gstack/test/fixtures/ceo-contract-question-an.json

{
  "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
}