mirror of
https://github.com/garrytan/gstack.git
synced 2026-05-02 03:35:09 +02:00
Garry Tan
9ef34603df
Adversarial review (during /ship Step 11) found that the previous gate-test envelope ['asked', 'plan_ready'] for the AskUserQuestion-blocked regression cases accepted the bug they exist to catch: a model that silently skips Step 0 entirely (writes a plan with no questions, no `## Decisions to confirm` section, just ExitPlanModes) reaches plan_ready and passes. The fix tightens the contract in two layers: 1. Harness: PlanSkillObservation gains a `planFile?: string` field populated when outcome is plan_ready. extractPlanFilePath() walks the visible TTY buffer for "Plan saved to:", "Plan file:", or ".claude/plans/<name>.md" patterns and resolves tilde to absolute. planFileHasDecisionsSection() reads the resolved file and returns true if it contains a `## Decisions` heading (any form: "to confirm", "needed", etc.). 2. Tests: 5 of 6 regression cases now require, when outcome is plan_ready, that obs.planFile is set AND planFileHasDecisionsSection returns true. Otherwise the test fails with a "Step 0 was silently skipped" diagnosis. plan-design-review remains the sole exception — it legitimately short-circuits to plan_ready on no-UI-scope branches and we have no deterministic way to distinguish that from a silent skip. This closes the loophole the adversarial review identified. The fix preamble flow already tells the model to write `## Decisions to confirm` when neither AUQ variant is callable — now the test verifies the model actually did it. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
73 lines
3.1 KiB
TypeScript
73 lines
3.1 KiB
TypeScript
/**
|
|
* plan-design-review plan-mode smoke (gate, paid, real-PTY).
|
|
*
|
|
* See test/skill-e2e-plan-ceo-plan-mode.test.ts for the shared assertion
|
|
* contract. Exercises the same contract against /plan-design-review.
|
|
*
|
|
* Note: on no-UI-scope branches plan-design-review legitimately short-
|
|
* circuits to plan_ready without firing AskUserQuestion. Both 'asked' and
|
|
* 'plan_ready' are valid pass outcomes.
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
import { describe, test, expect } from 'bun:test';
|
|
import { runPlanSkillObservation, planFileHasDecisionsSection } from './helpers/claude-pty-runner';
|
|
|
|
const shouldRun = !!process.env.EVALS && process.env.EVALS_TIER === 'gate';
|
|
const describeE2E = shouldRun ? describe : describe.skip;
|
|
|
|
describeE2E('plan-design-review plan-mode smoke (gate)', () => {
|
|
test('reaches a terminal outcome (asked or plan_ready) without silent writes', async () => {
|
|
const obs = await runPlanSkillObservation({
|
|
skillName: 'plan-design-review',
|
|
inPlanMode: true,
|
|
timeoutMs: 300_000,
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
if (obs.outcome === 'silent_write' || obs.outcome === 'exited' || obs.outcome === 'timeout') {
|
|
throw new Error(
|
|
`plan-design-review plan-mode smoke FAILED: outcome=${obs.outcome}\n` +
|
|
`summary: ${obs.summary}\n` +
|
|
`elapsed: ${obs.elapsedMs}ms\n` +
|
|
`--- evidence (last 2KB visible) ---\n${obs.evidence}`,
|
|
);
|
|
}
|
|
expect(['asked', 'plan_ready']).toContain(obs.outcome);
|
|
}, 360_000);
|
|
|
|
// v1.21+ regression: see skill-e2e-plan-ceo-plan-mode.test.ts for the
|
|
// contract. plan-design-review legitimately short-circuits on no-UI-scope
|
|
// branches, so this case keeps the same ['asked', 'plan_ready'] envelope
|
|
// as the baseline. The discriminating regression signals are
|
|
// 'auto_decided' (AUTO_DECIDE preamble fired upstream) or any failure
|
|
// outcome — both mean the user never saw a question they should have.
|
|
test('does not silently auto-decide when --disallowedTools AskUserQuestion is set', async () => {
|
|
const obs = await runPlanSkillObservation({
|
|
skillName: 'plan-design-review',
|
|
inPlanMode: true,
|
|
extraArgs: ['--disallowedTools', 'AskUserQuestion'],
|
|
timeoutMs: 300_000,
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
if (
|
|
obs.outcome === 'auto_decided' ||
|
|
obs.outcome === 'silent_write' ||
|
|
obs.outcome === 'exited' ||
|
|
obs.outcome === 'timeout'
|
|
) {
|
|
throw new Error(
|
|
`plan-design-review AskUserQuestion-blocked regression: outcome=${obs.outcome}\n` +
|
|
`summary: ${obs.summary}\n` +
|
|
`elapsed: ${obs.elapsedMs}ms\n` +
|
|
`--- evidence (last 2KB visible) ---\n${obs.evidence}`,
|
|
);
|
|
}
|
|
// plan-design-review legitimately short-circuits to plan_ready on no-UI
|
|
// branches. Allow plan_ready WITHOUT a decisions section ONLY if the
|
|
// plan file genuinely has no UI scope (we don't have a deterministic way
|
|
// to check this from the test, so this skill keeps the looser envelope).
|
|
// Other plan-mode skills require the decisions section under
|
|
// --disallowedTools; design is the special case.
|
|
expect(['asked', 'plan_ready']).toContain(obs.outcome);
|
|
}, 360_000);
|
|
});
|