smallest shippable slice, useful if the pilot is purely a signal test\n \u2705 Separates must-ship-together from nice-to-have follow-up PRs\n \u274c Conflicts with the approach B you just approved, which deliberately closes silent failure modes\nNet: how many adjacent ideas you want to see before the rigorous pass, versus decision fatigue.",
"options": [
{
"label": "B: Selective Expansion (Recommended)",
"description": "Rigorous review of approach B, then individual cherry-pick questions for expansions."
},
{
"label": "A: Scope Expansion",
"description": "Dream big; each ambitious proposal presented for opt-in."
},
{
"label": "C: Hold Scope",
"description": "Maximum rigor on current scope, no expansions surfaced."
},
{
"label": "D: Scope Reduction",
"description": "Strip to the minimum that removes the pain, then review that."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D4 \u2014 Which review mode for the saved-views plan? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-mode>\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count fixture on main, PLAN.md with approach B (versioned filter-spec views) approved.\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for the rest of the review. Expansion means I pitch the ambitious version and you opt in item by item. Selective expansion means I make the current scope bulletproof and separately show you expansion candidates to cherry-pick with no sales pitch. Hold scope means rigor only, no new ideas. Reduction means I cut to the smallest thing that removes the pain. Whatever you pick, no scope changes without your explicit yes.\nStakes if we pick wrong: too expansive and a two-week pilot feature grows sharing and defaults before anyone has used it; too narrow and obvious adjacent wins (a default view, a dirty-state prompt) never get considered.\nRecommendation: B (Selective Expansion) because this iterates on an existing task list, and the landscape shows adjacent features (shared views, default view) that deserve a look but should not be assumed.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nA) Scope Expansion\n \u2705 Surfaces the full cathedral: shared views, project defaults, view-driven digests, in one pass\n \u2705 Best when the feature is greenfield and the team wants the 10x version now\n \u274c Pushes hard toward more scope before the pilot has proven anyone reuses a view\nB) Selective Expansion (recommended)\n \u2705 Holds approach B as the baseline and reviews it with full rigor first\n \u2705 Presents each expansion candidate individually with neutral effort and risk so you cherry-pick\n \u274c More decision prompts than Hold Scope; roughly 5-6 extra questions\nC) Hold Scope\n \u2705 Fastest path: architecture, security, edge cases, observability, deployment only\n \u2705 Zero risk of scope creep before the pilot\n \u274c Adjacent 30-minute wins are never raised, even ones the landscape says drive adoption\nD) Scope Reduction\n \u2705 Finds the smallest shippable slice, useful if the pilot is purely a signal test\n \u2705 Separates must-ship-together from nice-to-have follow-up PRs\n \u274c Conflicts with the approach B you just approved, which deliberately closes silent failure modes\nNet: how many adjacent ideas you want to see before the rigorous pass, versus decision fatigue.": "B: Selective Expansion (Recommended)"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-10T19:29:35.379Z"
}
test/fixtures/ceo-mode-full-ad.json
Vendored
+665
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,665 @@
{
"sourceHead": "d4f42b69a1dd0eb48d89500e03fb1c4407229284",
"runId": "ship-source-ad-full-paid-20260909-v1",
"capturedAt": "2026-09-09T18:32:49.223242+00:00",
"provenance": "Exact retained public native AUQ request/reply rows only. First attempts naturally failed; new retries do not amend these outcomes. No private reasoning included. Pending navigation panes in tests are projected from these exact request questions; no claim that an intermediate full pane was retained.",
"cases": [
{
"targetMode": "HOLD SCOPE",
"attempt": "plan-ceo-review-mode-1788978153186-tPgIwZ",
"actualState": "failed",
"selectedAt": null,
"commandStartedAt": 1788978151180,
"pendingQuestionRecorder": {
"status": "pending"
},
"process": {
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-pa2Bc4/tmp/gstack-plan-count-MPwj22",
"sessionId": "0956daf4-4c61-4aa4-b163-2c429430386b"
},
"observation": {
"path": ".context/ship-source-ad-full-paid-20260909-v1/evals/job-7/shards/skill-e2e-plan-ceo-mode-routing/pty-count/ship-source-ad-full-paid-20260909-v1-7/plan-ceo-review-mode-1788978153186-tPgIwZ/observation.json",
"sha256": "6b98133508077d50c292eebb0281df1a761569e73342d0a78dbf6bb6883f8a2a"
},
"native": {
"captureKey": "native:1349450-870044:0956daf4-4c61-4aa4-b163-2c429430386b:119454070",
"path": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/.context/ship-source-ad-full-paid-20260909-v1/full-pty-evidence/blobs/c4286459b7175d84bcab8689a7609626e3ce0c3a022ef5a83020c986b514c14d/current.jsonl",
"sha256": "110b0b2a183ecf81461313462b884d33b8ad303dc5f58c5366682f086a6d9fc3"
},
"records": [
{
"type": "assistant",
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-pa2Bc4/tmp/gstack-plan-count-MPwj22",
"sessionId": "0956daf4-4c61-4aa4-b163-2c429430386b",
"isSidechain": false,
"timestamp": "2026-09-09T18:24:32.177Z",
"message": {
"role": "assistant",
"content": [
{
"type": "tool_use",
"id": "toolu_01DhoRPXJYzVQXgXqCoXLfa4",
"name": "AskUserQuestion",
"input": {
"questions": [
{
"header": "Routing",
"question": "D1 \u2014 Add gstack skill routing rules to this repo's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count fixture, branch main, reviewing PLAN.md (saved project views).\nELI10: gstack works best when CLAUDE.md tells the agent which slash skill to reach for (bugs \u2192 /investigate, ship \u2192 /ship, etc.). This is a one-time per-project setup. Plan mode is active, so if you say yes I will append and commit it only after the review finishes and plan mode exits.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Without routing, future sessions won't auto-route to the right skill; with it, one extra section lands in CLAUDE.md.\nRecommendation: A because it is a one-time, reversible convenience with no effect on this review.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nA) Add routing rules (recommended)\n \u2705 Future sessions pick the right gstack skill without you naming it each time\n \u2705 Reversible: delete the section from CLAUDE.md to undo, nothing else changes\n \u274c Adds ~15 lines to a fixture CLAUDE.md that currently only describes the review target\nB) No thanks, invoke skills manually\n \u2705 CLAUDE.md stays exactly as seeded, nothing touched outside the review\n \u2705 Recorded as declined so this prompt never repeats for this project\n \u274c You have to type skill names yourself in every future session here\nNet: convenience for future sessions vs. a pristine fixture file.",
"options": [
{
"label": "Add routing rules (recommended)",
"description": "Append the skill routing section to CLAUDE.md and commit it once plan mode exits."
},
{
"label": "No thanks, manual",
"description": "Record routing_declined=true; re-enable later with gstack-config set routing_declined false."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
},
{
"header": "Learnings",
"question": "D2 \u2014 Enable cross-project learnings search?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count fixture, branch main, reviewing PLAN.md.\nELI10: gstack keeps a local file of lessons learned per project. It can also search lessons from your other projects on this machine to spot patterns that apply here. Nothing leaves your machine either way. Solo developers usually want this on; people juggling multiple client codebases usually keep it off.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Off means missing a relevant lesson from another repo; on means a note from a client repo could surface in an unrelated one.\nRecommendation: A because the search is local-only and the default for solo developers.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nA) Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)\n \u2705 Findings from your other repos on this machine inform this review and future ones\n \u2705 Stays local, no network, flip off any time with one config command\n \u274c Learnings from unrelated or client codebases can appear in this project's context\nB) Keep learnings project-scoped\n \u2705 Strict isolation between codebases, nothing from one repo shows up in another\n \u2705 Still records and reuses this project's own learnings normally\n \u274c Patterns you already learned elsewhere have to be rediscovered here\nNet: cross-pollination vs. strict per-repo isolation.",
"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."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
},
{
"header": "Design doc",
"question": "D3 \u2014 No design doc found for this branch. Run /office-hours first?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count fixture, branch main, reviewing PLAN.md.\nELI10: /office-hours produces a structured problem statement, a premise challenge, and explored alternatives before the review starts. It gives this CEO review sharper input, at the cost of roughly 10 minutes of Q&A first. The design doc is per-feature: it captures the thinking behind saved views specifically.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Skipping means the premise challenge in Step 0 leans on the 15-line PLAN.md alone; running it delays the review by ~10 minutes.\nRecommendation: B because PLAN.md already states the goal, approach, and validation clearly enough to challenge directly, and this is a standard review of a well-understood feature type.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nA) Run /office-hours now\n \u2705 Produces a written problem statement and alternatives the review can cite\n \u2705 Surfaces whether saved views is the right framing before we invest in review depth\n \u274c Adds ~10 minutes of interactive Q&A before any review finding appears\nB) Skip, proceed with standard review (recommended)\n \u2705 Review starts immediately; Step 0 premise challenge covers the same ground inline\n \u2705 PLAN.md already has a clear goal, approach, and validation to push against\n \u274c No persisted design doc for teammates to read alongside the plan\nNet: a written design artifact up front vs. getting to findings now.",
"options": [
{
"label": "Run /office-hours now",
"description": "Load and run the office-hours skill inline, then resume this review with its design doc."
},
{
"label": "Skip (recommended)",
"description": "Proceed straight to Step 0 premise challenge and approach alternatives."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
]
},
"caller": {
"type": "direct"
}
}
]
}
},
{
"type": "user",
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-pa2Bc4/tmp/gstack-plan-count-MPwj22",
"sessionId": "0956daf4-4c61-4aa4-b163-2c429430386b",
"isSidechain": false,
"timestamp": "2026-09-09T18:24:45.623Z",
"message": {
"role": "user",
"content": [
{
"type": "tool_result",
"content": "Your questions have been answered: \"D1 \u2014 Add gstack skill routing rules to this repo's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count fixture, branch main, reviewing PLAN.md (saved project views).\nELI10: gstack works best when CLAUDE.md tells the agent which slash skill to reach for (bugs \u2192 /investigate, ship \u2192 /ship, etc.). This is a one-time per-project setup. Plan mode is active, so if you say yes I will append and commit it only after the review finishes and plan mode exits.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Without routing, future sessions won't auto-route to the right skill; with it, one extra section lands in CLAUDE.md.\nRecommendation: A because it is a one-time, reversible convenience with no effect on this review.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nA) Add routing rules (recommended)\n \u2705 Future sessions pick the right gstack skill without you naming it each time\n \u2705 Reversible: delete the section from CLAUDE.md to undo, nothing else changes\n \u274c Adds ~15 lines to a fixture CLAUDE.md that currently only describes the review target\nB) No thanks, invoke skills manually\n \u2705 CLAUDE.md stays exactly as seeded, nothing touched outside the review\n \u2705 Recorded as declined so this prompt never repeats for this project\n \u274c You have to type skill names yourself in every future session here\nNet: convenience for future sessions vs. a pristine fixture file.\"=\"Add routing rules (recommended)\", \"D2 \u2014 Enable cross-project learnings search?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count fixture, branch main, reviewing PLAN.md.\nELI10: gstack keeps a local file of lessons learned per project. It can also search lessons from your other projects on this machine to spot patterns that apply here. Nothing leaves your machine either way. Solo developers usually want this on; people juggling multiple client codebases usually keep it off.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Off means missing a relevant lesson from another repo; on means a note from a client repo could surface in an unrelated one.\nRecommendation: A because the search is local-only and the default for solo developers.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nA) Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)\n \u2705 Findings from your other repos on this machine inform this review and future ones\n \u2705 Stays local, no network, flip off any time with one config command\n \u274c Learnings from unrelated or client codebases can appear in this project's context\nB) Keep learnings project-scoped\n \u2705 Strict isolation between codebases, nothing from one repo shows up in another\n \u2705 Still records and reuses this project's own learnings normally\n \u274c Patterns you already learned elsewhere have to be rediscovered here\nNet: cross-pollination vs. strict per-repo isolation.\"=\"Enable cross-project (recommended)\", \"D3 \u2014 No design doc found for this branch. Run /office-hours first?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count fixture, branch main, reviewing PLAN.md.\nELI10: /office-hours produces a structured problem statement, a premise challenge, and explored alternatives before the review starts. It gives this CEO review sharper input, at the cost of roughly 10 minutes of Q&A first. The design doc is per-feature: it captures the thinking behind saved views specifically.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Skipping means the premise challenge in Step 0 leans on the 15-line PLAN.md alone; running it delays the review by ~10 minutes.\nRecommendation: B because PLAN.md already states the goal, approach, and validation clearly enough to challenge directly, and this is a standard review of a well-understood feature type.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nA) Run /office-hours now\n \u2705 Produces a written problem statement and alternatives the review can cite\n \u2705 Surfaces whether saved views is the right framing before we invest in review depth\n \u274c Adds ~10 minutes of interactive Q&A before any review finding appears\nB) Skip, proceed with standard review (recommended)\n \u2705 Review starts immediately; Step 0 premise challenge covers the same ground inline\n \u2705 PLAN.md already has a clear goal, approach, and validation to push against\n \u274c No persisted design doc for teammates to read alongside the plan\nNet: a written design artifact up front vs. getting to findings now.\"=\"Run /office-hours now\". You can now continue with these answers in mind.",
"tool_use_id": "toolu_01DhoRPXJYzVQXgXqCoXLfa4"
}
]
},
"toolUseResult": {
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 \u2014 Add gstack skill routing rules to this repo's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count fixture, branch main, reviewing PLAN.md (saved project views).\nELI10: gstack works best when CLAUDE.md tells the agent which slash skill to reach for (bugs \u2192 /investigate, ship \u2192 /ship, etc.). This is a one-time per-project setup. Plan mode is active, so if you say yes I will append and commit it only after the review finishes and plan mode exits.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Without routing, future sessions won't auto-route to the right skill; with it, one extra section lands in CLAUDE.md.\nRecommendation: A because it is a one-time, reversible convenience with no effect on this review.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nA) Add routing rules (recommended)\n \u2705 Future sessions pick the right gstack skill without you naming it each time\n \u2705 Reversible: delete the section from CLAUDE.md to undo, nothing else changes\n \u274c Adds ~15 lines to a fixture CLAUDE.md that currently only describes the review target\nB) No thanks, invoke skills manually\n \u2705 CLAUDE.md stays exactly as seeded, nothing touched outside the review\n \u2705 Recorded as declined so this prompt never repeats for this project\n \u274c You have to type skill names yourself in every future session here\nNet: convenience for future sessions vs. a pristine fixture file.",
"header": "Routing",
"options": [
{
"label": "Add routing rules (recommended)",
"description": "Append the skill routing section to CLAUDE.md and commit it once plan mode exits."
},
{
"label": "No thanks, manual",
"description": "Record routing_declined=true; re-enable later with gstack-config set routing_declined false."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
},
{
"question": "D2 \u2014 Enable cross-project learnings search?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count fixture, branch main, reviewing PLAN.md.\nELI10: gstack keeps a local file of lessons learned per project. It can also search lessons from your other projects on this machine to spot patterns that apply here. Nothing leaves your machine either way. Solo developers usually want this on; people juggling multiple client codebases usually keep it off.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Off means missing a relevant lesson from another repo; on means a note from a client repo could surface in an unrelated one.\nRecommendation: A because the search is local-only and the default for solo developers.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nA) Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)\n \u2705 Findings from your other repos on this machine inform this review and future ones\n \u2705 Stays local, no network, flip off any time with one config command\n \u274c Learnings from unrelated or client codebases can appear in this project's context\nB) Keep learnings project-scoped\n \u2705 Strict isolation between codebases, nothing from one repo shows up in another\n \u2705 Still records and reuses this project's own learnings normally\n \u274c Patterns you already learned elsewhere have to be rediscovered here\nNet: cross-pollination vs. strict per-repo isolation.",
"header": "Learnings",
"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."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
},
{
"question": "D3 \u2014 No design doc found for this branch. Run /office-hours first?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count fixture, branch main, reviewing PLAN.md.\nELI10: /office-hours produces a structured problem statement, a premise challenge, and explored alternatives before the review starts. It gives this CEO review sharper input, at the cost of roughly 10 minutes of Q&A first. The design doc is per-feature: it captures the thinking behind saved views specifically.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Skipping means the premise challenge in Step 0 leans on the 15-line PLAN.md alone; running it delays the review by ~10 minutes.\nRecommendation: B because PLAN.md already states the goal, approach, and validation clearly enough to challenge directly, and this is a standard review of a well-understood feature type.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nA) Run /office-hours now\n \u2705 Produces a written problem statement and alternatives the review can cite\n \u2705 Surfaces whether saved views is the right framing before we invest in review depth\n \u274c Adds ~10 minutes of interactive Q&A before any review finding appears\nB) Skip, proceed with standard review (recommended)\n \u2705 Review starts immediately; Step 0 premise challenge covers the same ground inline\n \u2705 PLAN.md already has a clear goal, approach, and validation to push against\n \u274c No persisted design doc for teammates to read alongside the plan\nNet: a written design artifact up front vs. getting to findings now.",
"header": "Design doc",
"options": [
{
"label": "Run /office-hours now",
"description": "Load and run the office-hours skill inline, then resume this review with its design doc."
},
{
"label": "Skip (recommended)",
"description": "Proceed straight to Step 0 premise challenge and approach alternatives."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answers": {
"D1 \u2014 Add gstack skill routing rules to this repo's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count fixture, branch main, reviewing PLAN.md (saved project views).\nELI10: gstack works best when CLAUDE.md tells the agent which slash skill to reach for (bugs \u2192 /investigate, ship \u2192 /ship, etc.). This is a one-time per-project setup. Plan mode is active, so if you say yes I will append and commit it only after the review finishes and plan mode exits.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Without routing, future sessions won't auto-route to the right skill; with it, one extra section lands in CLAUDE.md.\nRecommendation: A because it is a one-time, reversible convenience with no effect on this review.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nA) Add routing rules (recommended)\n \u2705 Future sessions pick the right gstack skill without you naming it each time\n \u2705 Reversible: delete the section from CLAUDE.md to undo, nothing else changes\n \u274c Adds ~15 lines to a fixture CLAUDE.md that currently only describes the review target\nB) No thanks, invoke skills manually\n \u2705 CLAUDE.md stays exactly as seeded, nothing touched outside the review\n \u2705 Recorded as declined so this prompt never repeats for this project\n \u274c You have to type skill names yourself in every future session here\nNet: convenience for future sessions vs. a pristine fixture file.": "Add routing rules (recommended)",
"D2 \u2014 Enable cross-project learnings search?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count fixture, branch main, reviewing PLAN.md.\nELI10: gstack keeps a local file of lessons learned per project. It can also search lessons from your other projects on this machine to spot patterns that apply here. Nothing leaves your machine either way. Solo developers usually want this on; people juggling multiple client codebases usually keep it off.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Off means missing a relevant lesson from another repo; on means a note from a client repo could surface in an unrelated one.\nRecommendation: A because the search is local-only and the default for solo developers.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nA) Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)\n \u2705 Findings from your other repos on this machine inform this review and future ones\n \u2705 Stays local, no network, flip off any time with one config command\n \u274c Learnings from unrelated or client codebases can appear in this project's context\nB) Keep learnings project-scoped\n \u2705 Strict isolation between codebases, nothing from one repo shows up in another\n \u2705 Still records and reuses this project's own learnings normally\n \u274c Patterns you already learned elsewhere have to be rediscovered here\nNet: cross-pollination vs. strict per-repo isolation.": "Enable cross-project (recommended)",
"D3 \u2014 No design doc found for this branch. Run /office-hours first?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count fixture, branch main, reviewing PLAN.md.\nELI10: /office-hours produces a structured problem statement, a premise challenge, and explored alternatives before the review starts. It gives this CEO review sharper input, at the cost of roughly 10 minutes of Q&A first. The design doc is per-feature: it captures the thinking behind saved views specifically.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Skipping means the premise challenge in Step 0 leans on the 15-line PLAN.md alone; running it delays the review by ~10 minutes.\nRecommendation: B because PLAN.md already states the goal, approach, and validation clearly enough to challenge directly, and this is a standard review of a well-understood feature type.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nA) Run /office-hours now\n \u2705 Produces a written problem statement and alternatives the review can cite\n \u2705 Surfaces whether saved views is the right framing before we invest in review depth\n \u274c Adds ~10 minutes of interactive Q&A before any review finding appears\nB) Skip, proceed with standard review (recommended)\n \u2705 Review starts immediately; Step 0 premise challenge covers the same ground inline\n \u2705 PLAN.md already has a clear goal, approach, and validation to push against\n \u274c No persisted design doc for teammates to read alongside the plan\nNet: a written design artifact up front vs. getting to findings now.": "Run /office-hours now"
},
"annotations": {}
}
}
]
},
{
"targetMode": "SCOPE EXPANSION",
"attempt": "plan-ceo-review-mode-1788978153191-KJ7XbV",
"actualState": "failed",
"selectedAt": 1788978337334,
"commandStartedAt": 1788978151180,
"pendingQuestionRecorder": {
"status": "pending"
},
"process": {
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-pa2Bc4/tmp/gstack-plan-count-6qKEas",
"sessionId": "20ece027-6cbd-4681-b96e-7c4eeb9c0e3c"
},
"observation": {
"path": ".context/ship-source-ad-full-paid-20260909-v1/evals/job-7/shards/skill-e2e-plan-ceo-mode-routing/pty-count/ship-source-ad-full-paid-20260909-v1-7/plan-ceo-review-mode-1788978153191-KJ7XbV/observation.json",
"sha256": "8bfd5f8b39ed5ac713c942b90f8fe32df9c3d69b44a422fa633d51dc7dba2c04"
},
"native": {
"captureKey": "native:1349451-870044:20ece027-6cbd-4681-b96e-7c4eeb9c0e3c:54172659",
"path": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/.context/ship-source-ad-full-paid-20260909-v1/full-pty-evidence/blobs/c24085222d7bed850114940c3d9a281821ec87df662bf200dd676d1c345b3a29/current.jsonl",
"sha256": "4dd60d3c5622524e5427164101f57cce31a04ae31f6fc1c195aeae9445082855"
},
"records": [
{
"type": "assistant",
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-pa2Bc4/tmp/gstack-plan-count-6qKEas",
"sessionId": "20ece027-6cbd-4681-b96e-7c4eeb9c0e3c",
"isSidechain": false,
"timestamp": "2026-09-09T18:25:35.909Z",
"message": {
"role": "assistant",
"content": [
{
"type": "tool_use",
"id": "toolu_01GFkLSt2i2McBknF87PonJh",
"name": "AskUserQuestion",
"input": {
"questions": [
{
"question": "D5 \u2014 Which review posture for the rest of this CEO review?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md \"Add saved project views\", approach B (spec-based views) selected.\nELI10: The mode sets how ambitious the rest of the review is. Expansion pushes scope up and recommends extras enthusiastically. Selective expansion keeps your scope as the baseline but shows each extra as its own yes/no so you cherry-pick. Hold scope only hardens what is already there. Reduction strips to the bare minimum. Whatever you pick, no scope changes without your explicit yes on each one.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too ambitious and a small productivity feature grows into a platform project; too narrow and the obvious adjacent wins (default view, shareable link) get rebuilt later at higher cost.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this enhances an existing task list rather than building a greenfield feature, and approach B already opens a few cheap adjacent doors worth a look.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: how many adjacent opportunities you want to see before the rigor sections start.",
"header": "Mode",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Plan scope stays the baseline and gets the full rigor pass\n\u2705 Each expansion (default view, shareable link, shared views, etc.) is a separate neutral yes/no you control\n\u274c Adds several decision prompts before the deep review begins"
},
{
"label": "SCOPE EXPANSION",
"description": "\u2705 Surfaces the 10x version and platonic ideal, recommended enthusiastically\n\u2705 Best if you want saved views to become a real product pillar\n\u274c Risks turning a two-day feature into a multi-week views platform"
},
{
"label": "HOLD SCOPE",
"description": "\u2705 Maximum rigor on exactly the four approach bullets, nothing else surfaced\n\u2705 Fastest path to a bulletproof plan for the stated goal\n\u274c Cheap adjacent wins go unmentioned and may be rebuilt later"
},
{
"label": "SCOPE REDUCTION",
"description": "\u2705 Finds the smallest shippable slice, useful if the pilot is really a demand test\n\u2705 Minimizes new attack surface and migration risk\n\u274c Approach B already leans complete; cutting now would undo that choice"
}
]
}
]
},
"caller": {
"type": "direct"
}
}
]
}
},
{
"type": "user",
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-pa2Bc4/tmp/gstack-plan-count-6qKEas",
"sessionId": "20ece027-6cbd-4681-b96e-7c4eeb9c0e3c",
"isSidechain": false,
"timestamp": "2026-09-09T18:25:37.369Z",
"message": {
"role": "user",
"content": [
{
"type": "tool_result",
"content": "Your questions have been answered: \"D5 \u2014 Which review posture for the rest of this CEO review?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md \"Add saved project views\", approach B (spec-based views) selected.\nELI10: The mode sets how ambitious the rest of the review is. Expansion pushes scope up and recommends extras enthusiastically. Selective expansion keeps your scope as the baseline but shows each extra as its own yes/no so you cherry-pick. Hold scope only hardens what is already there. Reduction strips to the bare minimum. Whatever you pick, no scope changes without your explicit yes on each one.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too ambitious and a small productivity feature grows into a platform project; too narrow and the obvious adjacent wins (default view, shareable link) get rebuilt later at higher cost.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this enhances an existing task list rather than building a greenfield feature, and approach B already opens a few cheap adjacent doors worth a look.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: how many adjacent opportunities you want to see before the rigor sections start.\"=\"SCOPE EXPANSION\". You can now continue with these answers in mind.",
"tool_use_id": "toolu_01GFkLSt2i2McBknF87PonJh"
}
]
},
"toolUseResult": {
"questions": [
{
"question": "D5 \u2014 Which review posture for the rest of this CEO review?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md \"Add saved project views\", approach B (spec-based views) selected.\nELI10: The mode sets how ambitious the rest of the review is. Expansion pushes scope up and recommends extras enthusiastically. Selective expansion keeps your scope as the baseline but shows each extra as its own yes/no so you cherry-pick. Hold scope only hardens what is already there. Reduction strips to the bare minimum. Whatever you pick, no scope changes without your explicit yes on each one.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too ambitious and a small productivity feature grows into a platform project; too narrow and the obvious adjacent wins (default view, shareable link) get rebuilt later at higher cost.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this enhances an existing task list rather than building a greenfield feature, and approach B already opens a few cheap adjacent doors worth a look.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: how many adjacent opportunities you want to see before the rigor sections start.",
"header": "Mode",
"options": [
{
"label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Plan scope stays the baseline and gets the full rigor pass\n\u2705 Each expansion (default view, shareable link, shared views, etc.) is a separate neutral yes/no you control\n\u274c Adds several decision prompts before the deep review begins"
},
{
"label": "SCOPE EXPANSION",
"description": "\u2705 Surfaces the 10x version and platonic ideal, recommended enthusiastically\n\u2705 Best if you want saved views to become a real product pillar\n\u274c Risks turning a two-day feature into a multi-week views platform"
},
{
"label": "HOLD SCOPE",
"description": "\u2705 Maximum rigor on exactly the four approach bullets, nothing else surfaced\n\u2705 Fastest path to a bulletproof plan for the stated goal\n\u274c Cheap adjacent wins go unmentioned and may be rebuilt later"
},
{
"label": "SCOPE REDUCTION",
"description": "\u2705 Finds the smallest shippable slice, useful if the pilot is really a demand test\n\u2705 Minimizes new attack surface and migration risk\n\u274c Approach B already leans complete; cutting now would undo that choice"
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answers": {
"D5 \u2014 Which review posture for the rest of this CEO review?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md \"Add saved project views\", approach B (spec-based views) selected.\nELI10: The mode sets how ambitious the rest of the review is. Expansion pushes scope up and recommends extras enthusiastically. Selective expansion keeps your scope as the baseline but shows each extra as its own yes/no so you cherry-pick. Hold scope only hardens what is already there. Reduction strips to the bare minimum. Whatever you pick, no scope changes without your explicit yes on each one.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too ambitious and a small productivity feature grows into a platform project; too narrow and the obvious adjacent wins (default view, shareable link) get rebuilt later at higher cost.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this enhances an existing task list rather than building a greenfield feature, and approach B already opens a few cheap adjacent doors worth a look.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: how many adjacent opportunities you want to see before the rigor sections start.": "SCOPE EXPANSION"
},
"annotations": {}
}
},
{
"type": "assistant",
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-pa2Bc4/tmp/gstack-plan-count-6qKEas",
"sessionId": "20ece027-6cbd-4681-b96e-7c4eeb9c0e3c",
"isSidechain": false,
"timestamp": "2026-09-09T18:26:17.497Z",
"message": {
"role": "assistant",
"content": [
{
"type": "tool_use",
"id": "toolu_01VUTgcQria2X3TVg941K3aV",
"name": "AskUserQuestion",
"input": {
"questions": [
{
"question": "D6 \u2014 Proposal 1: Default view per member per project?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md saved views, SCOPE EXPANSION opt-in ceremony (1 of 6).\nELI10: Imagine opening a project and the task list is already filtered the way you left it, no clicking required. Each member can mark one saved view as their default for a project; the list opens in that view, with a visible chip showing which view is active and a one-click way back to \"All tasks\". Concrete shape: a default_view_id on the project membership (or an is_default flag on saved_views with a unique partial index), read at task-list load. Effort: human ~half day / CC ~10 min.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Without it, members still start from the unfiltered list every session and reuse depends on remembering the picker exists, which is exactly how saved-filter features die.\nRecommendation: Add because it turns saved views from a thing you remember to use into the thing you land on, which is the single biggest lever on the plan's reuse metric.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=5/10, C=0/10\nNet: one flag and one load-time lookup buy the habit loop the pilot needs.",
"header": "Proposal 1",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Add to this plan's scope (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Members land in their view automatically; reuse becomes passive instead of remembered\n\u2705 Trivial schema: partial unique index on (member_id, project_id) where is_default\n\u274c Needs a clear \"you're in a filtered view\" indicator so newcomers aren't confused by missing tasks"
},
{
"label": "B) Defer to TODOS.md",
"description": "\u2705 Keeps the first ship focused on save and reopen only\n\u2705 Can be added later without a data migration if is_default is nullable\n\u274c Pilot measures reuse without the mechanism most likely to drive it"
},
{
"label": "C) Skip",
"description": "\u2705 Smallest possible surface; no default-state confusion to design for\n\u2705 Zero additional edge cases (deleted default view, etc.)\n\u274c Leaves the habit loop entirely to the user's memory"
}
]
}
]
},
"caller": {
"type": "direct"
}
}
]
}
},
{
"type": "user",
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-pa2Bc4/tmp/gstack-plan-count-6qKEas",
"sessionId": "20ece027-6cbd-4681-b96e-7c4eeb9c0e3c",
"isSidechain": false,
"timestamp": "2026-09-09T18:26:20.110Z",
"message": {
"role": "user",
"content": [
{
"type": "tool_result",
"content": "Your questions have been answered: \"D6 \u2014 Proposal 1: Default view per member per project?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md saved views, SCOPE EXPANSION opt-in ceremony (1 of 6).\nELI10: Imagine opening a project and the task list is already filtered the way you left it, no clicking required. Each member can mark one saved view as their default for a project; the list opens in that view, with a visible chip showing which view is active and a one-click way back to \"All tasks\". Concrete shape: a default_view_id on the project membership (or an is_default flag on saved_views with a unique partial index), read at task-list load. Effort: human ~half day / CC ~10 min.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Without it, members still start from the unfiltered list every session and reuse depends on remembering the picker exists, which is exactly how saved-filter features die.\nRecommendation: Add because it turns saved views from a thing you remember to use into the thing you land on, which is the single biggest lever on the plan's reuse metric.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=5/10, C=0/10\nNet: one flag and one load-time lookup buy the habit loop the pilot needs.\"=\"A) Add to this plan's scope (recommended)\". You can now continue with these answers in mind.",
"tool_use_id": "toolu_01VUTgcQria2X3TVg941K3aV"
}
]
},
"toolUseResult": {
"questions": [
{
"question": "D6 \u2014 Proposal 1: Default view per member per project?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md saved views, SCOPE EXPANSION opt-in ceremony (1 of 6).\nELI10: Imagine opening a project and the task list is already filtered the way you left it, no clicking required. Each member can mark one saved view as their default for a project; the list opens in that view, with a visible chip showing which view is active and a one-click way back to \"All tasks\". Concrete shape: a default_view_id on the project membership (or an is_default flag on saved_views with a unique partial index), read at task-list load. Effort: human ~half day / CC ~10 min.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Without it, members still start from the unfiltered list every session and reuse depends on remembering the picker exists, which is exactly how saved-filter features die.\nRecommendation: Add because it turns saved views from a thing you remember to use into the thing you land on, which is the single biggest lever on the plan's reuse metric.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=5/10, C=0/10\nNet: one flag and one load-time lookup buy the habit loop the pilot needs.",
"header": "Proposal 1",
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Add to this plan's scope (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Members land in their view automatically; reuse becomes passive instead of remembered\n\u2705 Trivial schema: partial unique index on (member_id, project_id) where is_default\n\u274c Needs a clear \"you're in a filtered view\" indicator so newcomers aren't confused by missing tasks"
},
{
"label": "B) Defer to TODOS.md",
"description": "\u2705 Keeps the first ship focused on save and reopen only\n\u2705 Can be added later without a data migration if is_default is nullable\n\u274c Pilot measures reuse without the mechanism most likely to drive it"
},
{
"label": "C) Skip",
"description": "\u2705 Smallest possible surface; no default-state confusion to design for\n\u2705 Zero additional edge cases (deleted default view, etc.)\n\u274c Leaves the habit loop entirely to the user's memory"
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answers": {
"D6 \u2014 Proposal 1: Default view per member per project?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md saved views, SCOPE EXPANSION opt-in ceremony (1 of 6).\nELI10: Imagine opening a project and the task list is already filtered the way you left it, no clicking required. Each member can mark one saved view as their default for a project; the list opens in that view, with a visible chip showing which view is active and a one-click way back to \"All tasks\". Concrete shape: a default_view_id on the project membership (or an is_default flag on saved_views with a unique partial index), read at task-list load. Effort: human ~half day / CC ~10 min.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Without it, members still start from the unfiltered list every session and reuse depends on remembering the picker exists, which is exactly how saved-filter features die.\nRecommendation: Add because it turns saved views from a thing you remember to use into the thing you land on, which is the single biggest lever on the plan's reuse metric.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=5/10, C=0/10\nNet: one flag and one load-time lookup buy the habit loop the pilot needs.": "A) Add to this plan's scope (recommended)"
},
"annotations": {}
}
}
]
},
{
"targetMode": "HOLD SCOPE",
"attempt": "plan-ceo-review-mode-1788978583199-DTJLos",
"actualState": "failed",
"selectedAt": 1788978796772,
"commandStartedAt": 1788978581188,
"pendingQuestionRecorder": {
"status": "pending"
},
"process": {
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-pa2Bc4/tmp/gstack-plan-count-H67mSL",
"sessionId": "af7bf1c9-f26a-4b9b-96cc-02005d094575"
},
"observation": {
"path": ".context/ship-source-ad-full-paid-20260909-v1/evals/job-7/shards/skill-e2e-plan-ceo-mode-routing/pty-count/ship-source-ad-full-paid-20260909-v1-7/plan-ceo-review-mode-1788978583199-DTJLos/observation.json",
"sha256": "290fa1399bc1450f3be43f91fdc5adf2f69b93e26e47360193c3e5545830a843"
},
"native": {
"captureKey": "native:1370304-913045:af7bf1c9-f26a-4b9b-96cc-02005d094575:53667299",
"path": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/.context/ship-source-ad-full-paid-20260909-v1/full-pty-evidence/blobs/4252e3332946e781b0d402c72f21ac5bbfd431469f156122f02f3531ebab7026/current.jsonl",
"sha256": "6367bf198c039887017ddb6f24da5d0d207d10dc2d90e28e2a3376d787899fdd"
},
"records": [
{
"type": "assistant",
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-pa2Bc4/tmp/gstack-plan-count-H67mSL",
"sessionId": "af7bf1c9-f26a-4b9b-96cc-02005d094575",
"isSidechain": false,
"timestamp": "2026-09-09T18:32:48.066Z",
"message": {
"role": "assistant",
"content": [
{
"type": "tool_use",
"id": "toolu_01GPP2rDM3uB3dwT54UhvG7i",
"name": "AskUserQuestion",
"input": {
"questions": [
{
"header": "Approach",
"question": "D3 \u2014 Which implementation approach should the plan commit to?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-H67mSL on main, PLAN.md saved project views.\nELI10: All three approaches let a member stop re-building filters, but they differ in how much of the future they leave open. A saves a blob of JSON per view and moves on. B first defines one shape for \"what the list looks like right now\" and uses that same shape for the URL, the saved view, and the remembered last filter. C skips naming entirely and just makes the URL and last-used memory do the work. The stakes: with an opaque blob, renaming a filter field later silently breaks every saved view pointing at it, and adding shared team views means a migration.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A ships fast but the first filter rename produces views that open blank with no error; C never meets the goal of named views.\nRecommendation: B because one serialization is the DRY answer, stale views degrade visibly instead of silently, and sharing later is a column flip. The extra work is roughly 25 minutes of CC time.\nCompleteness: A=6/10, B=9/10, C=4/10\nNet: about 25 extra minutes of CC time buys a schema that the URL, memory, and sharing can all reuse instead of three parallel state shapes.",
"options": [
{
"label": "B: ViewState schema (recommended)",
"description": "Completeness 9/10. Effort M (human ~4 days / CC ~45 min).\n\u2705 One versioned ViewState shape drives URL params, saved views, and per-member last-used memory\n\u2705 Loading a view validates against current filter vocabulary and shows a notice instead of a blank list\n\u2705 visibility, is_default, and position columns mean sharing and defaults need no migration later\n\u274c More upfront schema design and a versioning story for the state column"
},
{
"label": "A: Minimal table",
"description": "Completeness 6/10. Effort S (human ~2 days / CC ~20 min).\n\u2705 Smallest diff that ships exactly what PLAN.md describes today\n\u2705 Easy to reason about: one table, four endpoints, one dropdown\n\u274c Opaque JSONB means a renamed filter field breaks saved views silently with no user-facing error"
},
{
"label": "C: URL + last-used only",
"description": "Completeness 4/10. Effort S (human ~1 day / CC ~15 min).\n\u2705 No new table or endpoints, filters survive reload and are shareable by link immediately\n\u2705 Lowest risk surface, nothing new to secure or migrate\n\u274c Does not deliver named, reopenable views, which is the stated goal of the plan"
}
]
}
]
},
"caller": {
"type": "direct"
}
}
]
}
},
{
"type": "user",
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-pa2Bc4/tmp/gstack-plan-count-H67mSL",
"sessionId": "af7bf1c9-f26a-4b9b-96cc-02005d094575",
"isSidechain": false,
"timestamp": "2026-09-09T18:32:48.565Z",
"message": {
"role": "user",
"content": [
{
"type": "tool_result",
"content": "Your questions have been answered: \"D3 \u2014 Which implementation approach should the plan commit to?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-H67mSL on main, PLAN.md saved project views.\nELI10: All three approaches let a member stop re-building filters, but they differ in how much of the future they leave open. A saves a blob of JSON per view and moves on. B first defines one shape for \"what the list looks like right now\" and uses that same shape for the URL, the saved view, and the remembered last filter. C skips naming entirely and just makes the URL and last-used memory do the work. The stakes: with an opaque blob, renaming a filter field later silently breaks every saved view pointing at it, and adding shared team views means a migration.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A ships fast but the first filter rename produces views that open blank with no error; C never meets the goal of named views.\nRecommendation: B because one serialization is the DRY answer, stale views degrade visibly instead of silently, and sharing later is a column flip. The extra work is roughly 25 minutes of CC time.\nCompleteness: A=6/10, B=9/10, C=4/10\nNet: about 25 extra minutes of CC time buys a schema that the URL, memory, and sharing can all reuse instead of three parallel state shapes.\"=\"B: ViewState schema (recommended)\". You can now continue with these answers in mind.",
"tool_use_id": "toolu_01GPP2rDM3uB3dwT54UhvG7i"
}
]
},
"toolUseResult": {
"questions": [
{
"question": "D3 \u2014 Which implementation approach should the plan commit to?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-H67mSL on main, PLAN.md saved project views.\nELI10: All three approaches let a member stop re-building filters, but they differ in how much of the future they leave open. A saves a blob of JSON per view and moves on. B first defines one shape for \"what the list looks like right now\" and uses that same shape for the URL, the saved view, and the remembered last filter. C skips naming entirely and just makes the URL and last-used memory do the work. The stakes: with an opaque blob, renaming a filter field later silently breaks every saved view pointing at it, and adding shared team views means a migration.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A ships fast but the first filter rename produces views that open blank with no error; C never meets the goal of named views.\nRecommendation: B because one serialization is the DRY answer, stale views degrade visibly instead of silently, and sharing later is a column flip. The extra work is roughly 25 minutes of CC time.\nCompleteness: A=6/10, B=9/10, C=4/10\nNet: about 25 extra minutes of CC time buys a schema that the URL, memory, and sharing can all reuse instead of three parallel state shapes.",
"header": "Approach",
"options": [
{
"label": "B: ViewState schema (recommended)",
"description": "Completeness 9/10. Effort M (human ~4 days / CC ~45 min).\n\u2705 One versioned ViewState shape drives URL params, saved views, and per-member last-used memory\n\u2705 Loading a view validates against current filter vocabulary and shows a notice instead of a blank list\n\u2705 visibility, is_default, and position columns mean sharing and defaults need no migration later\n\u274c More upfront schema design and a versioning story for the state column"
},
{
"label": "A: Minimal table",
"description": "Completeness 6/10. Effort S (human ~2 days / CC ~20 min).\n\u2705 Smallest diff that ships exactly what PLAN.md describes today\n\u2705 Easy to reason about: one table, four endpoints, one dropdown\n\u274c Opaque JSONB means a renamed filter field breaks saved views silently with no user-facing error"
},
{
"label": "C: URL + last-used only",
"description": "Completeness 4/10. Effort S (human ~1 day / CC ~15 min).\n\u2705 No new table or endpoints, filters survive reload and are shareable by link immediately\n\u2705 Lowest risk surface, nothing new to secure or migrate\n\u274c Does not deliver named, reopenable views, which is the stated goal of the plan"
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answers": {
"D3 \u2014 Which implementation approach should the plan commit to?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-H67mSL on main, PLAN.md saved project views.\nELI10: All three approaches let a member stop re-building filters, but they differ in how much of the future they leave open. A saves a blob of JSON per view and moves on. B first defines one shape for \"what the list looks like right now\" and uses that same shape for the URL, the saved view, and the remembered last filter. C skips naming entirely and just makes the URL and last-used memory do the work. The stakes: with an opaque blob, renaming a filter field later silently breaks every saved view pointing at it, and adding shared team views means a migration.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A ships fast but the first filter rename produces views that open blank with no error; C never meets the goal of named views.\nRecommendation: B because one serialization is the DRY answer, stale views degrade visibly instead of silently, and sharing later is a column flip. The extra work is roughly 25 minutes of CC time.\nCompleteness: A=6/10, B=9/10, C=4/10\nNet: about 25 extra minutes of CC time buys a schema that the URL, memory, and sharing can all reuse instead of three parallel state shapes.": "B: ViewState schema (recommended)"
},
"annotations": {}
}
},
{
"type": "assistant",
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-pa2Bc4/tmp/gstack-plan-count-H67mSL",
"sessionId": "af7bf1c9-f26a-4b9b-96cc-02005d094575",
"isSidechain": false,
"timestamp": "2026-09-09T18:33:16.411Z",
"message": {
"role": "assistant",
"content": [
{
"type": "tool_use",
"id": "toolu_01LfRN9N3Fi92y3iQCREW1xT",
"name": "AskUserQuestion",
"input": {
"questions": [
{
"header": "Review mode",
"question": "D4 \u2014 Which review posture should I take for the rest of this review?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-H67mSL on main, PLAN.md saved project views, approach B chosen.\nELI10: The approach is settled. Now I need to know how ambitious to be. Expansion means I dream up the cathedral version and pitch each piece to you one at a time. Selective expansion means I hold your scope as the baseline, make it bulletproof, and separately show you each add-on so you can cherry-pick with no sales pitch. Hold scope means no add-ons at all, just maximum rigor on what is written. Reduction means I cut the plan to the smallest thing that stops members re-building filters. Every scope change in every mode is still your explicit opt-in.\nStakes if we pick wrong: too ambitious and the pilot slips; too narrow and you ship a table that needs a migration the first time someone asks to share a view.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement to an existing task list, not greenfield, and approach B already reserves room for the obvious expansions, so you should see them and decide rather than have me push.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: how much of the 12-month ideal you want to look at now versus keep out of sight until the pilot reports back.",
"options": [
{
"label": "Selective expansion (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Baseline scope gets the full rigor pass: errors, edge cases, security, observability, rollout\n\u2705 Each expansion (shared views, default view, URL sync, view from filter) presented neutrally for cherry-pick\n\u274c More decision prompts than hold scope, roughly five or six extra questions"
},
{
"label": "Scope expansion",
"description": "\u2705 I describe the 10x version and platonic ideal first, then pitch each piece with enthusiasm\n\u2705 Best if you want the pilot to test the full vision, not the minimum\n\u274c Risks a larger first ship before the two-week pilot has any signal"
},
{
"label": "Hold scope",
"description": "\u2705 Fewest prompts; every minute goes to making the written scope bulletproof\n\u2705 Ships fastest for the pilot, expansions wait for pilot data\n\u274c You never see the add-on list, so a cheap win like URL sync could be missed"
},
{
"label": "Scope reduction",
"description": "\u2705 Strips to the absolute minimum that stops re-building filters, likely URL state plus last-used memory\n\u2705 Smallest security and migration surface\n\u274c Likely drops named views, which contradicts the goal and the approach you just chose"
}
]
}
]
},
"caller": {
"type": "direct"
}
}
]
}
},
{
"type": "user",
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-pa2Bc4/tmp/gstack-plan-count-H67mSL",
"sessionId": "af7bf1c9-f26a-4b9b-96cc-02005d094575",
"isSidechain": false,
"timestamp": "2026-09-09T18:33:16.810Z",
"message": {
"role": "user",
"content": [
{
"type": "tool_result",
"content": "Your questions have been answered: \"D4 \u2014 Which review posture should I take for the rest of this review?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-H67mSL on main, PLAN.md saved project views, approach B chosen.\nELI10: The approach is settled. Now I need to know how ambitious to be. Expansion means I dream up the cathedral version and pitch each piece to you one at a time. Selective expansion means I hold your scope as the baseline, make it bulletproof, and separately show you each add-on so you can cherry-pick with no sales pitch. Hold scope means no add-ons at all, just maximum rigor on what is written. Reduction means I cut the plan to the smallest thing that stops members re-building filters. Every scope change in every mode is still your explicit opt-in.\nStakes if we pick wrong: too ambitious and the pilot slips; too narrow and you ship a table that needs a migration the first time someone asks to share a view.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement to an existing task list, not greenfield, and approach B already reserves room for the obvious expansions, so you should see them and decide rather than have me push.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: how much of the 12-month ideal you want to look at now versus keep out of sight until the pilot reports back.\"=\"Hold scope\". You can now continue with these answers in mind.",
"tool_use_id": "toolu_01LfRN9N3Fi92y3iQCREW1xT"
}
]
},
"toolUseResult": {
"questions": [
{
"question": "D4 \u2014 Which review posture should I take for the rest of this review?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-H67mSL on main, PLAN.md saved project views, approach B chosen.\nELI10: The approach is settled. Now I need to know how ambitious to be. Expansion means I dream up the cathedral version and pitch each piece to you one at a time. Selective expansion means I hold your scope as the baseline, make it bulletproof, and separately show you each add-on so you can cherry-pick with no sales pitch. Hold scope means no add-ons at all, just maximum rigor on what is written. Reduction means I cut the plan to the smallest thing that stops members re-building filters. Every scope change in every mode is still your explicit opt-in.\nStakes if we pick wrong: too ambitious and the pilot slips; too narrow and you ship a table that needs a migration the first time someone asks to share a view.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement to an existing task list, not greenfield, and approach B already reserves room for the obvious expansions, so you should see them and decide rather than have me push.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: how much of the 12-month ideal you want to look at now versus keep out of sight until the pilot reports back.",
"header": "Review mode",
"options": [
{
"label": "Selective expansion (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Baseline scope gets the full rigor pass: errors, edge cases, security, observability, rollout\n\u2705 Each expansion (shared views, default view, URL sync, view from filter) presented neutrally for cherry-pick\n\u274c More decision prompts than hold scope, roughly five or six extra questions"
},
{
"label": "Scope expansion",
"description": "\u2705 I describe the 10x version and platonic ideal first, then pitch each piece with enthusiasm\n\u2705 Best if you want the pilot to test the full vision, not the minimum\n\u274c Risks a larger first ship before the two-week pilot has any signal"
},
{
"label": "Hold scope",
"description": "\u2705 Fewest prompts; every minute goes to making the written scope bulletproof\n\u2705 Ships fastest for the pilot, expansions wait for pilot data\n\u274c You never see the add-on list, so a cheap win like URL sync could be missed"
},
{
"label": "Scope reduction",
"description": "\u2705 Strips to the absolute minimum that stops re-building filters, likely URL state plus last-used memory\n\u2705 Smallest security and migration surface\n\u274c Likely drops named views, which contradicts the goal and the approach you just chose"
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answers": {
"D4 \u2014 Which review posture should I take for the rest of this review?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-H67mSL on main, PLAN.md saved project views, approach B chosen.\nELI10: The approach is settled. Now I need to know how ambitious to be. Expansion means I dream up the cathedral version and pitch each piece to you one at a time. Selective expansion means I hold your scope as the baseline, make it bulletproof, and separately show you each add-on so you can cherry-pick with no sales pitch. Hold scope means no add-ons at all, just maximum rigor on what is written. Reduction means I cut the plan to the smallest thing that stops members re-building filters. Every scope change in every mode is still your explicit opt-in.\nStakes if we pick wrong: too ambitious and the pilot slips; too narrow and you ship a table that needs a migration the first time someone asks to share a view.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement to an existing task list, not greenfield, and approach B already reserves room for the obvious expansions, so you should see them and decide rather than have me push.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: how much of the 12-month ideal you want to look at now versus keep out of sight until the pilot reports back.": "Hold scope"
},
"annotations": {}
}
},
{
"type": "assistant",
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-pa2Bc4/tmp/gstack-plan-count-H67mSL",
"sessionId": "af7bf1c9-f26a-4b9b-96cc-02005d094575",
"isSidechain": false,
"timestamp": "2026-09-09T18:35:04.651Z",
"message": {
"role": "assistant",
"content": [
{
"type": "tool_use",
"id": "toolu_01VmTaVZ1Jcdhodn8m3THdTr",
"name": "AskUserQuestion",
"input": {
"questions": [
{
"header": "URL sync",
"question": "D5 \u2014 Does the URL codec ship in this first release, or does it wait?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-H67mSL on main, saved project views, HOLD SCOPE, approach B.\nELI10: Approach B defines one ViewState shape and said the URL would use it too. Writing the current filters into the URL means reload and browser back keep your filters, and a copied link carries them. Named saved views work without it. In HOLD SCOPE my job is to flag any work that can wait without blocking the goal, and this is the one piece that qualifies. It is not new scope either way; it is sequencing of an already approved approach.\nStakes if we pick wrong: ship it now and the first release has one more surface to test; wait and the pilot has no shareable link, so members send screenshots instead.\nRecommendation: A because the codec is the same serializer the API already needs, so the marginal cost is one encode/decode pair plus a router hook, roughly 10 minutes of CC time, and it removes the most common \"lost my filters on reload\" complaint the pilot would otherwise surface.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10\nNet: about 10 minutes of CC time now versus a known pilot complaint and a follow-up PR later.",
"options": [
{
"label": "A: Ship URL sync in v1 (recommended)",
"description": "Completeness 10/10. Effort S (human ~half day / CC ~10 min).\n\u2705 Reload, back button, and copied links all preserve filters from day one of the pilot\n\u2705 Same serializer as the API, so one codec is tested once and reused twice\n\u2705 Page load has a clear precedence rule: URL state wins, then last-used view, then default\n\u274c One more surface to test: malformed or oversized URL state must degrade to the default list with a notice"
},
{
"label": "B: Defer URL sync to follow-up",
"description": "Completeness 7/10. Effort S later (human ~half day / CC ~10 min).\n\u2705 Smaller first release; picker and API are the only new surfaces to verify\n\u2705 Pilot feedback can confirm whether link sharing is actually wanted\n\u274c Members lose filters on reload during the pilot, which is the exact pain the plan targets"
}
]
}
]
},
"caller": {
"type": "direct"
}
}
]
}
},
{
"type": "user",
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-pa2Bc4/tmp/gstack-plan-count-H67mSL",
"sessionId": "af7bf1c9-f26a-4b9b-96cc-02005d094575",
"isSidechain": false,
"timestamp": "2026-09-09T18:35:05.273Z",
"message": {
"role": "user",
"content": [
{
"type": "tool_result",
"content": "Your questions have been answered: \"D5 \u2014 Does the URL codec ship in this first release, or does it wait?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-H67mSL on main, saved project views, HOLD SCOPE, approach B.\nELI10: Approach B defines one ViewState shape and said the URL would use it too. Writing the current filters into the URL means reload and browser back keep your filters, and a copied link carries them. Named saved views work without it. In HOLD SCOPE my job is to flag any work that can wait without blocking the goal, and this is the one piece that qualifies. It is not new scope either way; it is sequencing of an already approved approach.\nStakes if we pick wrong: ship it now and the first release has one more surface to test; wait and the pilot has no shareable link, so members send screenshots instead.\nRecommendation: A because the codec is the same serializer the API already needs, so the marginal cost is one encode/decode pair plus a router hook, roughly 10 minutes of CC time, and it removes the most common \"lost my filters on reload\" complaint the pilot would otherwise surface.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10\nNet: about 10 minutes of CC time now versus a known pilot complaint and a follow-up PR later.\"=\"A: Ship URL sync in v1 (recommended)\". You can now continue with these answers in mind.",
"tool_use_id": "toolu_01VmTaVZ1Jcdhodn8m3THdTr"
}
]
},
"toolUseResult": {
"questions": [
{
"question": "D5 \u2014 Does the URL codec ship in this first release, or does it wait?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-H67mSL on main, saved project views, HOLD SCOPE, approach B.\nELI10: Approach B defines one ViewState shape and said the URL would use it too. Writing the current filters into the URL means reload and browser back keep your filters, and a copied link carries them. Named saved views work without it. In HOLD SCOPE my job is to flag any work that can wait without blocking the goal, and this is the one piece that qualifies. It is not new scope either way; it is sequencing of an already approved approach.\nStakes if we pick wrong: ship it now and the first release has one more surface to test; wait and the pilot has no shareable link, so members send screenshots instead.\nRecommendation: A because the codec is the same serializer the API already needs, so the marginal cost is one encode/decode pair plus a router hook, roughly 10 minutes of CC time, and it removes the most common \"lost my filters on reload\" complaint the pilot would otherwise surface.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10\nNet: about 10 minutes of CC time now versus a known pilot complaint and a follow-up PR later.",
"header": "URL sync",
"options": [
{
"label": "A: Ship URL sync in v1 (recommended)",
"description": "Completeness 10/10. Effort S (human ~half day / CC ~10 min).\n\u2705 Reload, back button, and copied links all preserve filters from day one of the pilot\n\u2705 Same serializer as the API, so one codec is tested once and reused twice\n\u2705 Page load has a clear precedence rule: URL state wins, then last-used view, then default\n\u274c One more surface to test: malformed or oversized URL state must degrade to the default list with a notice"
},
{
"label": "B: Defer URL sync to follow-up",
"description": "Completeness 7/10. Effort S later (human ~half day / CC ~10 min).\n\u2705 Smaller first release; picker and API are the only new surfaces to verify\n\u2705 Pilot feedback can confirm whether link sharing is actually wanted\n\u274c Members lose filters on reload during the pilot, which is the exact pain the plan targets"
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answers": {
"D5 \u2014 Does the URL codec ship in this first release, or does it wait?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-H67mSL on main, saved project views, HOLD SCOPE, approach B.\nELI10: Approach B defines one ViewState shape and said the URL would use it too. Writing the current filters into the URL means reload and browser back keep your filters, and a copied link carries them. Named saved views work without it. In HOLD SCOPE my job is to flag any work that can wait without blocking the goal, and this is the one piece that qualifies. It is not new scope either way; it is sequencing of an already approved approach.\nStakes if we pick wrong: ship it now and the first release has one more surface to test; wait and the pilot has no shareable link, so members send screenshots instead.\nRecommendation: A because the codec is the same serializer the API already needs, so the marginal cost is one encode/decode pair plus a router hook, roughly 10 minutes of CC time, and it removes the most common \"lost my filters on reload\" complaint the pilot would otherwise surface.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10\nNet: about 10 minutes of CC time now versus a known pilot complaint and a follow-up PR later.": "A: Ship URL sync in v1 (recommended)"
},
"annotations": {}
}
}
],
"provenance": "Exact prior Approach B approval plus mode and completed URL sequencing decision. Retained only public AUQ records; no scope-approval broker inferred."
}
]
}
test/fixtures/ceo-mode-labels-l.json
Vendored
+163
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,163 @@
{
"records": [
{
"parentUuid": "74a88dbb-a0d2-448d-a7dc-37b82c971aeb",
"isSidechain": false,
"message": {
"model": "claude-sonnet-4-6",
"id": "msg_011Cerpsf3Bb5Uc88hwFCgnj",
"type": "message",
"role": "assistant",
"content": [
{
"type": "tool_use",
"id": "toolu_01JCKZEDVZ5DXqRazc6Y7L2Z",
"name": "AskUserQuestion",
"input": {
"questions": [
{
"question": "D2 \u2014 Which review mode should we use? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-mode>",
"header": "Review mode",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)",
"description": "Hold the plan's scope as the baseline, review it with full rigor, then surface expansion opportunities one-by-one for you to cherry-pick. You see what's possible beyond the spec without committing to any of it. Default for feature enhancements."
},
{
"label": "B) SCOPE EXPANSION",
"description": "Dream big \u2014 the review actively proposes the more ambitious version. Every expansion is an individual opt-in. Use if you want to think about what a 10x version of this feature looks like."
},
{
"label": "C) HOLD SCOPE",
"description": "The plan's scope is accepted as-is. Maximum rigor on architecture, security, edge cases, and observability \u2014 no expansions surfaced, no delight opportunities. Use if you just want the plan bulletproofed."
},
{
"label": "D) SCOPE REDUCTION",
"description": "Propose the minimum viable version that ships value. Cut everything else ruthlessly. Use if the plan feels overbuilt or you want to ship faster."
}
]
}
]
},
"caller": {
"type": "direct"
}
}
],
"container": null,
"stop_reason": "tool_use",
"stop_sequence": null,
"stop_details": null,
"usage": {
"input_tokens": 1,
"cache_creation_input_tokens": 384,
"cache_read_input_tokens": 85236,
"output_tokens": 358,
"output_tokens_details": {
"thinking_tokens": 0
},
"server_tool_use": {
"web_search_requests": 0,
"web_fetch_requests": 0
},
"service_tier": "standard",
"cache_creation": {
"ephemeral_1h_input_tokens": 0,
"ephemeral_5m_input_tokens": 384
},
"inference_geo": "global",
"iterations": [
{
"input_tokens": 1,
"output_tokens": 358,
"cache_read_input_tokens": 85236,
"cache_creation_input_tokens": 384,
"cache_creation": {
"ephemeral_5m_input_tokens": 384,
"ephemeral_1h_input_tokens": 0
},
"type": "message"
}
],
"speed": "standard"
},
"diagnostics": null,
"context_management": null
},
"apiBlockIndex": 0,
"requestId": "req_011CerpseQjP8YYUHTgt8szX",
"attributionSkill": "plan-ceo-review",
"type": "assistant",
"uuid": "98037e74-9d49-4f34-89ce-777f194536e6",
"timestamp": "2026-09-08T23:18:00.027Z",
"effort": "high",
"session_id": "9a607d8c-3c6f-4ec1-b096-c77b34d29d67",
"userType": "external",
"entrypoint": "cli",
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-rYcbG2/tmp/gstack-plan-count-oRP78a",
"sessionId": "9a607d8c-3c6f-4ec1-b096-c77b34d29d67",
"version": "2.1.257",
"gitBranch": "main",
"slug": "glistening-doodling-papert"
},
{
"parentUuid": "98037e74-9d49-4f34-89ce-777f194536e6",
"isSidechain": false,
"promptId": "c6356744-3965-41df-8622-dea3ebe2e04e",
"type": "user",
"message": {
"role": "user",
"content": [
{
"type": "tool_result",
"content": "Your questions have been answered: \"D2 \u2014 Which review mode should we use? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-mode>\"=\"A) SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)\". You can now continue with these answers in mind.",
"tool_use_id": "toolu_01JCKZEDVZ5DXqRazc6Y7L2Z"
}
]
},
"uuid": "dbe65b4a-841c-4ec1-9039-70b401d272f2",
"timestamp": "2026-09-08T23:18:01.568Z",
"toolUseResult": {
"questions": [
{
"question": "D2 \u2014 Which review mode should we use? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-mode>",
"header": "Review mode",
"options": [
{
"label": "A) SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)",
"description": "Hold the plan's scope as the baseline, review it with full rigor, then surface expansion opportunities one-by-one for you to cherry-pick. You see what's possible beyond the spec without committing to any of it. Default for feature enhancements."
},
{
"label": "B) SCOPE EXPANSION",
"description": "Dream big \u2014 the review actively proposes the more ambitious version. Every expansion is an individual opt-in. Use if you want to think about what a 10x version of this feature looks like."
},
{
"label": "C) HOLD SCOPE",
"description": "The plan's scope is accepted as-is. Maximum rigor on architecture, security, edge cases, and observability \u2014 no expansions surfaced, no delight opportunities. Use if you just want the plan bulletproofed."
},
{
"label": "D) SCOPE REDUCTION",
"description": "Propose the minimum viable version that ships value. Cut everything else ruthlessly. Use if the plan feels overbuilt or you want to ship faster."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answers": {
"D2 \u2014 Which review mode should we use? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-mode>": "A) SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)"
},
"annotations": {}
},
"sourceToolAssistantUUID": "98037e74-9d49-4f34-89ce-777f194536e6",
"session_id": "9a607d8c-3c6f-4ec1-b096-c77b34d29d67",
"userType": "external",
"entrypoint": "cli",
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-rYcbG2/tmp/gstack-plan-count-oRP78a",
"sessionId": "9a607d8c-3c6f-4ec1-b096-c77b34d29d67",
"version": "2.1.257",
"gitBranch": "main",
"slug": "glistening-doodling-papert"
}
]
}
test/fixtures/ceo-mode-posture-ad.json
Vendored
+455
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,455 @@
{
"provenance": {
"run": "source-ad-focused-diagnostic-20260909-v1",
"sourceHead": "c943a0c30e901a97957846b0c5e53c949d76ceb4",
"retention": "Exact public native AUQ request/reply blocks and pre-selection public text only; no hidden reasoning or stdout substitutes. Both actual first attempts failed; no historical paid pass is claimed."
},
"cases": [
{
"mode": "HOLD SCOPE",
"attempt": 1,
"process": {
"pid": 925998,
"startTicks": "596177",
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-7L31S7/tmp/gstack-plan-count-bbDT0N",
"config": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-7L31S7/tmp/gstack-hermetic-925944-iQAwYg/with-skills/.claude",
"sessionId": "14add4a4-0e7b-4791-814b-54a396bad1b7"
},
"native": {
"path": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/.context/source-ad-focused-diagnostic-20260909-v1/focused-evidence/blobs/a9c5dff6992f426a51b0a933644f4baadebfd8b94c69cb6eab7dd0968fdb63db/current.jsonl",
"sha256": "042f22992b22471876f59048c748107a008883cc56a16d222a063a40019a9d23",
"bytes": 546523
},
"actualFailure": {
"state": "failed",
"at": "2026-09-09T17:44:07.645Z"
},
"selectedAt": 1788975606604,
"modeToolUseId": "toolu_01WoCBKG1toNXrQ1yDnw4RLB",
"decisionToolUseId": "toolu_018XtfbUM4WFW8kvaEHBMGnL",
"records": [
{
"type": "assistant",
"sessionId": "14add4a4-0e7b-4791-814b-54a396bad1b7",
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-7L31S7/tmp/gstack-plan-count-bbDT0N",
"isSidechain": false,
"timestamp": "2026-09-09T17:39:51.863Z",
"message": {
"role": "assistant",
"content": [
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Approach B is locked. Next is mode selection."
}
]
}
},
{
"type": "assistant",
"sessionId": "14add4a4-0e7b-4791-814b-54a396bad1b7",
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-7L31S7/tmp/gstack-plan-count-bbDT0N",
"timestamp": "2026-09-09T17:40:04.532Z",
"isSidechain": false,
"message": {
"role": "assistant",
"content": [
{
"type": "tool_use",
"id": "toolu_01WoCBKG1toNXrQ1yDnw4RLB",
"name": "AskUserQuestion",
"input": {
"questions": [
{
"header": "Review mode",
"question": "D5 \u2014 Which review posture should I take for the rest of this review? Project/branch/task: PLAN.md 'Add saved project views' on main, approach B locked. ELI10: this decides how ambitious I am allowed to be. Expansion means I pitch the cathedral and you opt in to each piece. Selective means the plan is the baseline and I show you extras one at a time to cherry-pick. Hold means no extras, just maximum rigor on what is written. Reduction means I cut it to the bone. Stakes if wrong: too ambitious delays a two-week pilot; too narrow and we re-review in a month. Recommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement to an existing task list, and the landscape check turned up 5-6 small adjacent wins (default view, last-filter memory, deep links) that deserve a yes/no each rather than a blanket decision. Note: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score. Net: how many extra decisions you want to make vs how much you trust the 15-line plan as the full scope.",
"options": [
{
"label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Plan scope is the baseline and gets the full rigor pass; every extra is an individual yes/defer/skip. \u2705 Neutral pitches with effort and risk on each, so you cherry-pick without pressure. \u274c Adds 5-6 short decision prompts before the deep review starts."
},
{
"label": "SCOPE EXPANSION",
"description": "\u2705 I describe the 10x version and the platonic ideal first, then break it into opt-in proposals. \u2705 Best if you suspect the plan is under-ambitious for what the team needs. \u274c Enthusiastic recommendations bias toward more scope, which risks the two-week pilot date."
},
{
"label": "HOLD SCOPE",
"description": "\u2705 Zero scope drift; the four approach bullets are exactly what ships. \u2705 Fastest path to a bulletproof version of the written plan. \u274c Cheap adjacent wins like a default view go unmentioned until someone asks post-pilot."
},
{
"label": "SCOPE REDUCTION",
"description": "\u2705 Ships the absolute minimum that stops filter rebuilding, possibly just last-filter memory. \u2705 Fastest to pilot. \u274c Conflicts with the approach B schema you just chose; would mean reopening D4."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
]
},
"caller": {
"type": "direct"
}
}
]
}
},
{
"type": "user",
"sessionId": "14add4a4-0e7b-4791-814b-54a396bad1b7",
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-7L31S7/tmp/gstack-plan-count-bbDT0N",
"timestamp": "2026-09-09T17:40:06.685Z",
"isSidechain": false,
"message": {
"role": "user",
"content": [
{
"type": "tool_result",
"content": "Your questions have been answered: \"D5 \u2014 Which review posture should I take for the rest of this review? Project/branch/task: PLAN.md 'Add saved project views' on main, approach B locked. ELI10: this decides how ambitious I am allowed to be. Expansion means I pitch the cathedral and you opt in to each piece. Selective means the plan is the baseline and I show you extras one at a time to cherry-pick. Hold means no extras, just maximum rigor on what is written. Reduction means I cut it to the bone. Stakes if wrong: too ambitious delays a two-week pilot; too narrow and we re-review in a month. Recommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement to an existing task list, and the landscape check turned up 5-6 small adjacent wins (default view, last-filter memory, deep links) that deserve a yes/no each rather than a blanket decision. Note: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score. Net: how many extra decisions you want to make vs how much you trust the 15-line plan as the full scope.\"=\"HOLD SCOPE\". You can now continue with these answers in mind.",
"tool_use_id": "toolu_01WoCBKG1toNXrQ1yDnw4RLB"
}
]
},
"toolUseResult": {
"questions": [
{
"question": "D5 \u2014 Which review posture should I take for the rest of this review? Project/branch/task: PLAN.md 'Add saved project views' on main, approach B locked. ELI10: this decides how ambitious I am allowed to be. Expansion means I pitch the cathedral and you opt in to each piece. Selective means the plan is the baseline and I show you extras one at a time to cherry-pick. Hold means no extras, just maximum rigor on what is written. Reduction means I cut it to the bone. Stakes if wrong: too ambitious delays a two-week pilot; too narrow and we re-review in a month. Recommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement to an existing task list, and the landscape check turned up 5-6 small adjacent wins (default view, last-filter memory, deep links) that deserve a yes/no each rather than a blanket decision. Note: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score. Net: how many extra decisions you want to make vs how much you trust the 15-line plan as the full scope.",
"header": "Review mode",
"options": [
{
"label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Plan scope is the baseline and gets the full rigor pass; every extra is an individual yes/defer/skip. \u2705 Neutral pitches with effort and risk on each, so you cherry-pick without pressure. \u274c Adds 5-6 short decision prompts before the deep review starts."
},
{
"label": "SCOPE EXPANSION",
"description": "\u2705 I describe the 10x version and the platonic ideal first, then break it into opt-in proposals. \u2705 Best if you suspect the plan is under-ambitious for what the team needs. \u274c Enthusiastic recommendations bias toward more scope, which risks the two-week pilot date."
},
{
"label": "HOLD SCOPE",
"description": "\u2705 Zero scope drift; the four approach bullets are exactly what ships. \u2705 Fastest path to a bulletproof version of the written plan. \u274c Cheap adjacent wins like a default view go unmentioned until someone asks post-pilot."
},
{
"label": "SCOPE REDUCTION",
"description": "\u2705 Ships the absolute minimum that stops filter rebuilding, possibly just last-filter memory. \u2705 Fastest to pilot. \u274c Conflicts with the approach B schema you just chose; would mean reopening D4."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answers": {
"D5 \u2014 Which review posture should I take for the rest of this review? Project/branch/task: PLAN.md 'Add saved project views' on main, approach B locked. ELI10: this decides how ambitious I am allowed to be. Expansion means I pitch the cathedral and you opt in to each piece. Selective means the plan is the baseline and I show you extras one at a time to cherry-pick. Hold means no extras, just maximum rigor on what is written. Reduction means I cut it to the bone. Stakes if wrong: too ambitious delays a two-week pilot; too narrow and we re-review in a month. Recommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement to an existing task list, and the landscape check turned up 5-6 small adjacent wins (default view, last-filter memory, deep links) that deserve a yes/no each rather than a blanket decision. Note: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score. Net: how many extra decisions you want to make vs how much you trust the 15-line plan as the full scope.": "HOLD SCOPE"
},
"annotations": {}
}
},
{
"type": "assistant",
"sessionId": "14add4a4-0e7b-4791-814b-54a396bad1b7",
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-7L31S7/tmp/gstack-plan-count-bbDT0N",
"timestamp": "2026-09-09T17:40:49.613Z",
"isSidechain": false,
"message": {
"role": "assistant",
"content": [
{
"type": "tool_use",
"id": "toolu_018XtfbUM4WFW8kvaEHBMGnL",
"name": "AskUserQuestion",
"input": {
"questions": [
{
"header": "B extras",
"question": "D6 \u2014 Under HOLD SCOPE, keep or defer the three approach-B conveniences that are not in the plan text (per-member default view, last-used filter memory, ?view= deep links)? Project/branch/task: PLAN.md 'Add saved project views' on main. ELI10: you picked approach B for its future-proof schema. B also bundled three small UX niceties that the 15-line plan never asked for. HOLD SCOPE says the written scope is the baseline, so I have to surface these as deferrable rather than silently keep them. The schema stays either way. Stakes if wrong: keeping them adds ~3 files and touches member prefs, a table this plan otherwise never touches; deferring them means a saved view is only reachable via the picker and every session opens unfiltered. Recommendation: B (defer all three) because HOLD SCOPE means the plan text is the contract and these are pure additions, not repairs to meet a stated invariant. Completeness: A=10/10 for the approved approach, B=10/10 for the written plan, C=8/10. Net: honoring the plan as written vs honoring the approach as approved.",
"options": [
{
"label": "Defer all three to TODOS (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Scope matches the plan's four bullets exactly; member prefs table is untouched by this change. \u2705 All three are additive later with zero schema change thanks to the B table shape. \u274c Reopening the project starts unfiltered every time, so the 'recreate filters' pain is only half-solved until the default view lands."
},
{
"label": "Keep all three",
"description": "\u2705 Ships the version of B you approved in D4 with no trimming. \u2705 Default view directly attacks the stated pain: members land on their filters without a click. \u274c Adds member-prefs writes and URL-param handling, ~3 extra files, and is scope beyond the written plan under a HOLD SCOPE review."
},
{
"label": "Keep deep links only",
"description": "\u2705 ?view=<id> is a URL param read on the existing page; smallest of the three, no new table writes. \u2705 Lets members bookmark or paste a view into chat without a sharing feature. \u274c Default view and last-used are deferred, so the open-project-see-my-filters moment still needs one click."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
]
},
"caller": {
"type": "direct"
}
}
]
}
},
{
"type": "user",
"sessionId": "14add4a4-0e7b-4791-814b-54a396bad1b7",
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-7L31S7/tmp/gstack-plan-count-bbDT0N",
"timestamp": "2026-09-09T17:40:51.783Z",
"isSidechain": false,
"message": {
"role": "user",
"content": [
{
"type": "tool_result",
"content": "Your questions have been answered: \"D6 \u2014 Under HOLD SCOPE, keep or defer the three approach-B conveniences that are not in the plan text (per-member default view, last-used filter memory, ?view= deep links)? Project/branch/task: PLAN.md 'Add saved project views' on main. ELI10: you picked approach B for its future-proof schema. B also bundled three small UX niceties that the 15-line plan never asked for. HOLD SCOPE says the written scope is the baseline, so I have to surface these as deferrable rather than silently keep them. The schema stays either way. Stakes if wrong: keeping them adds ~3 files and touches member prefs, a table this plan otherwise never touches; deferring them means a saved view is only reachable via the picker and every session opens unfiltered. Recommendation: B (defer all three) because HOLD SCOPE means the plan text is the contract and these are pure additions, not repairs to meet a stated invariant. Completeness: A=10/10 for the approved approach, B=10/10 for the written plan, C=8/10. Net: honoring the plan as written vs honoring the approach as approved.\"=\"Defer all three to TODOS (recommended)\". You can now continue with these answers in mind.",
"tool_use_id": "toolu_018XtfbUM4WFW8kvaEHBMGnL"
}
]
},
"toolUseResult": {
"questions": [
{
"question": "D6 \u2014 Under HOLD SCOPE, keep or defer the three approach-B conveniences that are not in the plan text (per-member default view, last-used filter memory, ?view= deep links)? Project/branch/task: PLAN.md 'Add saved project views' on main. ELI10: you picked approach B for its future-proof schema. B also bundled three small UX niceties that the 15-line plan never asked for. HOLD SCOPE says the written scope is the baseline, so I have to surface these as deferrable rather than silently keep them. The schema stays either way. Stakes if wrong: keeping them adds ~3 files and touches member prefs, a table this plan otherwise never touches; deferring them means a saved view is only reachable via the picker and every session opens unfiltered. Recommendation: B (defer all three) because HOLD SCOPE means the plan text is the contract and these are pure additions, not repairs to meet a stated invariant. Completeness: A=10/10 for the approved approach, B=10/10 for the written plan, C=8/10. Net: honoring the plan as written vs honoring the approach as approved.",
"header": "B extras",
"options": [
{
"label": "Defer all three to TODOS (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Scope matches the plan's four bullets exactly; member prefs table is untouched by this change. \u2705 All three are additive later with zero schema change thanks to the B table shape. \u274c Reopening the project starts unfiltered every time, so the 'recreate filters' pain is only half-solved until the default view lands."
},
{
"label": "Keep all three",
"description": "\u2705 Ships the version of B you approved in D4 with no trimming. \u2705 Default view directly attacks the stated pain: members land on their filters without a click. \u274c Adds member-prefs writes and URL-param handling, ~3 extra files, and is scope beyond the written plan under a HOLD SCOPE review."
},
{
"label": "Keep deep links only",
"description": "\u2705 ?view=<id> is a URL param read on the existing page; smallest of the three, no new table writes. \u2705 Lets members bookmark or paste a view into chat without a sharing feature. \u274c Default view and last-used are deferred, so the open-project-see-my-filters moment still needs one click."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answers": {
"D6 \u2014 Under HOLD SCOPE, keep or defer the three approach-B conveniences that are not in the plan text (per-member default view, last-used filter memory, ?view= deep links)? Project/branch/task: PLAN.md 'Add saved project views' on main. ELI10: you picked approach B for its future-proof schema. B also bundled three small UX niceties that the 15-line plan never asked for. HOLD SCOPE says the written scope is the baseline, so I have to surface these as deferrable rather than silently keep them. The schema stays either way. Stakes if wrong: keeping them adds ~3 files and touches member prefs, a table this plan otherwise never touches; deferring them means a saved view is only reachable via the picker and every session opens unfiltered. Recommendation: B (defer all three) because HOLD SCOPE means the plan text is the contract and these are pure additions, not repairs to meet a stated invariant. Completeness: A=10/10 for the approved approach, B=10/10 for the written plan, C=8/10. Net: honoring the plan as written vs honoring the approach as approved.": "Defer all three to TODOS (recommended)"
},
"annotations": {}
}
}
]
},
{
"mode": "SCOPE EXPANSION",
"attempt": 1,
"process": {
"pid": 925999,
"startTicks": "596177",
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-7L31S7/tmp/gstack-plan-count-rY0De7",
"config": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-7L31S7/tmp/gstack-hermetic-925944-iQAwYg/with-skills/.claude",
"sessionId": "e59fb50d-6564-4361-a79f-05851e530a68"
},
"native": {
"path": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/.context/source-ad-focused-diagnostic-20260909-v1/focused-evidence/blobs/d313936f3927d34dd5a2a84e79fc95f27c6ca6c5731d065aed19a241a162c11c/current.jsonl",
"sha256": "032941aa6b614b73adecaea56f50850d6004a7029fd9e3443761ab5839feabc3",
"bytes": 427819
},
"actualFailure": {
"state": "failed",
"at": "2026-09-09T17:44:50.822Z"
},
"selectedAt": 1788975649757,
"modeToolUseId": "toolu_01LxBLkEdbM1HeqA1savUoC8",
"decisionToolUseId": "toolu_01QwSxVav6eeKorjQvU5CxvZ",
"records": [
{
"type": "assistant",
"sessionId": "e59fb50d-6564-4361-a79f-05851e530a68",
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-7L31S7/tmp/gstack-plan-count-rY0De7",
"isSidechain": false,
"timestamp": "2026-09-09T17:40:21.073Z",
"message": {
"role": "assistant",
"content": [
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Approach B is approved. Logging it as a durable architecture decision, then mode selection."
}
]
}
},
{
"type": "assistant",
"sessionId": "e59fb50d-6564-4361-a79f-05851e530a68",
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-7L31S7/tmp/gstack-plan-count-rY0De7",
"timestamp": "2026-09-09T17:40:48.497Z",
"isSidechain": false,
"message": {
"role": "assistant",
"content": [
{
"type": "tool_use",
"id": "toolu_01LxBLkEdbM1HeqA1savUoC8",
"name": "AskUserQuestion",
"input": {
"questions": [
{
"question": "D5 \u2014 Which review posture should I take for the rest of this review?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, saved project views; approach B (validated, versioned view) is locked.\nELI10: The approach is decided. Now I need to know how ambitious to be about scope. I can hold exactly what PLAN.md asks for and make it bulletproof, or also surface adjacent ideas (shared views, default view, view-as-link) one at a time for you to accept or reject, or dream big and push every expansion, or cut the plan down to the bare minimum. Whatever you choose, no scope is added or removed without you saying yes to each item.\nStakes if we pick wrong: hold too tight and you ship a feature that needs a second migration in a month; expand too far and a two-week pilot turns into a quarter.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement to an existing task list, the baseline scope is sound, and approach B already leaves cheap one-flag expansions on the table that you should see before deciding.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: how many adjacent opportunities you want to see before the deep review, from none to all.",
"header": "Mode",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Baseline scope held and reviewed at full rigor; every expansion shown individually with effort and risk, neutral recommendation. \u2705 You cherry-pick; rejected items go to NOT in scope. \u274c Five or six extra decisions before the deep review begins."
},
{
"label": "HOLD SCOPE",
"description": "\u2705 Fastest path to a bulletproof version of exactly what PLAN.md says. \u2705 No expansion questions at all; maximum rigor on failure modes, tests, observability. \u274c Cheap adjacent wins like default view or shared views are not surfaced."
},
{
"label": "SCOPE EXPANSION",
"description": "\u2705 Ten-x vision and platonic ideal described first, then each proposal offered with an enthusiastic recommendation. \u2705 Best when this feature is meant to become a platform for dashboards and notifications. \u274c Pilot scope grows; more decisions and more implementation before first user feedback."
},
{
"label": "SCOPE REDUCTION",
"description": "\u2705 Strips to the minimum that ships value: save, list, apply, delete. \u2705 Fastest to a pilot. \u274c Conflicts with approach B you just chose; drift handling and usage tracking would be cut and the pilot becomes unmeasurable."
}
]
}
]
},
"caller": {
"type": "direct"
}
}
]
}
},
{
"type": "user",
"sessionId": "e59fb50d-6564-4361-a79f-05851e530a68",
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-7L31S7/tmp/gstack-plan-count-rY0De7",
"timestamp": "2026-09-09T17:40:49.795Z",
"isSidechain": false,
"message": {
"role": "user",
"content": [
{
"type": "tool_result",
"content": "Your questions have been answered: \"D5 \u2014 Which review posture should I take for the rest of this review?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, saved project views; approach B (validated, versioned view) is locked.\nELI10: The approach is decided. Now I need to know how ambitious to be about scope. I can hold exactly what PLAN.md asks for and make it bulletproof, or also surface adjacent ideas (shared views, default view, view-as-link) one at a time for you to accept or reject, or dream big and push every expansion, or cut the plan down to the bare minimum. Whatever you choose, no scope is added or removed without you saying yes to each item.\nStakes if we pick wrong: hold too tight and you ship a feature that needs a second migration in a month; expand too far and a two-week pilot turns into a quarter.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement to an existing task list, the baseline scope is sound, and approach B already leaves cheap one-flag expansions on the table that you should see before deciding.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: how many adjacent opportunities you want to see before the deep review, from none to all.\"=\"SCOPE EXPANSION\". You can now continue with these answers in mind.",
"tool_use_id": "toolu_01LxBLkEdbM1HeqA1savUoC8"
}
]
},
"toolUseResult": {
"questions": [
{
"question": "D5 \u2014 Which review posture should I take for the rest of this review?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, saved project views; approach B (validated, versioned view) is locked.\nELI10: The approach is decided. Now I need to know how ambitious to be about scope. I can hold exactly what PLAN.md asks for and make it bulletproof, or also surface adjacent ideas (shared views, default view, view-as-link) one at a time for you to accept or reject, or dream big and push every expansion, or cut the plan down to the bare minimum. Whatever you choose, no scope is added or removed without you saying yes to each item.\nStakes if we pick wrong: hold too tight and you ship a feature that needs a second migration in a month; expand too far and a two-week pilot turns into a quarter.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement to an existing task list, the baseline scope is sound, and approach B already leaves cheap one-flag expansions on the table that you should see before deciding.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: how many adjacent opportunities you want to see before the deep review, from none to all.",
"header": "Mode",
"options": [
{
"label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)",
"description": "\u2705 Baseline scope held and reviewed at full rigor; every expansion shown individually with effort and risk, neutral recommendation. \u2705 You cherry-pick; rejected items go to NOT in scope. \u274c Five or six extra decisions before the deep review begins."
},
{
"label": "HOLD SCOPE",
"description": "\u2705 Fastest path to a bulletproof version of exactly what PLAN.md says. \u2705 No expansion questions at all; maximum rigor on failure modes, tests, observability. \u274c Cheap adjacent wins like default view or shared views are not surfaced."
},
{
"label": "SCOPE EXPANSION",
"description": "\u2705 Ten-x vision and platonic ideal described first, then each proposal offered with an enthusiastic recommendation. \u2705 Best when this feature is meant to become a platform for dashboards and notifications. \u274c Pilot scope grows; more decisions and more implementation before first user feedback."
},
{
"label": "SCOPE REDUCTION",
"description": "\u2705 Strips to the minimum that ships value: save, list, apply, delete. \u2705 Fastest to a pilot. \u274c Conflicts with approach B you just chose; drift handling and usage tracking would be cut and the pilot becomes unmeasurable."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answers": {
"D5 \u2014 Which review posture should I take for the rest of this review?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, saved project views; approach B (validated, versioned view) is locked.\nELI10: The approach is decided. Now I need to know how ambitious to be about scope. I can hold exactly what PLAN.md asks for and make it bulletproof, or also surface adjacent ideas (shared views, default view, view-as-link) one at a time for you to accept or reject, or dream big and push every expansion, or cut the plan down to the bare minimum. Whatever you choose, no scope is added or removed without you saying yes to each item.\nStakes if we pick wrong: hold too tight and you ship a feature that needs a second migration in a month; expand too far and a two-week pilot turns into a quarter.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement to an existing task list, the baseline scope is sound, and approach B already leaves cheap one-flag expansions on the table that you should see before deciding.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: how many adjacent opportunities you want to see before the deep review, from none to all.": "SCOPE EXPANSION"
},
"annotations": {}
}
},
{
"type": "assistant",
"sessionId": "e59fb50d-6564-4361-a79f-05851e530a68",
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-7L31S7/tmp/gstack-plan-count-rY0De7",
"timestamp": "2026-09-09T17:41:44.450Z",
"isSidechain": false,
"message": {
"role": "assistant",
"content": [
{
"type": "tool_use",
"id": "toolu_01QwSxVav6eeKorjQvU5CxvZ",
"name": "AskUserQuestion",
"input": {
"questions": [
{
"question": "D6 \u2014 E1: Add project-shared views to this plan?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, saved views under approach B, SCOPE EXPANSION mode.\nELI10: Right now every saved view is private to the member who made it. Shared views let a member flip a view to \"visible to this project\" so teammates see and apply it from the same picker. Only the owner (or a project admin) can edit or delete it; everyone else gets a read-only copy they can \"Save as mine\". Approach B already has the visibility column, so this is the endpoint authorization rules, the picker section, and the ownership tests.\nStakes if we pick wrong: skip it and the team keeps recreating the lead's filters by hand, which is the exact pain the plan set out to remove, just moved one person over. Add it and the authorization surface doubles, which is the riskiest part of the feature.\nRecommendation: A because this is the single expansion that turns a personal shortcut into a team tool, and the column already exists; the real cost is tests, which CC makes cheap.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=7/10\nNet: doubled authorization surface now vs the feature staying single-player and needing a second launch later.",
"header": "E1 shared",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Add to scope (recommended)",
"description": "human ~2 days / CC ~30 min. \u2705 Leads save a view once and the whole project sees it; the core pain disappears for everyone, not one person. \u2705 Visibility column and soft delete already exist under approach B, so no migration later. \u274c Doubles the authorization matrix: owner vs member vs non-member on read, update, delete, and apply, each needing tests."
},
{
"label": "B) Defer to TODOS.md",
"description": "\u2705 Pilot stays single-player and simpler to measure. \u2705 Visibility column ships now so the follow-up is endpoints and UI only. \u274c The most common team request lands in the backlog on day one."
},
{
"label": "C) Skip",
"description": "\u2705 Smallest authorization surface possible. \u2705 Nothing to explain about who can see what. \u274c Contradicts the 10x vision you just chose; sharing would need a fresh design later."
}
]
}
]
},
"caller": {
"type": "direct"
}
}
]
}
},
{
"type": "user",
"sessionId": "e59fb50d-6564-4361-a79f-05851e530a68",
"cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-7L31S7/tmp/gstack-plan-count-rY0De7",
"timestamp": "2026-09-09T17:41:45.015Z",
"isSidechain": false,
"message": {
"role": "user",
"content": [
{
"type": "tool_result",
"content": "Your questions have been answered: \"D6 \u2014 E1: Add project-shared views to this plan?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, saved views under approach B, SCOPE EXPANSION mode.\nELI10: Right now every saved view is private to the member who made it. Shared views let a member flip a view to \"visible to this project\" so teammates see and apply it from the same picker. Only the owner (or a project admin) can edit or delete it; everyone else gets a read-only copy they can \"Save as mine\". Approach B already has the visibility column, so this is the endpoint authorization rules, the picker section, and the ownership tests.\nStakes if we pick wrong: skip it and the team keeps recreating the lead's filters by hand, which is the exact pain the plan set out to remove, just moved one person over. Add it and the authorization surface doubles, which is the riskiest part of the feature.\nRecommendation: A because this is the single expansion that turns a personal shortcut into a team tool, and the column already exists; the real cost is tests, which CC makes cheap.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=7/10\nNet: doubled authorization surface now vs the feature staying single-player and needing a second launch later.\"=\"A) Add to scope (recommended)\". You can now continue with these answers in mind.",
"tool_use_id": "toolu_01QwSxVav6eeKorjQvU5CxvZ"
}
]
},
"toolUseResult": {
"questions": [
{
"question": "D6 \u2014 E1: Add project-shared views to this plan?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, saved views under approach B, SCOPE EXPANSION mode.\nELI10: Right now every saved view is private to the member who made it. Shared views let a member flip a view to \"visible to this project\" so teammates see and apply it from the same picker. Only the owner (or a project admin) can edit or delete it; everyone else gets a read-only copy they can \"Save as mine\". Approach B already has the visibility column, so this is the endpoint authorization rules, the picker section, and the ownership tests.\nStakes if we pick wrong: skip it and the team keeps recreating the lead's filters by hand, which is the exact pain the plan set out to remove, just moved one person over. Add it and the authorization surface doubles, which is the riskiest part of the feature.\nRecommendation: A because this is the single expansion that turns a personal shortcut into a team tool, and the column already exists; the real cost is tests, which CC makes cheap.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=7/10\nNet: doubled authorization surface now vs the feature staying single-player and needing a second launch later.",
"header": "E1 shared",
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Add to scope (recommended)",
"description": "human ~2 days / CC ~30 min. \u2705 Leads save a view once and the whole project sees it; the core pain disappears for everyone, not one person. \u2705 Visibility column and soft delete already exist under approach B, so no migration later. \u274c Doubles the authorization matrix: owner vs member vs non-member on read, update, delete, and apply, each needing tests."
},
{
"label": "B) Defer to TODOS.md",
"description": "\u2705 Pilot stays single-player and simpler to measure. \u2705 Visibility column ships now so the follow-up is endpoints and UI only. \u274c The most common team request lands in the backlog on day one."
},
{
"label": "C) Skip",
"description": "\u2705 Smallest authorization surface possible. \u2705 Nothing to explain about who can see what. \u274c Contradicts the 10x vision you just chose; sharing would need a fresh design later."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answers": {
"D6 \u2014 E1: Add project-shared views to this plan?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, saved views under approach B, SCOPE EXPANSION mode.\nELI10: Right now every saved view is private to the member who made it. Shared views let a member flip a view to \"visible to this project\" so teammates see and apply it from the same picker. Only the owner (or a project admin) can edit or delete it; everyone else gets a read-only copy they can \"Save as mine\". Approach B already has the visibility column, so this is the endpoint authorization rules, the picker section, and the ownership tests.\nStakes if we pick wrong: skip it and the team keeps recreating the lead's filters by hand, which is the exact pain the plan set out to remove, just moved one person over. Add it and the authorization surface doubles, which is the riskiest part of the feature.\nRecommendation: A because this is the single expansion that turns a personal shortcut into a team tool, and the column already exists; the real cost is tests, which CC makes cheap.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=7/10\nNet: doubled authorization surface now vs the feature staying single-player and needing a second launch later.": "A) Add to scope (recommended)"
},
"annotations": {}
}
}
]
}
]
}
test/fixtures/ceo-mode-prerequisite-o-calls.json
Vendored
+165
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,165 @@
[
{
"case": "hold-control",
"nativeSourceSha256": "175ddd9b387d5d45dd49952a6822ed2eab92a4a66b3b2872e93492b304414009",
"requestLine": 71,
"resultLine": 72,
"call": {
"sessionId": "fb129c7f-0801-4e9f-8b63-f44f719b8dec",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01DWZHwQ6kuttZAmi2g94NAN",
"requestedAt": "2026-09-09T01:52:51.586Z",
"answered": true,
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T01:53:04.476Z",
"questions": [
{
"question": "Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?",
"header": "Skill routing",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Add routing rules (Recommended)",
"description": "Append skill routing rules to CLAUDE.md so Claude automatically invokes the right gstack skill for common requests (strategy, architecture, QA, shipping). One-time setup, committed to the repo."
},
{
"label": "No thanks",
"description": "Skip \u2014 I'll invoke skills manually. (This prompt won't reappear once declined.)"
}
]
},
{
"question": "Enable cross-project learnings? gstack can apply patterns it learned from your other local projects to this review.",
"header": "Learnings scope",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Enable cross-project (Recommended)",
"description": "Learnings from all your local projects inform this review. Stays fully local \u2014 nothing leaves your machine. Best for solo devs."
},
{
"label": "Project-scoped only",
"description": "Only learnings from this specific project apply. Better if you work across multiple client codebases where cross-contamination would be a concern."
}
]
},
{
"question": "No design doc found for this branch. Run /office-hours first to produce a structured problem statement and explored alternatives \u2014 that gives this CEO review sharper input. (~10 min)",
"header": "Prereq skill",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Skip \u2014 review PLAN.md as-is (Recommended)",
"description": "Proceed directly with the plan as written. I'll surface gaps and missing context during the review itself."
},
{
"label": "Run /office-hours first",
"description": "Produces a design doc with problem statement, alternatives explored, and constraints. Gives the CEO review stronger grounding \u2014 worth it for high-stakes features."
}
]
}
],
"answers": {
"Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?": "Add routing rules (Recommended)",
"Enable cross-project learnings? gstack can apply patterns it learned from your other local projects to this review.": "Enable cross-project (Recommended)",
"No design doc found for this branch. Run /office-hours first to produce a structured problem statement and explored alternatives \u2014 that gives this CEO review sharper input. (~10 min)": "Skip \u2014 review PLAN.md as-is (Recommended)"
}
}
},
{
"case": "expansion-first",
"nativeSourceSha256": "3a810ccebf1241b0639bd613b7d0e2445d1184a565df21c08cc253e4a48b4e8a",
"requestLine": 67,
"resultLine": 68,
"call": {
"sessionId": "0b5caec7-417b-415d-9ede-8cdffc960a3f",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01UukKj3xcwtCLg5CJBn8C7s",
"requestedAt": "2026-09-09T01:53:37.436Z",
"answered": true,
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T01:53:50.605Z",
"questions": [
{
"question": "gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules (e.g. 'strategy \u2192 /plan-ceo-review'). This adds ~10 lines that auto-suggest skills in future sessions. Note: we're in plan mode so the edit + commit will run after plan mode exits.",
"header": "Skill routing",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Add routing rules (recommended)",
"description": "Append gstack routing rules to CLAUDE.md and commit after plan mode exits. One-time setup, no ongoing cost."
},
{
"label": "Skip",
"description": "Keep invoking skills manually. No change to CLAUDE.md."
}
]
},
{
"question": "gstack can search learnings from your other projects on this machine to find patterns that may apply here. Stays local \u2014 no data leaves your machine. Good for solo devs; skip if you work across client codebases where cross-pollination would be a problem.",
"header": "Learnings scope",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Enable cross-project (recommended)",
"description": "Search learnings across all local projects. Useful for solo developers or teams on a shared machine."
},
{
"label": "Project-scoped only",
"description": "Only surface learnings from this project."
}
]
},
{
"question": "No design doc found for this branch. /office-hours produces a structured problem statement, premise challenge, and explored alternatives \u2014 it gives this CEO review sharper input. Takes about 10 minutes. The design doc is per-feature, not per-product.",
"header": "Design doc",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Run /office-hours first (recommended)",
"description": "Generate a design doc now, then the CEO review picks up right after with much richer context."
},
{
"label": "Skip \u2014 standard review",
"description": "Proceed without a design doc. Review will still be thorough but works from the plan alone."
}
]
}
],
"answers": {
"gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules (e.g. 'strategy \u2192 /plan-ceo-review'). This adds ~10 lines that auto-suggest skills in future sessions. Note: we're in plan mode so the edit + commit will run after plan mode exits.": "Add routing rules (recommended)",
"gstack can search learnings from your other projects on this machine to find patterns that may apply here. Stays local \u2014 no data leaves your machine. Good for solo devs; skip if you work across client codebases where cross-pollination would be a problem.": "Enable cross-project (recommended)",
"No design doc found for this branch. /office-hours produces a structured problem statement, premise challenge, and explored alternatives \u2014 it gives this CEO review sharper input. Takes about 10 minutes. The design doc is per-feature, not per-product.": "Run /office-hours first (recommended)"
}
}
},
{
"case": "expansion-retry",
"nativeSourceSha256": "c7b1b01f934321a5744f0443603df9bccd694419d3346c99178a1732d56133b1",
"requestLine": 62,
"resultLine": 63,
"call": {
"sessionId": "428232f1-d55d-42ac-8062-ec615d2923f9",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01FLL8tiDfw9uJRTGTpQaWgv",
"requestedAt": "2026-09-09T01:59:14.794Z",
"answered": true,
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T01:59:15.628Z",
"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": "Design doc",
"options": [
{
"label": "Run /office-hours first (Recommended)",
"description": "Takes ~10 minutes. Produces a structured design doc with problem framing, alternatives considered, and key decisions \u2014 makes every finding in this CEO review sharper and better grounded."
},
{
"label": "Skip \u2014 proceed with standard review",
"description": "Proceed directly to the CEO review with the plan text as-is. The review will still be rigorous but without a design doc some premise questions will need to be answered inline."
}
],
"multiSelect": 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?": "Run /office-hours first (Recommended)"
}
}
}
]
test/fixtures/ceo-mode-prerequisite-q-call.json
Vendored
+33
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
{
"case": "hold-prerequisite-q",
"nativeSourceSha256": "572f4d37176faa79f5eb44524cd5cd838c0e7b84a648c2b5092b9effe4e2a185",
"requestLine": 56,
"resultLine": 57,
"call": {
"sessionId": "ce0d0a04-8358-47fe-97c7-fae5207e3980",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01UGxtFGAXCKRLwP6RErA4km",
"requestedAt": "2026-09-09T03:30:34.803Z",
"answered": true,
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T03:30:34.847Z",
"questions": [
{
"question": "No design doc found for this branch. Run /office-hours first for sharper review input, or proceed directly with the CEO review?",
"header": "Design doc",
"options": [
{
"label": "Run /office-hours first",
"description": "Produces a structured problem statement, premise challenge, and explored alternatives \u2014 gives this review much sharper input. Takes ~10 minutes."
},
{
"label": "Proceed with standard review",
"description": "Skip /office-hours and review the plan as-is. Recommended when the problem statement is already clear and the plan is ready to interrogate. (recommended)"
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answers": {
"No design doc found for this branch. Run /office-hours first for sharper review input, or proceed directly with the CEO review?": "Run /office-hours first"
}
}
}
test/fixtures/ceo-mode-preview-aa-screen.txt
Vendored
+39
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
saved view"). The existing filter UI is the hook point. The DB, auth middleware, and project-scoped permission model
are pre-existing leverage. No need to rebuild any of these.
Step 0C — Dream State Mapping:
CURRENT STATE THIS PLAN 12-MONTH IDEAL
Users recreate ---> Personal named views ---> Team-shared views + pinned
filters every per project/member, project defaults + cross-
session by hand CRUD API, view picker project view templates
beside filter bar
The plan moves solidly toward the ideal but stops at personal views. Team-shared views and defaults are one level up.
Now: implementation alternatives before mode selection.
● User answered Claude's questions:
⎿  · Which implementation approach should this plan take? → Approach A: Server-side personal views (as planned)
(Recommended)
● Approach A confirmed. Now: mode selection for the review.
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
☐ Review mode
Which review mode should I use for this plan?
❯ 1. SELECTIVE EXPANSION — ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
baseline + cherry-pick │ SELECTIVE EXPANSION │
(Recommended) │ Hold scope. Bullet-proof it. │
2. HOLD SCOPE — maximum │ Then surface expansions one at a time. │
rigor, no expansions │ You opt in or out of each. No surprises. │
3. SCOPE EXPANSION — dream └─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
big
4. SCOPE REDUCTION — strip Notes: press n to add notes
to essentials
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Chat about this
Enter to select · ↑/↓ to navigate · n to add notes · Esc to cancel
test/fixtures/ceo-numbered-brief-af.json
Vendored
+135
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,135 @@
{
"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
@@ -0,0 +1,258 @@
{
"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-parenthesized-issue-ah.json
Vendored
+293
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,293 @@
{
"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-prerequisite-ad-v2.json
Vendored
+73
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
{
"provenance": {
"sourceHead": "7fac51e9bd8619665960657462ceab2773d142f5",
"sourceReceipt": ".context/ship-source-ad-full-paid-20260909-v2/mode-office-hours-header-evidence-ledger-v1/proof.json",
"completedCallSHA256": "1cb969cf3ffe8debed713d7f698776ac3ea1f94f01e0b0521568e8d21512b67e",
"requestedAt": "2026-09-09T19:06:48.582Z",
"completedAt": "2026-09-09T19:07:02.700Z",
"actualFirstAttempt": "mode_not_reached after420000ms",
"laterRetry": "passed",
"panes": "Tests project pending/active panes from exact complete public questions; no historical pending screen claim",
"privateThinkingInspected": false
},
"completedCall": {
"sessionId": "39bfb7b6-c281-4d16-ac5b-6a455c6e764a",
"toolUseId": "toolu_01PRrHtcPwjYRtaEVL7HBqrD",
"questions": [
{
"header": "Routing",
"question": "D1 \u2014 Add gstack skill routing rules to CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-FDFfod on main, reviewing PLAN.md (saved project views).\nELI10: gstack skills work best when the project's CLAUDE.md tells the agent which skill to reach for (bugs \u2192 /investigate, scope \u2192 /plan-ceo-review, etc.). Without it you invoke skills by hand each time. Stakes are low either way. Note: 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 friction only; reversible with one config command.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules make future sessions pick the right skill without you remembering names.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nA) Add routing rules (recommended)\n \u2705 Future sessions auto-route bugs, scope, ship, and QA requests to the right skill\n \u2705 One-time, committed to the repo so teammates get it too\n \u274c Adds ~20 lines to CLAUDE.md; must wait until plan mode exits to write it\nB) No thanks\n \u2705 Keeps CLAUDE.md exactly as the fixture defines it right now\n \u2705 Nothing written, nothing committed; re-enable any time via gstack-config\n \u274c You invoke every skill manually going forward\nNet: convenience later vs an untouched CLAUDE.md now.",
"options": [
{
"label": "Add routing rules (recommended)",
"description": "Append the skill routing section to CLAUDE.md and commit once plan mode exits."
},
{
"label": "No thanks",
"description": "Set routing_declined=true; invoke skills manually."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
},
{
"header": "Learnings",
"question": "D2 \u2014 Enable cross-project learnings search?\nProject/branch/task: same repo, same review.\nELI10: gstack records small lessons per project (command quirks, pitfalls). It can also search lessons from your other projects on this machine to spot patterns that apply here. Everything stays local; no data leaves the machine. Good for solo devs; skip if you juggle multiple client codebases where cross-talk would be awkward.\nStakes if we pick wrong: reversible with one config command; worst case a slightly less informed review.\nRecommendation: A because this is a solo fixture repo and more prior context only helps.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nA) Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)\n \u2705 Reviews get prior lessons from any project on this machine, not just this one\n \u2705 Stays fully local; a single config flag you can flip back any time\n \u274c Lessons from unrelated codebases may occasionally surface as noise\nB) Keep learnings project-scoped\n \u2705 Zero chance of one client's patterns leaking into another's review\n \u2705 Simpler mental model: what you see came from this repo only\n \u274c This repo has zero learnings today, so the review starts cold\nNet: broader context vs strict per-project isolation.",
"options": [
{
"label": "Enable cross-project (recommended)",
"description": "Search learnings across all local projects."
},
{
"label": "Project-scoped only",
"description": "Only this repo's learnings are used."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
},
{
"header": "Office hours",
"question": "D3 \u2014 Run /office-hours first, or proceed with the standard review?\nProject/branch/task: same repo; no design doc exists for this branch.\nELI10: /office-hours produces a structured problem statement, a premise challenge, and explored alternatives for this specific feature. It gives the CEO review sharper input, at the cost of roughly ten more minutes of Q&A. The plan here is short (4 approach bullets), so the review can run without it, but the premise challenge will be based on what I infer rather than what you told me.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a review built on a misread premise, or ten minutes spent restating what you already know.\nRecommendation: B because the plan's goal is concrete and well-bounded; the review's Step 0 already runs a premise challenge, and I can offer office-hours mid-review if the premise turns out to be shaky.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nA) Run /office-hours now\n \u2705 Produces a written design doc that later reviews and teammates can read\n \u2705 Explores alternatives to saved views before we commit to reviewing this shape\n \u274c About ten minutes of additional questions before the review starts (human ~10 min / CC ~10 min)\nB) Skip, standard review (recommended)\n \u2705 Starts the review immediately on the plan as written\n \u2705 Step 0 still challenges the premise and proposes implementation alternatives\n \u274c No persisted design doc; premise reasoning rests on my inference from the plan text\nNet: sharper input later vs starting now on a plan that is already fairly clear.",
"options": [
{
"label": "Run /office-hours now",
"description": "Build a design doc first, then resume the review."
},
{
"label": "Skip, standard review (recommended)",
"description": "Proceed directly to Step 0 of the CEO review."
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 \u2014 Add gstack skill routing rules to CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-FDFfod on main, reviewing PLAN.md (saved project views).\nELI10: gstack skills work best when the project's CLAUDE.md tells the agent which skill to reach for (bugs \u2192 /investigate, scope \u2192 /plan-ceo-review, etc.). Without it you invoke skills by hand each time. Stakes are low either way. Note: 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 friction only; reversible with one config command.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules make future sessions pick the right skill without you remembering names.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nA) Add routing rules (recommended)\n \u2705 Future sessions auto-route bugs, scope, ship, and QA requests to the right skill\n \u2705 One-time, committed to the repo so teammates get it too\n \u274c Adds ~20 lines to CLAUDE.md; must wait until plan mode exits to write it\nB) No thanks\n \u2705 Keeps CLAUDE.md exactly as the fixture defines it right now\n \u2705 Nothing written, nothing committed; re-enable any time via gstack-config\n \u274c You invoke every skill manually going forward\nNet: convenience later vs an untouched CLAUDE.md now.": "Add routing rules (recommended)",
"D2 \u2014 Enable cross-project learnings search?\nProject/branch/task: same repo, same review.\nELI10: gstack records small lessons per project (command quirks, pitfalls). It can also search lessons from your other projects on this machine to spot patterns that apply here. Everything stays local; no data leaves the machine. Good for solo devs; skip if you juggle multiple client codebases where cross-talk would be awkward.\nStakes if we pick wrong: reversible with one config command; worst case a slightly less informed review.\nRecommendation: A because this is a solo fixture repo and more prior context only helps.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nA) Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)\n \u2705 Reviews get prior lessons from any project on this machine, not just this one\n \u2705 Stays fully local; a single config flag you can flip back any time\n \u274c Lessons from unrelated codebases may occasionally surface as noise\nB) Keep learnings project-scoped\n \u2705 Zero chance of one client's patterns leaking into another's review\n \u2705 Simpler mental model: what you see came from this repo only\n \u274c This repo has zero learnings today, so the review starts cold\nNet: broader context vs strict per-project isolation.": "Enable cross-project (recommended)",
"D3 \u2014 Run /office-hours first, or proceed with the standard review?\nProject/branch/task: same repo; no design doc exists for this branch.\nELI10: /office-hours produces a structured problem statement, a premise challenge, and explored alternatives for this specific feature. It gives the CEO review sharper input, at the cost of roughly ten more minutes of Q&A. The plan here is short (4 approach bullets), so the review can run without it, but the premise challenge will be based on what I infer rather than what you told me.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a review built on a misread premise, or ten minutes spent restating what you already know.\nRecommendation: B because the plan's goal is concrete and well-bounded; the review's Step 0 already runs a premise challenge, and I can offer office-hours mid-review if the premise turns out to be shaky.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nA) Run /office-hours now\n \u2705 Produces a written design doc that later reviews and teammates can read\n \u2705 Explores alternatives to saved views before we commit to reviewing this shape\n \u274c About ten minutes of additional questions before the review starts (human ~10 min / CC ~10 min)\nB) Skip, standard review (recommended)\n \u2705 Starts the review immediately on the plan as written\n \u2705 Step 0 still challenges the premise and proposes implementation alternatives\n \u274c No persisted design doc; premise reasoning rests on my inference from the plan text\nNet: sharper input later vs starting now on a plan that is already fairly clear.": "Run /office-hours now"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T19:07:02.700Z"
}
}
test/fixtures/ceo-prerequisite-n-call.json
Vendored
+22
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
{
"sessionId": "c02ae21c-af83-44ad-8f7d-316542389108",
"toolUseId": "toolu_016rCkcBz9C9TRgJTuM5cwvt",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 \u2014 No design doc found: run /office-hours first, or proceed with standard review?\n\nNo design doc found for this branch. `/office-hours` produces a structured problem statement, premise challenge, and explored alternatives \u2014 giving this review sharper input.\n\nELI10: Before doing a code-plan review, it helps to have a document that explains *why* this feature is being built and what alternatives were considered. Without it, the review works from the plan alone. A 10-minute /office-hours session produces that doc first.\n\nStakes if we pick wrong: Skipping /office-hours means the review proceeds without a structured problem statement. The plan has critical security issues visible from the plan text alone, so the review can proceed productively without it.\n\nRecommendation: B \u2014 the plan has well-defined content and critical issues that are reviewable without a design doc; no design-doc context would change the SQL injection or email error findings.\n\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=7/10\n\nPros / cons:\nA) Run /office-hours first (recommended for ambiguous scope)\n \u2705 Produces a structured problem statement and explored alternatives before review\n \u2705 Gives the review sharper context on user outcomes and constraints\n \u274c Adds ~10 minutes before the review starts; critical issues are already visible from the plan\nB) Skip \u2014 proceed with standard review (recommended)\n \u2705 Critical issues (SQL injection, email error handling) are clearly visible in the plan and reviewable now\n \u2705 No additional time cost; review begins immediately\n \u274c Review proceeds without a structured problem statement or alternatives doc\n\nNet: The SQL injection and email error findings don't need a design doc to surface \u2014 they're in the plan text. /office-hours adds value for ambiguous scope, not for critical-bug triage. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-office-hours-offer>",
"header": "Prerequisite",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Run /office-hours first",
"description": "Run /office-hours to produce a design doc, then resume this review with sharper context."
},
{
"label": "Skip \u2014 review now (Recommended)",
"description": "Proceed with standard review. Critical issues are visible from the plan text alone."
}
]
}
],
"answered": false
}
test/fixtures/ceo-preview-u-call.json
Vendored
+35
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
{
"sessionId": "167fb463-80f5-474a-b4e1-4df63585c69f",
"toolUseId": "toolu_0158a1GLhaRxX4cMtMVsemBT",
"questions": [
{
"question": "D1 \u2014 Which implementation approach should this plan use? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-approach-selection>",
"header": "Approach",
"options": [
{
"label": "A) Current plan as-is",
"description": "Ship the handler as described: raw SQL fragment, inline email with no rescue, no new tests, N+1 order query. Smallest diff. Completeness: 3/10 \u2014 SQL injection is explicit in the plan text, email failures cause ambiguous HTTP 500 after payment commits.",
"preview": "APPROACH A: Current Plan\n Risk: HIGH\n Pros: - Smallest diff\n - Minimal new code\n Cons: - SQL injection (plan explicitly states no sanitization)\n - Email exception after DB commit \u2192 HTTP 500\n \u2192 Stripe retries \u2192 dedup blocks \u2192 email silently lost\n - N+1 query on orders\n - Zero test coverage on payment path"
},
{
"label": "B) Parameterized queries + email rescue + tests + batch query (recommended)",
"description": "Same handler class, same existing contracts, but: (1) parameterized DB lookup eliminates SQL injection, (2) email failure caught and logged, not rethrown, (3) basic tests for happy path + edge cases, (4) batch order query. Completeness: 9/10.",
"preview": "APPROACH B: Correct Implementation\n Risk: LOW\n Pros: - Eliminates SQL injection entirely\n - Email failure becomes a warning, not a 500\n - Tests catch regressions before production\n - Batch query is correct under any load\n Cons: - More LOC than Approach A\n - Requires decision on where to catch email exceptions\n Reuses: All existing guards, DB client, mail client,\n parameterized query helpers"
},
{
"label": "C) Approach B + async queue for email fan-out",
"description": "Same as B but email goes through an async job queue. Handler returns HTTP 200 immediately after DB commit; email delivery is decoupled. Completeness: 10/10 \u2014 but larger scope, requires confirmed job infrastructure.",
"preview": "APPROACH C: Queue-Backed Notifications\n Risk: MED (depends on existing job infrastructure)\n Pros: - Email failure never affects webhook response code\n - Retry logic for email in the queue, not via Stripe replay\n - Most resilient long-term architecture\n Cons: - Larger diff if no job system confirmed\n - Introduces at-least-once email delivery question\n - More moving parts to operate"
}
],
"multiSelect": false
}
],
"answered": true,
"failed": false,
"answers": {
"D1 \u2014 Which implementation approach should this plan use? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-approach-selection>": "A) Current plan as-is"
},
"unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
"answeredAt": "2026-09-09T07:51:53.687Z"
}
test/fixtures/ceo-preview-u-screen.txt
Vendored
+39
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
No design doc was found for this branch. Per the skill workflow:
● User answered Claude's questions:
⎿  · 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. Takes ~10 minutes. Want to run it first? →
Skip — proceed with standard review
● Proceeding with standard review. Now Step 0C-bis — the plan's implementation approach selection is mandatory before
mode selection.
The plan proposes building a StripePaymentWebhookHandler. I've analyzed three possible approaches:
Premise: The plan's Database Access section explicitly says userId goes "directly into a raw SQL fragment" — and the
contracts section confirms the adapter "performs no SQL-format validation" and "does not cast, escape, or SQL-sanitize
it." This is a deliberate architectural choice in the current plan that makes it unshippable as written.
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
☐ Approach
│ D1 — Which implementation approach should this plan use? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-approach-selection>
❯ 1. A) Current plan as-is ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
2. B) Parameterized queries │ APPROACH A: Current Plan │
+ email rescue + tests + │ Risk: HIGH │
batch query (recommended) │ Pros: - Smallest diff │
3. C) Approach B + async │ - Minimal new code │
queue for email fan-out │ Cons: - SQL injection (plan explicitly states no sanitization) │
│ - Email exception after DB commit → HTTP 500 │
│ → Stripe retries → dedup blocks → email silently lost │
│ - N+1 query on orders │
│ - Zero test coverage on payment path │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Notes: press n to add notes
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Chat about this
Enter to select · ↑/↓ to navigate · n to add notes · Esc to cancel

Some files were not shown because too many files have changed in this diff Show More