gstack/test/fixtures/review-handoff-aa-ceo.json

{
  "calls": [
    {
      "sessionId": "af3b23a9-c818-4db4-b7b4-9e98805b80f2",
      "toolUseId": "toolu_01XUT8PJdYfH5EYkPVvpe1Ak",
      "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. Want to run it first? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-office-hours-offer>",
          "header": "Prerequisites",
          "multiSelect": false,
          "options": [
            {
              "label": "Skip — proceed with standard review (Recommended)",
              "description": "Jump straight into the plan review using the PLAN.md as-is. Fine for a small, well-scoped plan like this one."
            },
            {
              "label": "Run /office-hours first",
              "description": "Produce a structured design doc before review — gives the review sharper context on the problem statement and alternatives."
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "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. Want to run it first? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-office-hours-offer>": "Skip — proceed with standard review (Recommended)"
      },
      "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
      "answeredAt": "2026-09-09T12:55:04.074Z"
    },
    {
      "sessionId": "af3b23a9-c818-4db4-b7b4-9e98805b80f2",
      "toolUseId": "toolu_01CVh4uqCijv6okqG7eSBw4t",
      "questions": [
        {
          "question": "D1 — 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 — \"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 — 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 — 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 — \"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 — two tests, assertions impl-defined"
      },
      "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
      "answeredAt": "2026-09-09T12:55:52.231Z"
    },
    {
      "sessionId": "af3b23a9-c818-4db4-b7b4-9e98805b80f2",
      "toolUseId": "toolu_015FeBTpvnpj7xz4xQP6b8Dt",
      "questions": [
        {
          "question": "D2 — Which review mode for this plan? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-mode-d2>\n\nELI10: Test-coverage plans can be reviewed at different ambition levels. HOLD SCOPE means: make these two tests bulletproof, catch every gap, done. SELECTIVE EXPANSION means: hold scope but also surface any adjacent test opportunities the user can cherry-pick. EXPANSION would try to grow the scope significantly. REDUCTION would cut scope further.\n\nStakes if we pick wrong: The wrong mode wastes time on scope discussion for a deliberately tight plan, or leaves real gaps undiscovered.\n\nRecommendation: HOLD SCOPE because this is a deliberate, scoped test addition — the plan is explicit that these are separate concerns and the adapter suite already covers adjacent error paths. Maximum rigor on exactly what’s specified.\n\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.",
          "header": "Review mode",
          "multiSelect": false,
          "options": [
            {
              "label": "HOLD SCOPE — make the two tests bulletproof (Recommended)",
              "description": "Review with maximum rigor. Catch every gap in the existing spec. Do not surface expansion opportunities."
            },
            {
              "label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION — hold scope + cherry-pick expansions",
              "description": "Hold the two-test baseline, but surface adjacent opportunities (e.g. 402/429 in processPayment() suite, assertion helpers) for individual opt-in."
            },
            {
              "label": "SCOPE EXPANSION — dream big",
              "description": "Push the test suite scope up — describe the platonic ideal for processPayment() test coverage and present expansions."
            },
            {
              "label": "SCOPE REDUCTION — strip to essentials",
              "description": "Challenge whether both tests are needed; find the absolute minimum that validates the core behavior."
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "answered": true,
      "failed": false,
      "answers": {
        "D2 — Which review mode for this plan? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-mode-d2>\n\nELI10: Test-coverage plans can be reviewed at different ambition levels. HOLD SCOPE means: make these two tests bulletproof, catch every gap, done. SELECTIVE EXPANSION means: hold scope but also surface any adjacent test opportunities the user can cherry-pick. EXPANSION would try to grow the scope significantly. REDUCTION would cut scope further.\n\nStakes if we pick wrong: The wrong mode wastes time on scope discussion for a deliberately tight plan, or leaves real gaps undiscovered.\n\nRecommendation: HOLD SCOPE because this is a deliberate, scoped test addition — the plan is explicit that these are separate concerns and the adapter suite already covers adjacent error paths. Maximum rigor on exactly what’s specified.\n\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.": "HOLD SCOPE — make the two tests bulletproof (Recommended)"
      },
      "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
      "answeredAt": "2026-09-09T12:56:08.274Z"
    },
    {
      "sessionId": "af3b23a9-c818-4db4-b7b4-9e98805b80f2",
      "toolUseId": "toolu_01UL7VCzx5dRQjQpchTThmC6",
      "questions": [
        {
          "question": "D3 — Should the 502 test assert backoff delay, not just retry count? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-backoff-assertion>\n\nELI10: The plan says 'retry-with-backoff fires once.' The test factory injects a virtual sleeper that records backoff calls without real delays — so it CAN assert that a sleep happened (and how long). Without asserting the sleeper was called, the test verifies Stripe was charged twice, but a developer could silently remove the backoff (rate-hammering Stripe on 502s) and the test would still pass.\n\nStakes if we pick wrong: Omitting the backoff assertion creates a test that passes even when backoff is broken or absent — which is the most likely production risk in a retry path.\n\nRecommendation: A because 'retry-with-backoff' is a compound requirement: both the retry AND the backoff matter. The infrastructure already supports this assertion, so the cost is one extra line in the test. Explicit is better than implicit.\n\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=7/10\n\nPros / cons:",
          "header": "Backoff assertion",
          "multiSelect": false,
          "options": [
            {
              "label": "A) Assert backoff was recorded (Recommended)",
              "description": "Add to the plan: the 502 test must also assert the virtual sleeper recorded at least one backoff call. One extra assertion, protects the backoff invariant."
            },
            {
              "label": "B) Assert retry count only",
              "description": "Keep the plan as-is: only verify Stripe was charged exactly twice. Backoff testing is left to a future test or considered covered by the adapter suite."
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "answered": true,
      "failed": false,
      "answers": {
        "D3 — Should the 502 test assert backoff delay, not just retry count? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-backoff-assertion>\n\nELI10: The plan says 'retry-with-backoff fires once.' The test factory injects a virtual sleeper that records backoff calls without real delays — so it CAN assert that a sleep happened (and how long). Without asserting the sleeper was called, the test verifies Stripe was charged twice, but a developer could silently remove the backoff (rate-hammering Stripe on 502s) and the test would still pass.\n\nStakes if we pick wrong: Omitting the backoff assertion creates a test that passes even when backoff is broken or absent — which is the most likely production risk in a retry path.\n\nRecommendation: A because 'retry-with-backoff' is a compound requirement: both the retry AND the backoff matter. The infrastructure already supports this assertion, so the cost is one extra line in the test. Explicit is better than implicit.\n\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=7/10\n\nPros / cons:": "A) Assert backoff was recorded (Recommended)"
      },
      "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
      "answeredAt": "2026-09-09T12:57:48.620Z"
    },
    {
      "sessionId": "af3b23a9-c818-4db4-b7b4-9e98805b80f2",
      "toolUseId": "toolu_015xSMuHa4EqmoYSNuoUmhcp",
      "questions": [
        {
          "question": "D4 — What’s next after this CEO review? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-next-step>\n\nELI10: The CEO review is done and the plan is CLEARED. But Eng Review is the required shipping gate — it covers architecture, test plan rigor, and implementation correctness in more depth. Running it next locks in the plan before implementation starts.\n\nStakes if we pick wrong: Skipping eng review means the plan goes to implementation without a required gate check — leaving architecture and test-correctness gaps unverified.\n\nRecommendation: A because the dashboard shows Eng Review at 0 runs — required gate, not yet cleared.\n\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.",
          "header": "Next step",
          "multiSelect": false,
          "options": [
            {
              "label": "A) Run /plan-eng-review next (Recommended)",
              "description": "Required shipping gate. Covers implementation correctness, test plan rigor, and any architecture concerns. Takes ~10 minutes."
            },
            {
              "label": "B) Skip — handle reviews manually",
              "description": "Proceed to implementation without the eng review gate. CEO review findings still apply."
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "answered": true,
      "failed": false,
      "answers": {
        "D4 — What’s next after this CEO review? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-next-step>\n\nELI10: The CEO review is done and the plan is CLEARED. But Eng Review is the required shipping gate — it covers architecture, test plan rigor, and implementation correctness in more depth. Running it next locks in the plan before implementation starts.\n\nStakes if we pick wrong: Skipping eng review means the plan goes to implementation without a required gate check — leaving architecture and test-correctness gaps unverified.\n\nRecommendation: A because the dashboard shows Eng Review at 0 runs — required gate, not yet cleared.\n\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.": "A) Run /plan-eng-review next (Recommended)"
      },
      "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
      "answeredAt": "2026-09-09T13:02:33.428Z"
    }
  ],
  "planReadyRequests": [
    {
      "sessionId": "af3b23a9-c818-4db4-b7b4-9e98805b80f2",
      "toolUseId": "toolu_01JiMb6VDiZxpX7EGv8T1fcb",
      "timestamp": "2026-09-09T13:02:39.461Z",
      "failed": false
    }
  ],
  "report": "# CEO Plan Review — Payment Processing: Test Coverage\n\n## Context\n\n`processPayment()` is the critical orchestrating function for all payment flows, yet it has zero unit tests. The Stripe adapter suite covers network-level error paths; receipt-builder regressions cover the output layer. What's missing is a unit test that exercises the orchestrating function itself — verifying correct receipt generation on success and verifying graceful retry-and-fail behavior on 502 exhaustion. This review was conducted in HOLD SCOPE mode against the plan as stated.\n\n## Plan Being Reviewed\n\n**Source:** PLAN.md in the working repository.\n\nTests to add for `processPayment()`:\n1. Happy path — successful Stripe charge → assert correct receipt generated\n2. 502 error path — Stripe returns 502 → assert retry-with-backoff fires once, then fails clean\n\nExisting infrastructure reused: payment test factory (`max_retries=1`, Stripe mock call history), virtual sleeper (records backoff without real delays), Stripe adapter suite, receipt-builder regressions.\n\n## Review Decisions\n\n| ID | Question | Decision |\n|----|----------|----------|\n| D1 | Which implementation approach? | A — as planned; assertions impl-defined by the implementer |\n| D2 | Review mode? | HOLD SCOPE — maximum rigor on stated scope |\n| D3 | Should 502 test assert backoff, not just retry count? | A — assert backoff was recorded (virtual sleeper.recorded_calls ≥ 1) |\n\n**D3 is an approved addition to the plan scope.** The 502 test must assert both:\n- Stripe mock call count == 2 (two charge attempts)\n- Virtual sleeper recorded at least one backoff call\n\n## NOT in Scope\n\n- Tests for 402 card-decline path in processPayment() — covered by Stripe adapter suite; not part of stated scope.\n- Tests for 429 rate-limit path in processPayment() — same reason.\n- Any changes to processPayment() production behavior.\n\n## What Already Exists (Reused)\n\n- Payment test factory: `max_retries=1`, exposes Stripe mock call history — **REUSED**\n- Virtual sleeper: records backoff without real delays — **REUSED**\n- Stripe adapter suite: timeouts, 402, 429, 502→success — not touched; provides prior art\n- Receipt-builder failure regression tests — not touched\n\n## Dream State Delta\n\n```\nCURRENT STATE              THIS PLAN                   12-MONTH IDEAL\nZero unit tests for    →   2 unit tests:           →   Full processPayment()\nprocessPayment().          happy path (correctness)    unit suite: 402, 429,\nAdapter suite covers       + 502 exhaustion             502, timeout, idempotency,\nnetwork/error paths        (graceful degradation)      partial charge, concurrent\nbut not the function       + backoff assertion          double-submission.\nthat orchestrates them.    (per D3).\n```\n\n## Architecture Diagram\n\n```\nHAPPY PATH TEST:\n  ┌──────────────┐     ┌──────────────────┐     ┌──────────────┐     ┌─────────┐\n  │ test factory │────▶│ processPayment() │────▶│ Stripe mock  │────▶│ receipt │\n  │ (max_ret=1)  │     │ (production)     │     │ (success)    │     │ builder │\n  └──────────────┘     └──────────────────┘     └──────────────┘     └─────────┘\n                                                                         ▲ assert (impl-defined)\n\n502 EXHAUSTION TEST:\n  ┌──────────────┐     ┌──────────────────┐     ┌──────────────┐\n  │ test factory │────▶│ processPayment() │────▶│ Stripe mock  │\n  │ virtual      │     │ (retry loop)     │──▶  │ (502, call 1)│\n  │  sleeper     │     │                  │──▶  │ (502, call 2)│\n  └──────────────┘     └──────────────────┘     └──────────────┘\n      ▲ assert: sleeper.recorded_calls >= 1\n      ▲ assert: mock.call_count == 2\n      ▲ assert: fails clean (impl-defined)\n```\n\n## Error & Rescue Registry\n\n```\nMETHOD/CODEPATH           | WHAT CAN GO WRONG          | EXCEPTION CLASS\n--------------------------|----------------------------|-----------------\nprocessPayment() 502 path | Retries exhausted (×2)     | impl-defined (per D1)\n\nEXCEPTION CLASS           | RESCUED? | RESCUE ACTION        | USER SEES\n--------------------------|----------|----------------------|----------\nStripe 502 (exhausted)    | Y        | 2 attempts, backoff  | impl-defined (per D1)\n                          |          | recorded, fails clean|\n```\n\n## Failure Modes Registry\n\n```\nCODEPATH               | FAILURE MODE    | RESCUED? | TEST? | USER SEES? | LOGGED?\n-----------------------|-----------------|----------|-------|------------|--------\nprocessPayment() happy | Success         | N/A      | YES   | Receipt    | N/A\nprocessPayment() 502   | Retry exh. (×2) | Y        | YES   | impl-def.  | N/A\n```\n\nNo CRITICAL GAPS. Both paths tested.\n\n## Implementation Tasks\n\nSynthesized from this review's findings. Run with Claude Code; checkbox as you ship.\n\n- [ ] **T1 (P1, human: ~30min / CC: ~3min)** — processPayment() — Write happy path unit test\n  - Surfaced by: Section 6 — no existing unit test for processPayment() success path\n  - Files: `test/payment/process_payment_test.*` (language-appropriate path)\n  - Verify: test suite green; receipt assertion validates real fields (not just non-nil)\n\n- [ ] **T2 (P1, human: ~30min / CC: ~3min)** — processPayment() — Write 502 retry-exhaustion test with backoff assertion\n  - Surfaced by: Section 6 / D3 — no existing test; backoff assertion required (D3)\n  - Assert: `mock.call_count == 2` AND `sleeper.recorded_calls >= 1` AND processPayment() fails clean\n  - Files: `test/payment/process_payment_test.*` (separate describe/context block from T1)\n  - Verify: test suite green; both assertions active\n\n## Completion Summary\n\n```\n+====================================================================+\n|            MEGA PLAN REVIEW — COMPLETION SUMMARY                   |\n+====================================================================+\n| Mode selected        | HOLD SCOPE                                  |\n| System Audit         | Single commit, clean repo, test plan only   |\n| Step 0               | HOLD SCOPE + Approach A (impl-defined assert)|\n| Section 1  (Arch)    | 0 issues found                              |\n| Section 2  (Errors)  | 1 error path mapped, 0 CRITICAL GAPS        |\n| Section 3  (Security)| 0 issues found, 0 High severity             |\n| Section 4  (Data/UX) | 0 edge cases unhandled                      |\n| Section 5  (Quality) | 0 issues found                              |\n| Section 6  (Tests)   | Diagram produced, 1 gap resolved (D3)       |\n| Section 7  (Perf)    | 0 issues found                              |\n| Section 8  (Observ)  | 0 gaps found                                |\n| Section 9  (Deploy)  | 0 risks flagged                             |\n| Section 10 (Future)  | Reversibility: 5/5, debt items: 0          |\n| Section 11 (Design)  | SKIPPED (no UI scope)                       |\n+--------------------------------------------------------------------+\n| NOT in scope         | written (2 items)                            |\n| What already exists  | written                                     |\n| Dream state delta    | written                                     |\n| Error/rescue registry| 1 method, 0 CRITICAL GAPS                   |\n| Failure modes        | 1 total, 0 CRITICAL GAPS                    |\n| TODOS.md updates     | 0 (HOLD SCOPE, no deferred gaps)            |\n| Scope proposals      | N/A (HOLD SCOPE)                            |\n| CEO plan             | skipped (HOLD SCOPE)                        |\n| Outside voice        | skipped (codex_reviews=disabled)            |\n| Lake Score           | 3/3 recommendations chose complete option   |\n| Diagrams produced    | 2 (architecture, data flow)                 |\n| Stale diagrams found | 0                                           |\n| Unresolved decisions | 0                                           |\n+====================================================================+\n```\n\n## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT\n\n| Review | Trigger | Why | Runs | Status | Findings |\n|--------|---------|-----|------|--------|----------|\n| CEO Review | `/plan-ceo-review` | Scope & strategy | 1 | CLEAN (PLAN) | mode: HOLD_SCOPE, 0 critical gaps; 1 finding resolved (D3 backoff assertion added to plan) |\n| Outside Review | codex (disabled) | Independent 2nd opinion | 1 | DISABLED | codex_reviews=disabled |\n| Eng Review | `/plan-eng-review` | Architecture & tests (required) | 0 | — | — |\n| Design Review | `/plan-design-review` | UI/UX gaps | 0 | — | — |\n| DX Review | `/plan-devex-review` | Developer experience gaps | 0 | — | — |\n\n**OUTSIDE COVERAGE:** codex, plan-review phase, disabled (user opted out via codex_reviews=disabled). No outside coverage this run.\n\n**VERDICT:** CEO CLEARED — ready for eng review. Eng review required before implementation.\n\nNO UNRESOLVED DECISIONS\n",
  "reportOriginalMtimeNs": "1788958909759012951",
  "startedAt": 1788958303000,
  "capture": {
    "skill": "plan-ceo-review",
    "runId": "ship-source-aa-full-paid-20260909-1249-4",
    "cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-tFAxDC/tmp/gstack-plan-count-vTgb5Q",
    "claudeConfigDir": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-tFAxDC/tmp/gstack-hermetic-3210814-dO6EB3/with-skills/.claude",
    "at": "2026-09-09T13:08:49.020Z"
  },
  "pendingExitRecords": [
    {
      "source": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/.context/ship-source-aa-full-paid-20260909-1249/native-observation/hook-records/3211031-8216056/pendingExit/83f59e1ebb91cc1cf8cdd05c7ccf857db8ad189abfd6bd3791d32a2e76d9468c.json",
      "sha256": "83f59e1ebb91cc1cf8cdd05c7ccf857db8ad189abfd6bd3791d32a2e76d9468c",
      "record": {
        "sessionId": "af3b23a9-c818-4db4-b7b4-9e98805b80f2",
        "toolUseId": "toolu_01JiMb6VDiZxpX7EGv8T1fcb",
        "cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-tFAxDC/tmp/gstack-plan-count-vTgb5Q",
        "transcriptPath": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-tFAxDC/tmp/gstack-hermetic-3210814-dO6EB3/with-skills/.claude/projects/-tmp-gstack-paid-shard-tFAxDC-tmp-gstack-plan-count-vTgb5Q/af3b23a9-c818-4db4-b7b4-9e98805b80f2.jsonl",
        "timestamp": "2026-09-09T13:02:39.486Z"
      }
    }
  ],
  "screen": " +====================================================================+\n\n GSTACK REVIEW REPORT\n\n ┌──────────┬─────────────────────┬──────────────────┬──────┬───────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────┐\n │  Review  │       Trigger       │       Why        │ Runs │  Status   │                Findings                 │\n ├──────────┼─────────────────────┼──────────────────┼──────┼───────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────┤\n │ CEO      │                     │                  │      │ CLEAN     │ mode: HOLD_SCOPE, 0 critical gaps; 1    │\n │ Review   │ /plan-ceo-review    │ Scope & strategy │ 1    │ (PLAN)    │ finding resolved (D3 backoff assertion  │\n │          │                     │                  │      │           │ added to plan)                          │\n ├──────────┼─────────────────────┼──────────────────┼──────┼───────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────┤\n │ Outside  │ codex (disabled)    │ Independent 2nd  │ 1    │ DISABLED  │ codex_reviews=disabled                  │\n │ Review   │                     │ opinion          │      │           │                                         │\n ├──────────┼─────────────────────┼──────────────────┼──────┼───────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────┤\n │ Eng      │ /plan-eng-review    │ Architecture &   │ 0    │ —         │ —                                       │\n │ Review   │                     │ tests (required) │      │           │                                         │\n ├──────────┼─────────────────────┼──────────────────┼──────┼───────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────┤\n │ Design   │ /plan-design-review │ UI/UX gaps       │ 0    │ —         │ —                                       │\n │ Review   │                     │                  │      │           │                                         │\n ├──────────┼─────────────────────┼──────────────────┼──────┼───────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────┤\n │ DX       │ /plan-devex-review  │ Developer        │ 0    │ —         │ —                                       │\n │ Review   │                     │ experience gaps  │      │           │                                         │\n └──────────┴─────────────────────┴──────────────────┴──────┴───────────┴─────────────────────────────────────────┘\n\n OUTSIDE COVERAGE: codex, plan-review phase, disabled (user opted out via codex_reviews=disabled). No outside coverage\n this run.\n\n VERDICT: CEO CLEARED — ready for eng review. Eng review required before implementation.\n\n NO UNRESOLVED DECISIONS\n╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌╌\n\n────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\n Claude has written up a plan and is ready to execute. Would you like to proceed?\n\n ❯ 1. Yes, and use auto mode\n   2. Yes, manually approve edits\n   3. Tell Claude what to change\n      shift+tab to approve with this feedback\n"
}