{
  "sourceRevision": "f3596a42898462ce6d45a56fd87e21fcf052b449",
  "retained": ".context/nouakchott-resume-validation/runtime-post-b176/executions/f3596a42898462ce6d45a56fd87e21fcf052b449/all/run/public-retention/skill-e2e-plan-ceo-finding-count/plan-ceo-review-1789541251566-Nd53KB",
  "seed": "Please review this plan thoroughly in HOLD SCOPE mode. As you go, write your plan-mode plan to /tmp/g-0rk78u4r/gstack-paid-shard-LuFS2F/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-ceo-paired-rMEFOz/gstack-test-plan-ceo-paired.md (use Edit/Write to that exact path).\nProceed directly to the requested CEO review; skip the optional /office-hours prerequisite.\nFinish after this CEO review; I will handle subsequent reviews manually.\n\n# Plan: Payment Processing — Test Coverage\n\n## Existing coverage and test infrastructure retained\nThis changes unit tests only; processPayment() production behavior stays as-is.\nThe Stripe adapter suite already covers network timeouts, card declines (402),\nrate limits (429), and recovery when an initial 502 is followed by a successful\ncharge. Receipt-builder failure behavior has its own passing regression tests.\nThe payment test factory explicitly configures max_retries=1 and exposes the\nStripe mock call history. Its injected virtual sleeper records backoff without\nreal delays, so an exhausted 502 operation makes exactly two charge attempts.\nThese existing helpers and regression suites remain in use for this change.\n\n## Existing behavior retained\nA successful charge returns a receipt with chargeId copied from Stripe,\namountCents equal to the requested integer amount, and currency equal to\nthe requested currency. For a 1000-cent USD charge returning id ch_paid,\nthe receipt is { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }.\nOn repeated 502 responses, max_retries=1 means two total charge attempts\nseparated by one recorded 100 ms backoff, followed by PaymentUnavailable.\nThese contracts are already implemented; this plan adds their unit coverage.\n\n## Proposed tests\nAdd two tests in the existing processPayment suite using its current factory,\nStripe mock and virtual sleeper. Other tests and production code stay as-is.\n\n1. Successful charge: arrange the Stripe mock to return id ch_paid, call\n   processPayment with amountCents=1000 and currency=USD, and assert only\n   that the returned receipt is truthy. This is the complete planned assertion.\n2. Repeated 502: arrange two consecutive Stripe 502 responses, call\n   processPayment, and assert only that it rejects with PaymentUnavailable.\n   No assertion about the mock call history or virtual sleeper record\n   is planned for this test.",
  "savedPlan": "# Plan: Payment Processing — Test Coverage (CEO review, HOLD SCOPE)\n\nReviewed by /plan-ceo-review on 2026-09-16. Branch: main. Source plan: PLAN.md (repo root).\nMode: HOLD SCOPE (explicit user instruction). /office-hours skipped (explicit user instruction).\n\n## Context\n\nprocessPayment() already implements two contracts (success receipt shape; 502 retry\nexhaustion → PaymentUnavailable). Neither has a unit test in the processPayment suite.\nThe adapter suite covers timeouts, 402, 429, and 502-then-success; the receipt builder\nhas its own regression tests. This plan adds two unit tests for the two uncovered\nprocessPayment contracts. No production code changes.\n\n## Pre-review system audit\n\n- Repo: 2 tracked files (CLAUDE.md, PLAN.md), 1 commit (`421762e Seed review plan`), no remote,\n  no stash, no TODO/FIXME markers, no TODOS.md, no design doc, no CEO handoff note.\n- Platform: unknown (no remote). Base branch: `main` (fallback).\n- Prior learnings: none (`LEARNINGS: 0`). Brain context: cold on all four digests.\n- Retrospective check: no prior review cycles, refactors or reverts in the branch log.\n- Frontend/UI scope: none. DESIGN_SCOPE not set (Section 11 will be a no-UI skip).\n- Production code referenced by the plan (processPayment, Stripe adapter, factory, virtual\n  sleeper) is NOT in this fixture repo. All claims about it below are taken from PLAN.md\n  and marked as plan-stated, not verified against source.\n\n## Step 0 evidence\n\n### 0A. Premise Challenge\n1. Right problem? Yes. The gap is real: two implemented contracts with zero direct unit\n   coverage at the processPayment layer. Adapter tests exercise the Stripe client; they do\n   not pin processPayment's receipt mapping or its retry-exhaustion result.\n2. Outcome: a regression in receipt mapping (wrong amount/currency/chargeId) or in retry\n   policy (0 retries, unbounded retries, wrong backoff) fails CI instead of reaching a\n   customer's card statement. The plan reaches this outcome ONLY if the tests assert the\n   contract. As written (truthy / rejects-only), it solves a proxy problem: \"a test exists\"\n   rather than \"the contract is pinned.\"\n3. Do nothing: an amountCents mis-mapping (e.g. dollars vs cents, or amount dropped)\n   ships silently. Real pain; payments are the highest-blast-radius code path in the product.\n\n### 0B. Existing Code Leverage (plan-stated)\n| Sub-problem | Existing code | Reuse |\n|---|---|---|\n| Deterministic Stripe responses | Payment test factory's Stripe mock | Reuse, no change |\n| Attempt counting | Factory exposes Stripe mock call history | Reuse; currently unused by test 2 |\n| Backoff without real delay | Injected virtual sleeper, records backoff | Reuse; currently unused by test 2 |\n| max_retries=1 configuration | Factory sets it explicitly | Reuse, no change |\n| 502-then-success recovery | Adapter suite | Already covered; do not duplicate |\n| Receipt-builder failures | Receipt-builder regression suite | Already covered; do not duplicate |\nNothing is being rebuilt. The plan under-uses two helpers it already lists.\n\n### 0C. Dream State Mapping\n```\n  CURRENT STATE                    THIS PLAN                     12-MONTH IDEAL\n  processPayment contracts   --->  2 tests in existing    --->   Every processPayment\n  documented but unpinned;         suite; factory/mock/          contract (success shape,\n  adapter + receipt-builder        sleeper reused; zero          each retry-exhaustion\n  suites pass; retry policy        production change             path, each non-retryable\n  only exercised indirectly                                      error) pinned by an exact\n                                                                 assertion; a policy change\n                                                                 fails exactly one named test\n```\nThe plan moves toward the ideal only if its assertions are exact. Truthy-only assertions\nadd test count without adding protection, which is the \"process as proxy\" trap.\n\n### 0E. Mode\nExplicit user choice: HOLD SCOPE (\"Please review this plan thoroughly in HOLD SCOPE mode\").\nNo mode question asked. No new approach decision was needed beyond D1 below.\n\n### 0G. HOLD SCOPE checks\n1. Complexity: 1 test file edited, 0 new classes/services, 0 production files. Under every\n   threshold. No challenge.\n2. Minimum change for the goal: the two tests. Neither is deferrable without leaving one\n   stated contract uncovered, so no defer/keep question is raised.\n3. Stated invariants (\"Existing behavior retained\" section) are the acceptance criteria.\n   The proposed assertions do not verify them. Repairing the assertions to meet the stated\n   invariants is in scope per the HOLD SCOPE rule; it adds no files, no production change,\n   and no new contract. See D1.\n\n## Decision ledger\n\n| ID and owner | Contract and evidence | Current | Proposed | Status | Exact approval and scope |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| D1 (user) | Assertion depth for the two new tests. Evidence: PLAN.md lines 18-23 state the exact contracts; lines 30-36 assert only truthy / rejects. Factory exposes call history + sleeper record (PLAN.md lines 12-14). | Test 1: `expect(receipt).toBeTruthy()`. Test 2: rejects with PaymentUnavailable only. | A) Assert the full stated contract in both tests. B) Assert receipt shape in test 1, keep test 2 rejects-only. C) Keep the plan's assertions as written. | unresolved | pending |\n\n### currentDecision (D1)\n\n**Question:** Should the two new tests assert the exact contracts the plan already states, or stay at the truthy / rejects-only depth the plan proposes?\n\n**Commitment comparison**\n\n```text\nCommitment                         | Source/approval or pending | Current (plan) | A          | B          | C\nTest 1 asserts receipt is truthy   | PLAN.md L30-32             | yes            | subsumed   | subsumed   | yes\nTest 1 asserts chargeId=ch_paid    | PLAN.md L18-21 (contract)  | no             | yes        | yes        | no\nTest 1 asserts amountCents=1000    | PLAN.md L18-21 (contract)  | no             | yes        | yes        | no\nTest 1 asserts currency=USD        | PLAN.md L18-21 (contract)  | no             | yes        | yes        | no\nTest 2 rejects PaymentUnavailable  | PLAN.md L33-34             | yes            | yes        | yes        | yes\nTest 2 asserts exactly 2 attempts  | PLAN.md L22-23 (contract)  | no             | yes        | no         | no\nTest 2 asserts one 100 ms backoff  | PLAN.md L22-23 (contract)  | no             | yes        | no         | no\nFiles touched                      | PLAN.md L27                | 1 test file    | 1          | 1          | 1\nProduction code changed            | PLAN.md L8                 | none           | none       | none       | none\nNew helpers/fixtures               | PLAN.md L12-15             | none           | none       | none       | none\n```\n\n**Option A — Assert the full stated contract (recommended). Completeness 10/10. Effort S; risk low.**\nTest 1 deep-equals the receipt to `{ chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }`.\nTest 2 asserts rejection with PaymentUnavailable, then asserts the Stripe mock call history\nhas exactly 2 charge attempts and the virtual sleeper recorded exactly `[100]` ms.\nPros: every sentence in \"Existing behavior retained\" becomes an executable check; a\nretry-policy or backoff regression fails a named test; uses only helpers the factory already\nexposes. Cons: if the factory's call-history or sleeper-record API shape differs from the\nplan's description, the implementer has to look it up (a few minutes). Reuse: factory, mock,\nsleeper, no additions. Verification: both tests fail if any single contract field or the\nattempt count / backoff changes.\n\n**Option B — Receipt shape only. Completeness 7/10. Effort S; risk low-medium.**\nTest 1 as in A. Test 2 stays rejects-only. Pros: pins the customer-visible money fields;\nsmallest text delta from the plan. Cons: a change to max_retries, a retry loop that stops\nretrying, or a backoff of 0 ms all still pass; the sleeper and call history the plan lists\nas \"remain in use\" go unused. Reuse: factory, mock. Verification: covers receipt contract,\nleaves retry contract unpinned.\n\n**Option C — Keep the plan's assertions as written. Completeness 3/10. Effort S; risk high.**\nPros: zero deviation from the submitted plan; fastest to write. Cons: test 1 passes for\n`{}` or a receipt with amountCents 100000; test 2 passes with zero retries or fifty; the\nplan's own stated contracts remain unverified; test count rises while protection does not.\nReuse: factory, mock. Verification: only the type-level outcome (defined / rejects).\n\n## NOT in scope\n- Additional processPayment cases (e.g. 502-then-success at the processPayment layer,\n  non-retryable 4xx propagation, non-integer amountCents): not in the submitted plan;\n  HOLD SCOPE preserves the two-test scope. Listed for a future plan, not deferred work.\n- Any production change to processPayment, the adapter, or the receipt builder.\n",
  "call": {
    "sessionId": "a956a39a-fd09-4d34-81ca-125000920574",
    "toolUseId": "toolu_01MmZMK3NYyJgpPNHsHJJt2k",
    "questions": [
      {
        "question": "D1 — Should the two new tests assert the exact contracts the plan already states, or stay at the truthy / rejects-only depth the plan proposes?\nProject/branch/task: main — CEO review (HOLD SCOPE) of the processPayment test-coverage plan.\nELI10: The plan writes down exactly what processPayment must return (a receipt with chargeId ch_paid, amountCents 1000, currency USD) and exactly how it must fail on repeated 502s (two attempts, one 100 ms pause, then PaymentUnavailable). Then the tests only check \"got something\" and \"it threw the right error.\" A test that checks less than the contract can pass while the contract is broken. The factory already exposes the call history and the sleeper record, so checking the full contract costs no new code.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a receipt with the wrong amount, or a retry loop that retries 0 or 50 times, passes CI and reaches customers' cards.\nRecommendation: A because the plan's own \"Existing behavior retained\" section is the acceptance criteria, and HOLD SCOPE keeps stated invariants; A pins every one of them with helpers the plan already lists as in use.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=3/10\nNet: A trades a few minutes of looking up the factory's call-history / sleeper API shape for tests that actually fail when the money or retry contract changes; B and C save that lookup and leave part or all of the contract unpinned.",
        "header": "D1 asserts",
        "multiSelect": false,
        "options": [
          {
            "label": "A) Full contract (recommended)",
            "description": "Test 1 deep-equals the receipt to { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }. Test 2 asserts PaymentUnavailable rejection AND exactly 2 Stripe charge attempts in the mock call history AND a sleeper record of exactly [100] ms. Effort S (human ~30 min / CC ~3 min), risk low. Completeness 10/10.\n✅ Every sentence in \"Existing behavior retained\" becomes an executable check that fails on regression.\n✅ Uses only the factory, mock and virtual sleeper the plan already says remain in use; zero new helpers.\n❌ Implementer must confirm the exact API shape of the call-history and sleeper-record accessors before writing the asserts."
          },
          {
            "label": "B) Receipt shape only",
            "description": "Test 1 as in A. Test 2 stays rejects-only with no call-history or sleeper assertion. Effort S, risk low-medium. Completeness 7/10.\n✅ Pins the customer-visible money fields (amount, currency, charge id), which is the highest-blast-radius contract.\n✅ Smallest text change from the submitted plan; test 2 stays exactly as written.\n❌ A retry loop that stops retrying, retries unbounded, or backs off 0 ms still passes; the sleeper and call history go unused."
          },
          {
            "label": "C) Keep plan as written",
            "description": "Test 1 asserts only that the receipt is truthy. Test 2 asserts only rejection with PaymentUnavailable. Effort S, risk high. Completeness 3/10.\n✅ Zero deviation from the plan the team already agreed to; nothing to renegotiate.\n✅ Fastest possible to write; no dependency on accessor API shapes.\n❌ Test 1 passes for an empty object or amountCents 100000; test 2 passes with 0 or 50 retries; the plan's stated contracts stay unverified."
          }
        ]
      }
    ],
    "answered": true,
    "failed": false,
    "answers": {
      "D1 — Should the two new tests assert the exact contracts the plan already states, or stay at the truthy / rejects-only depth the plan proposes?\nProject/branch/task: main — CEO review (HOLD SCOPE) of the processPayment test-coverage plan.\nELI10: The plan writes down exactly what processPayment must return (a receipt with chargeId ch_paid, amountCents 1000, currency USD) and exactly how it must fail on repeated 502s (two attempts, one 100 ms pause, then PaymentUnavailable). Then the tests only check \"got something\" and \"it threw the right error.\" A test that checks less than the contract can pass while the contract is broken. The factory already exposes the call history and the sleeper record, so checking the full contract costs no new code.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a receipt with the wrong amount, or a retry loop that retries 0 or 50 times, passes CI and reaches customers' cards.\nRecommendation: A because the plan's own \"Existing behavior retained\" section is the acceptance criteria, and HOLD SCOPE keeps stated invariants; A pins every one of them with helpers the plan already lists as in use.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=3/10\nNet: A trades a few minutes of looking up the factory's call-history / sleeper API shape for tests that actually fail when the money or retry contract changes; B and C save that lookup and leave part or all of the contract unpinned.": "A) Full contract (recommended)"
    },
    "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
    "answeredAt": "2026-09-16T06:50:21.467Z"
  },
  "sourceSha256": "ddcc785566a462bb7b83bfa8c97061da6fe93358c7da0231fafbd95c99ec2368",
  "savedSha256": "c4545b5a932fa145777d8706dd8823aa1cb2051cdb9579ba66bb1dc3c4ce7a09",
  "publicSha256": "568d705e5a195b05a95a31c6f52d9f3146595e240d9d640d3f6b3c6456057d6b",
  "writeAck": "2026-09-16T06:49:52.006Z",
  "readBackAck": "2026-09-16T06:49:56.843Z",
  "questionAt": "2026-09-16T06:50:19.560Z",
  "historicalPaidFailureUnchanged": true
}