Files
gstack/test/skill-e2e-plan-format.test.ts
Garry Tan a81be53621 v1.10.0.0: fix AskUserQuestion cadence + Pros/Cons format upgrade (#1178)
* fix(preamble): reorder AskUserQuestion Format above model overlay + rewrite Opus 4.7 pacing directive

Root cause of plan-review regression (v1.6.4.0): model overlays rendered
ABOVE the pacing rule in every SKILL.md, so Opus 4.7 read "Batch your
questions" first and absorbed it as the ambient default. The overlay's
claimed subordination ("skill wins on pacing, always") didn't stick —
literal-interpretation mode reads physical order, not claimed hierarchy.

Part 1 of 4 (plan: ~/.claude/plans/system-instruction-you-are-working-polymorphic-twilight.md):

scripts/resolvers/preamble.ts
- Move generateAskUserFormat above generateModelOverlay in section array
- Comment explains why — prevents future refactors from silently reverting

model-overlays/opus-4-7.md
- Replace "Batch your questions" block with "Pace questions to the skill"
- New wording makes one-question-per-turn the default when the skill
  contains STOP directives; batching becomes the explicit exception

Regenerated 30 SKILL.md files via bun run gen:skill-docs.

Verified:
- With --model opus-4-7: Format renders at line 359, Model-Specific
  Patch at 373, "Pace questions" at 419 (Format comes first, overlay
  second, pacing directive intact).
- bun test passes.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* fix(plan-reviews): tighten STOP/escape-hatch directives across 4 templates

Part 2 of 4 (plan: ~/.claude/plans/system-instruction-you-are-working-polymorphic-twilight.md).

Codex caught that v1.6.3.0's reasoning collapsed on Opus 4.7: the old
escape-hatch wording ("If no issues or fix is obvious, state what
you'll do and move on — don't waste a question") let the literal
interpreter classify every finding as having an "obvious fix" and skip
AskUserQuestion entirely. Reviews became reports.

Per-template hardening (16 sites total, verified by rg):

plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md.tmpl (13 sites):
- 12 inline STOP directives: replace the full escape-hatch clause with
  "zero findings → say so and proceed; findings → MUST call AskUserQuestion
  as a tool_use, including for obvious fixes."
- 1 Escape hatch bullet in CRITICAL RULE section: tightened.

plan-eng-review, plan-design-review, plan-devex-review (1 site each):
- Each template's Escape hatch bullet tightened to match the new CEO wording,
  adapted for each review's domain (issue/gap, decision/design/DX alternatives).

After regeneration: rg "don't waste a question" returns 0 across all
*SKILL.md.tmpl and *SKILL.md files. "zero findings, state" wording
present 16 times (matches prior count of escape-hatch sites).

bun test passes.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* feat(preamble): upgrade AskUserQuestion format to Pros/Cons decision brief

Part 4 of 4 (plan: ~/.claude/plans/system-instruction-you-are-working-polymorphic-twilight.md).

Every AskUserQuestion now renders as a decision brief, not a bullet list:
D-numbered header, ELI10, Stakes-if-we-pick-wrong, Recommendation, Pros/Cons
with / markers per option, closing Net: tradeoff synthesis.

scripts/resolvers/preamble/generate-ask-user-format.ts
- Full rewrite. Preserves prior rules (Re-ground, ELI10, Recommend,
  Completeness, Options) and adds:
  - D-numbering per skill invocation (model-level, not runtime state)
  - Stakes line (pain avoided / capability unlocked / consequence named)
  - Pros/Cons block with min 2  + 1  per option, min 40 chars/bullet
  - Hard-stop escape: " No cons — this is a hard-stop choice" for
    genuine one-sided choices (destructive-action confirmations)
  - Neutral-posture handling (CT1-compliant): (recommended) label
    STAYS on default option to preserve AUTO_DECIDE contract; neutrality
    expressed as prose in Recommendation line only
  - Net line closes the decision with a one-sentence tradeoff frame
  - Rule 11: tool_use mandate (prose "Question:" blocks don't count)
  - Self-check list before emitting

test/skill-validation.test.ts
- Update format assertions to check for new Pros/Cons tokens
  (Pros / cons:, Recommendation: <choice>, Net:, ELI10, Stakes if we
  pick wrong:, , ) across all tier-2+ skills
- Old "RECOMMENDATION: Choose" expectation removed (the new format uses
  mixed-case "Recommendation:" with no literal "Choose")

test/skill-e2e-plan-format.test.ts
- Add v1.7.0.0 format token regexes (PROS_CONS_HEADER_RE, PRO_BULLET_RE,
  CON_BULLET_RE, NET_LINE_RE, D_NUMBER_RE, STAKES_RE)
- Existing RECOMMENDATION_RE loosened to accept mixed-case "Recommendation:"
  (canonical v1.7.0.0 form) alongside all-caps (legacy). Tests are
  additive — the strict new-format gate is the upcoming cadence eval.

Regenerated 30 SKILL.md files via bun run gen:skill-docs.

Verified:
- bun test: 319 pass (1 pre-existing security-bench fixture oversize
  failure on main, unrelated — confirmed via git stash test on main HEAD)
- New format tokens render in all tier-2+ skills (plan-ceo-review,
  plan-eng-review, ship, office-hours verified)

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* test: gate-tier units + periodic Pros/Cons evals for AskUserQuestion format

Part 3 of 4 (plan: ~/.claude/plans/system-instruction-you-are-working-polymorphic-twilight.md).

Gate-tier (E1, free, runs on every `bun test`):

test/preamble-compose.test.ts — pins the composition order
  Asserts AskUserQuestion Format section renders BEFORE Model-Specific
  Behavioral Patch in tier-≥2 preamble output. Covers claude default,
  opus-4-7 overlay, tier 2/3, and codex host. Catches any future edit
  to scripts/resolvers/preamble.ts that silently reverts the order.

test/resolver-ask-user-format.test.ts — pins the Pros/Cons contract
  14 assertions against generateAskUserFormat output: D<N>, ELI10,
  Stakes if we pick wrong:, Recommendation: <choice>, Pros / cons:,
  / markers, min 2 pros + 1 con rules, hard-stop escape exact
  phrase, neutral-posture CT1 rule ((recommended) label preserved for
  AUTO_DECIDE), Completeness coverage-vs-kind, tool_use mandate
  (rule 11), self-check list, D-numbering model-level caveat.

test/model-overlay-opus-4-7.test.ts — pins the pacing directive
  Asserts raw overlay file + resolved overlay output contain "Pace
  questions to the skill" and NOT "Batch your questions". Verifies
  INHERIT:claude chain still works (Todo-list, subordination wrapper),
  Fan out / Effort-match / Literal interpretation nudges preserved.
  Also asserts claude base overlay does NOT carry the Opus-specific
  pacing directive (no cross-contamination).

Periodic-tier (E2, Opus-dependent, ~$1-2/run):

test/skill-e2e-plan-prosons.test.ts — 4 cases extending v1.6.3.0 harness
  1. Format positive — every token present when plan has real tradeoff
  2. Hard-stop NEGATIVE — plan with genuine tradeoff must NOT dodge to
     "No cons — hard-stop choice" escape
  3. Neutral-posture NEGATIVE — plan where one option dominates must emit
     (recommended) label + "because <reason>", must NOT dodge to
     "taste call" / "no preference"
  4. Hard-stop POSITIVE — destructive-action plan may legitimately use
     the hard-stop escape

test/helpers/touchfiles.ts — entries for all new eval cases
  Dependencies: overlay, preamble.ts, generate-ask-user-format.ts, and
  the 4 plan-review templates. Diff-based selection triggers the evals
  whenever those files change. Also added entries for 7 expanded-coverage
  cases (ship, office-hours, investigate, qa, review, design-review,
  document-release) — test cases will land in follow-up PRs per skill.

Follow-ups noted in test file header:
- True multi-turn cadence eval (3 findings → 3 distinct asks) — current
  harness captures one $OUT_FILE per session; multi-turn capture needs
  new harness support.
- Expanded-coverage test cases for the 7 non-plan-review skills.

Verified:
- bun test: 349 pass (30 new + 319 baseline), 1 pre-existing security-bench
  oversize failure on main (unrelated, unchanged).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* test: regenerate golden fixtures + update ELI10 phrase check for v1.7.0.0

Pros/Cons format rewrite (6b99df9d) changed the resolver output across all
tier-2+ SKILL.md files. Three golden-file regression tests in
test/host-config.test.ts and one phrase-check test in test/gen-skill-docs.test.ts
were failing as expected.

- test/fixtures/golden/claude-ship-SKILL.md
- test/fixtures/golden/codex-ship-SKILL.md
- test/fixtures/golden/factory-ship-SKILL.md
  Regenerated via `bun run gen:skill-docs --host all` + cp into fixtures.

- test/gen-skill-docs.test.ts line 244: rename test from "ELI16 simplification
  rules" to "ELI10 simplification rules" and match the new phrase pattern.
  v1.7.0.0 uses "ELI10 (ALWAYS)" rather than legacy "Simplify (ELI10, ALWAYS)".

bun test: 744 pass, 1 fail (pre-existing security-bench fixture oversize,
unrelated to this branch).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* v1.7.0.0: plan reviews walk you through each issue with Pros/Cons

Restores AskUserQuestion cadence on Opus 4.7 (v1.6.4.0 regression) and
upgrades the format to a numbered decision brief — D<N> header, ELI10,
Stakes, Recommendation, per-option / bullets, Net: closing line.

Fix: composition reorder + overlay rewrite + 16-site escape-hatch hardening
across the 4 plan-review templates.
Feature: Pros/Cons format in the preamble resolver, inherited by every
tier-2+ skill automatically.

30 new gate-tier unit tests pin the format contract (runs in <100ms, $0).
4 new periodic-tier eval cases defend against escape-hatch abuse
(2 positive, 2 negative). Golden fixtures regenerated.

CEO + Eng + Codex reviews completed. 5 of 8 Codex findings incorporated;
CT2 (16 sites, not 31) and CT1 (AUTO_DECIDE contract break) were
load-bearing catches the primary reviews missed.

bun test: 774 pass, 1 fail (pre-existing security-bench oversize, unrelated).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* v1.10.0.0: bump VERSION (was v1.7.0.0, align with branch discipline)

Per user direction — jumping to 1.10.0.0 for versioning alignment.
No functional changes from the prior ship commit (5f038ab7). The
regression fix + Pros/Cons format are identical.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

---------

Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-04-23 18:25:34 -07:00

313 lines
13 KiB
TypeScript

/**
* AskUserQuestion format regression test for /plan-ceo-review and /plan-eng-review.
*
* Context: a user on Opus 4.7 reported the RECOMMENDATION line and the
* `Completeness: N/10` per-option score stopped appearing on AskUserQuestion
* prompts. This test captures the agent's AskUserQuestion output verbatim
* and asserts the format rule is applied.
*
* Capture shape: `claude -p` sessions inside this harness do not have the
* AskUserQuestion MCP tool wired. We instruct the agent to write the verbatim
* AskUserQuestion text it would have made to $OUT_FILE instead of calling
* any tool. Assertions read that file.
*
* Coverage-vs-kind split: the format rule says to include `Completeness: N/10`
* only when options differ in coverage. When options differ in kind (mode
* selection, posture choice, cherry-pick Add/Defer/Skip), the score is
* intentionally absent and a one-line note explains why. Assertions split
* accordingly.
*/
import { describe, test, expect, beforeAll, afterAll } from 'bun:test';
import { runSkillTest } from './helpers/session-runner';
import {
ROOT, runId,
describeIfSelected, testConcurrentIfSelected,
logCost, recordE2E,
createEvalCollector, finalizeEvalCollector,
} from './helpers/e2e-helpers';
import { spawnSync } from 'child_process';
import * as fs from 'fs';
import * as path from 'path';
import * as os from 'os';
const evalCollector = createEvalCollector('e2e-plan-format');
// Regex predicates applied to captured AskUserQuestion content.
// RECOMMENDATION regex is lenient on intervening markdown markers (e.g.
// agent writes `**RECOMMENDATION:** Choose` — the `**` closers are benign).
// Post v1.7.0.0: "Recommendation:" (mixed-case) is the canonical form per
// the Pros/Cons format; accept both cases for backward compatibility.
const RECOMMENDATION_RE = /[Rr]ecommendation:[*\s]*Choose/;
const COMPLETENESS_RE = /Completeness:\s*\d{1,2}\/10/;
const KIND_NOTE_RE = /options differ in kind/i;
// v1.7.0.0 Pros/Cons format tokens. Tests are additive: existing
// RECOMMENDATION / Completeness / kind-note assertions still hold; new
// format tokens are asserted ONLY when the capture is from a v1.7+
// skill rendering. Presence is optional for backward compatibility during
// rollout; the periodic-tier cadence+format eval (see skill-e2e-plan-cadence)
// is the strict gate for the new format.
const PROS_CONS_HEADER_RE = /Pros\s*\/\s*cons:/i;
const PRO_BULLET_RE = /^\s*✅\s+\S/m;
const CON_BULLET_RE = /^\s*❌\s+\S/m;
const NET_LINE_RE = /^Net:\s+\S/m;
const D_NUMBER_RE = /^D\d+\s+—/m;
const STAKES_RE = /Stakes if we pick wrong:/i;
const SAMPLE_PLAN = `# Plan: Add User Dashboard
## Context
We're building a new user dashboard that shows recent activity, notifications, and quick actions.
## Changes
1. New React component \`UserDashboard\` in \`src/components/\`
2. REST API endpoint \`GET /api/dashboard\` returning user stats
3. PostgreSQL query for activity aggregation
4. Redis cache layer for dashboard data (5min TTL)
## Architecture
- Frontend: React + TailwindCSS
- Backend: Express.js REST API
- Database: PostgreSQL with existing user/activity tables
- Cache: Redis for dashboard aggregates
`;
function setupPlanDir(tmpPrefix: string, skillName: 'plan-ceo-review' | 'plan-eng-review'): string {
const planDir = fs.mkdtempSync(path.join(os.tmpdir(), tmpPrefix));
const run = (cmd: string, args: string[]) =>
spawnSync(cmd, args, { cwd: planDir, stdio: 'pipe', timeout: 5000 });
run('git', ['init', '-b', 'main']);
run('git', ['config', 'user.email', 'test@test.com']);
run('git', ['config', 'user.name', 'Test']);
fs.writeFileSync(path.join(planDir, 'plan.md'), SAMPLE_PLAN);
run('git', ['add', '.']);
run('git', ['commit', '-m', 'add plan']);
fs.mkdirSync(path.join(planDir, skillName), { recursive: true });
fs.copyFileSync(
path.join(ROOT, skillName, 'SKILL.md'),
path.join(planDir, skillName, 'SKILL.md'),
);
return planDir;
}
// The capture instruction passed to every case. Tells the agent to dump
// AskUserQuestion content to a file instead of calling a tool.
function captureInstruction(outFile: string): string {
return `Write the verbatim text of every AskUserQuestion you would have made to ${outFile} (one question per session, full text including options and recommendation line). Do NOT call any tool to ask the user. Do NOT paraphrase — include the exact prose you would have shown. This is a format-capture test, not an interactive session.`;
}
// --- Case 1: plan-ceo-review mode selection (kind-differentiated) ---
describeIfSelected('Plan Format — CEO Mode Selection', ['plan-ceo-review-format-mode'], () => {
let planDir: string;
let outFile: string;
beforeAll(() => {
planDir = setupPlanDir('skill-e2e-plan-format-ceo-mode-', 'plan-ceo-review');
outFile = path.join(planDir, 'ask-capture.md');
});
afterAll(() => {
try { fs.rmSync(planDir, { recursive: true, force: true }); } catch {}
});
testConcurrentIfSelected('plan-ceo-review-format-mode', async () => {
const result = await runSkillTest({
prompt: `Read plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md for the review workflow.
Read plan.md — that's the plan to review. This is a standalone plan document, not a codebase — skip any codebase exploration or system audit steps.
Proceed to Step 0F (Mode Selection). This is where the skill presents 4 mode options (SCOPE EXPANSION, SELECTIVE EXPANSION, HOLD SCOPE, SCOPE REDUCTION) to the user via AskUserQuestion. These options differ in kind (review posture), not in coverage.
${captureInstruction(outFile)}
After writing the file, stop. Do not continue the review.`,
workingDirectory: planDir,
maxTurns: 10,
timeout: 240_000,
testName: 'plan-ceo-review-format-mode',
runId,
model: 'claude-opus-4-7',
});
logCost('/plan-ceo-review format (mode)', result);
recordE2E(evalCollector, '/plan-ceo-review-format-mode', 'Plan Format — CEO Mode Selection', result, {
passed: ['success', 'error_max_turns'].includes(result.exitReason),
});
expect(['success', 'error_max_turns']).toContain(result.exitReason);
expect(fs.existsSync(outFile)).toBe(true);
const captured = fs.readFileSync(outFile, 'utf-8');
expect(captured.length).toBeGreaterThan(100);
// Kind-differentiated: RECOMMENDATION required, Completeness: N/10 must NOT appear,
// "options differ in kind" note must appear.
expect(captured).toMatch(RECOMMENDATION_RE);
expect(captured).not.toMatch(COMPLETENESS_RE);
expect(captured).toMatch(KIND_NOTE_RE);
}, 300_000);
});
// --- Case 2: plan-ceo-review approach menu (coverage-differentiated) ---
describeIfSelected('Plan Format — CEO Approach Menu', ['plan-ceo-review-format-approach'], () => {
let planDir: string;
let outFile: string;
beforeAll(() => {
planDir = setupPlanDir('skill-e2e-plan-format-ceo-approach-', 'plan-ceo-review');
outFile = path.join(planDir, 'ask-capture.md');
});
afterAll(() => {
try { fs.rmSync(planDir, { recursive: true, force: true }); } catch {}
});
testConcurrentIfSelected('plan-ceo-review-format-approach', async () => {
const result = await runSkillTest({
prompt: `Read plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md for the review workflow.
Read plan.md — that's the plan to review. This is a standalone plan document, not a codebase — skip any codebase exploration or system audit steps.
Proceed to Step 0C-bis (Implementation Alternatives / Approach Menu). This is where the skill generates 2-3 approaches (minimal viable vs ideal architecture) and presents them via AskUserQuestion. These options differ in coverage (complete vs shortcut), so Completeness: N/10 applies.
${captureInstruction(outFile)}
After writing the file, stop. Do not continue the review.`,
workingDirectory: planDir,
maxTurns: 10,
timeout: 240_000,
testName: 'plan-ceo-review-format-approach',
runId,
model: 'claude-opus-4-7',
});
logCost('/plan-ceo-review format (approach)', result);
recordE2E(evalCollector, '/plan-ceo-review-format-approach', 'Plan Format — CEO Approach Menu', result, {
passed: ['success', 'error_max_turns'].includes(result.exitReason),
});
expect(['success', 'error_max_turns']).toContain(result.exitReason);
expect(fs.existsSync(outFile)).toBe(true);
const captured = fs.readFileSync(outFile, 'utf-8');
expect(captured.length).toBeGreaterThan(100);
// Coverage-differentiated: both RECOMMENDATION and Completeness: N/10 required.
expect(captured).toMatch(RECOMMENDATION_RE);
expect(captured).toMatch(COMPLETENESS_RE);
}, 300_000);
});
// --- Case 3: plan-eng-review coverage-differentiated per-issue AskUserQuestion ---
describeIfSelected('Plan Format — Eng Coverage Issue', ['plan-eng-review-format-coverage'], () => {
let planDir: string;
let outFile: string;
beforeAll(() => {
planDir = setupPlanDir('skill-e2e-plan-format-eng-cov-', 'plan-eng-review');
outFile = path.join(planDir, 'ask-capture.md');
});
afterAll(() => {
try { fs.rmSync(planDir, { recursive: true, force: true }); } catch {}
});
testConcurrentIfSelected('plan-eng-review-format-coverage', async () => {
const result = await runSkillTest({
prompt: `Read plan-eng-review/SKILL.md for the review workflow.
Read plan.md — that's the plan to review. This is a standalone plan document, not a codebase — skip any codebase exploration steps.
During your review (Section 3 Test Review is the natural place), generate ONE AskUserQuestion about test coverage depth where the options are clearly coverage-differentiated. For example:
A) Full coverage: happy path + edge cases + error paths (Completeness 10/10)
B) Happy path only (Completeness 7/10)
C) Smoke test (Completeness 3/10)
${captureInstruction(outFile)}
After writing the file with that ONE question, stop. Do not continue the review.`,
workingDirectory: planDir,
maxTurns: 10,
timeout: 240_000,
testName: 'plan-eng-review-format-coverage',
runId,
model: 'claude-opus-4-7',
});
logCost('/plan-eng-review format (coverage)', result);
recordE2E(evalCollector, '/plan-eng-review-format-coverage', 'Plan Format — Eng Coverage Issue', result, {
passed: ['success', 'error_max_turns'].includes(result.exitReason),
});
expect(['success', 'error_max_turns']).toContain(result.exitReason);
expect(fs.existsSync(outFile)).toBe(true);
const captured = fs.readFileSync(outFile, 'utf-8');
expect(captured.length).toBeGreaterThan(100);
// Coverage-differentiated: both RECOMMENDATION and Completeness: N/10 required.
expect(captured).toMatch(RECOMMENDATION_RE);
expect(captured).toMatch(COMPLETENESS_RE);
}, 300_000);
});
// --- Case 4: plan-eng-review kind-differentiated per-issue AskUserQuestion ---
describeIfSelected('Plan Format — Eng Kind Issue', ['plan-eng-review-format-kind'], () => {
let planDir: string;
let outFile: string;
beforeAll(() => {
planDir = setupPlanDir('skill-e2e-plan-format-eng-kind-', 'plan-eng-review');
outFile = path.join(planDir, 'ask-capture.md');
});
afterAll(() => {
try { fs.rmSync(planDir, { recursive: true, force: true }); } catch {}
});
testConcurrentIfSelected('plan-eng-review-format-kind', async () => {
const result = await runSkillTest({
prompt: `Read plan-eng-review/SKILL.md for the review workflow.
Read plan.md — that's the plan to review. This is a standalone plan document, not a codebase — skip any codebase exploration steps.
During your review (Section 1 Architecture), generate ONE AskUserQuestion about an architectural choice where the options differ in kind, not in coverage. For example, "should we use Redis or Postgres for the cache layer?" — the options are different kinds of systems with different tradeoffs, not more-or-less-complete versions of the same thing.
${captureInstruction(outFile)}
After writing the file with that ONE question, stop. Do not continue the review.`,
workingDirectory: planDir,
maxTurns: 10,
timeout: 240_000,
testName: 'plan-eng-review-format-kind',
runId,
model: 'claude-opus-4-7',
});
logCost('/plan-eng-review format (kind)', result);
recordE2E(evalCollector, '/plan-eng-review-format-kind', 'Plan Format — Eng Kind Issue', result, {
passed: ['success', 'error_max_turns'].includes(result.exitReason),
});
expect(['success', 'error_max_turns']).toContain(result.exitReason);
expect(fs.existsSync(outFile)).toBe(true);
const captured = fs.readFileSync(outFile, 'utf-8');
expect(captured.length).toBeGreaterThan(100);
// Kind-differentiated: RECOMMENDATION required, Completeness: N/10 must NOT appear,
// "options differ in kind" note must appear.
expect(captured).toMatch(RECOMMENDATION_RE);
expect(captured).not.toMatch(COMPLETENESS_RE);
expect(captured).toMatch(KIND_NOTE_RE);
}, 300_000);
});
afterAll(async () => {
await finalizeEvalCollector(evalCollector);
});