[ { "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? ", "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? ": "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? ", "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? ": "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" } ]