gstack/test/fixtures/eng-count-c6fc-public.json

{
  "source": "c6fc33c5c375f0a9252a9aba5c256b21a8885db5",
  "actualOutcome": "CANCELLED",
  "startedAt": 1789548725627,
  "finishedAt": 1789550250000,
  "transcript": {
    "status": "ready",
    "calls": [
      {
        "sessionId": "3d6236a1-ef48-4cc7-80f0-837773805fac",
        "toolUseId": "toolu_01VEf4wbWLKTkBJrYrY2ZewV",
        "questions": [
          {
            "question": "D1 \u2014 Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: main branch of the plan-review fixture repo; one-time gstack onboarding prompt before the PLAN.md engineering review.\nELI10: gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules, so that asking for \"review the architecture\" or \"investigate this bug\" automatically routes to the right skill. This is a one-time question per project. Plan mode is active, so if you say yes the CLAUDE.md append and commit happen after plan mode ends, not now.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Without routing you invoke skills by name manually; with it, a CLAUDE.md commit lands in a fixture repo that may not want it.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules are cheap, reversible, and remove a recurring manual step.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: convenience of auto-routing vs keeping the fixture's CLAUDE.md untouched.",
            "header": "Routing",
            "multiSelect": false,
            "options": [
              {
                "label": "Add routing rules (recommended)",
                "description": "\u2705 Requests like \"review the architecture\" auto-route to the right gstack skill\n\u2705 Reversible: a plain markdown section, removable in one commit\n\u274c Adds a CLAUDE.md section and commit to this repo (deferred until plan mode exits)"
              },
              {
                "label": "No thanks, manual invocation",
                "description": "\u2705 Leaves this fixture repo's CLAUDE.md and git history untouched\n\u2705 You keep full control over when skills run\n\u274c Every skill must be typed by name; the prompt will not repeat for this project"
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "answered": true,
        "failed": false,
        "answers": {
          "D1 \u2014 Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: main branch of the plan-review fixture repo; one-time gstack onboarding prompt before the PLAN.md engineering review.\nELI10: gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules, so that asking for \"review the architecture\" or \"investigate this bug\" automatically routes to the right skill. This is a one-time question per project. Plan mode is active, so if you say yes the CLAUDE.md append and commit happen after plan mode ends, not now.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Without routing you invoke skills by name manually; with it, a CLAUDE.md commit lands in a fixture repo that may not want it.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules are cheap, reversible, and remove a recurring manual step.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: convenience of auto-routing vs keeping the fixture's CLAUDE.md untouched.": "Add routing rules (recommended)"
        },
        "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
        "answeredAt": "2026-09-16T08:52:41.877Z"
      },
      {
        "sessionId": "3d6236a1-ef48-4cc7-80f0-837773805fac",
        "toolUseId": "toolu_01BqT5xtm8VTaVxBP7fn21K2",
        "questions": [
          {
            "question": "D2 \u2014 Let gstack search learnings from your other projects on this machine?\nProject/branch/task: main branch of the plan-review fixture; one-time gstack setup before the PLAN.md engineering review.\nELI10: gstack keeps notes (\"learnings\") from past review sessions: pitfalls, patterns, things that bit you. By default it only looks at notes from this project. Cross-project mode also searches notes from your other repos on this machine. Everything stays local; nothing leaves the machine. Good for a solo developer; skip if you work on multiple client codebases where one client's patterns must not inform another's.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Enabled on a shared machine could surface one client's learnings while reviewing another's code; disabled means each project starts cold.\nRecommendation: A because this is a local-only fixture with no client-separation concern, and prior patterns make reviews sharper.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: sharper reviews from shared local history vs strict per-project isolation.",
            "header": "Learnings",
            "multiSelect": false,
            "options": [
              {
                "label": "Enable cross-project (recommended)",
                "description": "\u2705 Reviews reuse pitfalls and patterns already learned in your other local repos\n\u2705 Stays entirely on this machine; no network, reversible with one config command\n\u274c Learnings from unrelated codebases may occasionally surface where they do not apply"
              },
              {
                "label": "Keep project-scoped",
                "description": "\u2705 Strict isolation: nothing from other client codebases informs this review\n\u2705 Zero chance of cross-contamination between separate customers' work\n\u274c Every new project starts with an empty learnings history"
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "answered": true,
        "failed": false,
        "answers": {
          "D2 \u2014 Let gstack search learnings from your other projects on this machine?\nProject/branch/task: main branch of the plan-review fixture; one-time gstack setup before the PLAN.md engineering review.\nELI10: gstack keeps notes (\"learnings\") from past review sessions: pitfalls, patterns, things that bit you. By default it only looks at notes from this project. Cross-project mode also searches notes from your other repos on this machine. Everything stays local; nothing leaves the machine. Good for a solo developer; skip if you work on multiple client codebases where one client's patterns must not inform another's.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Enabled on a shared machine could surface one client's learnings while reviewing another's code; disabled means each project starts cold.\nRecommendation: A because this is a local-only fixture with no client-separation concern, and prior patterns make reviews sharper.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: sharper reviews from shared local history vs strict per-project isolation.": "Enable cross-project (recommended)"
        },
        "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
        "answeredAt": "2026-09-16T08:53:48.029Z"
      },
      {
        "sessionId": "3d6236a1-ef48-4cc7-80f0-837773805fac",
        "toolUseId": "toolu_01RnNVDqeJ1mDV4yCbB6WzGT",
        "questions": [
          {
            "question": "D3 \u2014 Keep the IDP-call parallelization inside this refactor, or split it into its own change?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md \"Multi-tenant Auth Refactor\"; Scope Challenge complexity gate, feature cut/deferral 1 of 2.\nELI10: The plan promises \"no product behavior change\" (PLAN.md:8-9), then proposes firing 5 identity-provider calls at once instead of one after another (PLAN.md:40-41). Going parallel changes real things: the IDP sees 5 simultaneous requests per validation instead of a trickle, which error shows up first changes, and a failure in call 2 no longer prevents calls 3-5 from being sent. If a bug appears after shipping, you cannot tell whether the restructure or the speedup caused it.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Bundled, a latency win and a refactor share one blame radius and one rollback; deferred, users keep waiting on 5 serial round-trips a little longer.\nRecommendation: B because a refactor that claims zero behavior change should be verifiable as exactly that; the speedup is a 30-minute follow-up with its own tests once the structure lands.\nCompleteness: A=7/10, B=10/10, C=3/10\nNet: one faster PR with mixed blame vs two clean PRs, each provable on its own.",
            "header": "Parallelize",
            "multiSelect": false,
            "options": [
              {
                "label": "Split into follow-up PR (recommended)",
                "description": "\u2705 The refactor stays a pure structural change you can diff-test against legacyAuthFlow() behavior\n\u2705 Parallelization lands next with its own error-semantics decision and load test (human: ~half day / CC: ~30 min)\n\u274c Users wait on 5 serial IDP round-trips for one more release cycle"
              },
              {
                "label": "Bundle it in this refactor",
                "description": "\u2705 One PR, latency win ships now alongside the reorganization\n\u2705 The IDP client is already being touched, so the edit is cheap (human: ~2h / CC: ~10 min)\n\u274c Mixes a behavior change into a \"no behavior change\" refactor; regressions become ambiguous to attribute"
              },
              {
                "label": "Drop it entirely",
                "description": "\u2705 Smallest possible scope for this work; nothing to decide about error semantics\n\u2705 No IDP rate-limit or burst-shape risk introduced\n\u274c Leaves a known, cheap, measurable latency fix on the floor with no owner"
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "answered": true,
        "failed": false,
        "answers": {
          "D3 \u2014 Keep the IDP-call parallelization inside this refactor, or split it into its own change?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md \"Multi-tenant Auth Refactor\"; Scope Challenge complexity gate, feature cut/deferral 1 of 2.\nELI10: The plan promises \"no product behavior change\" (PLAN.md:8-9), then proposes firing 5 identity-provider calls at once instead of one after another (PLAN.md:40-41). Going parallel changes real things: the IDP sees 5 simultaneous requests per validation instead of a trickle, which error shows up first changes, and a failure in call 2 no longer prevents calls 3-5 from being sent. If a bug appears after shipping, you cannot tell whether the restructure or the speedup caused it.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Bundled, a latency win and a refactor share one blame radius and one rollback; deferred, users keep waiting on 5 serial round-trips a little longer.\nRecommendation: B because a refactor that claims zero behavior change should be verifiable as exactly that; the speedup is a 30-minute follow-up with its own tests once the structure lands.\nCompleteness: A=7/10, B=10/10, C=3/10\nNet: one faster PR with mixed blame vs two clean PRs, each provable on its own.": "Split into follow-up PR (recommended)"
        },
        "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
        "answeredAt": "2026-09-16T08:55:19.788Z"
      },
      {
        "sessionId": "3d6236a1-ef48-4cc7-80f0-837773805fac",
        "toolUseId": "toolu_01Sj3kMV5WGrgRP5Y9N2eVK8",
        "questions": [
          {
            "question": "D4 \u2014 What happens to `TokenStore`, the new class the plan names but never describes?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md \"Multi-tenant Auth Refactor\"; Scope Challenge complexity gate, feature cut/deferral 2 of 2.\nELI10: PLAN.md:44-45 lists five new classes. Four are explained somewhere in the plan. `TokenStore` is not: no job, no caller, no relation to `AuthCache`, which already stores tokens keyed by tenant, issuer, audience and policy version (PLAN.md:16-22). In an auth system, an unexplained second place that holds tokens is where stale-token and cross-tenant bugs hide. Either it has a real distinct job that belongs in the plan, or it is a leftover name.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Build it blind and you may ship two token stores with drifting invalidation rules; cut it and it turns out to hold something AuthCache cannot (e.g. refresh tokens or mint receipts), forcing a re-plan.\nRecommendation: A because the plan's own contract section says one backing cache; anything TokenStore would do either belongs in AuthCache or has not been justified yet. Re-add it with a written responsibility if a real gap appears.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: remove an undefined moving part now vs carry it forward on faith.",
            "header": "TokenStore",
            "multiSelect": false,
            "options": [
              {
                "label": "Cut it from this plan (recommended)",
                "description": "\u2705 One token holder (the existing adapter behind AuthCache), one set of invalidation rules to reason about\n\u2705 Drops the class count to 4 and removes an undefined component from an auth path\n\u274c If SessionMint needs storage AuthCache cannot offer, it comes back as a re-plan item"
              },
              {
                "label": "Keep it, but define it before build",
                "description": "\u2705 Preserves the author's intent if TokenStore had a real distinct role (e.g. refresh tokens, mint receipts)\n\u2705 Forces a written responsibility, owner and invalidation contract into the plan before code (human: ~1h / CC: ~5 min)\n\u274c Keeps a fifth class alive on the assumption a justification exists; blocks Section 1 until it is written"
              },
              {
                "label": "Hold: discuss before deciding",
                "description": "\u2705 No structural call made without the author's context on what TokenStore was meant to hold\n\u2705 Keeps every other scope answer intact while we talk\n\u274c Stops the complexity gate here; the review cannot proceed to Section 1 until resolved"
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "answered": true,
        "failed": false,
        "answers": {
          "D4 \u2014 What happens to `TokenStore`, the new class the plan names but never describes?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md \"Multi-tenant Auth Refactor\"; Scope Challenge complexity gate, feature cut/deferral 2 of 2.\nELI10: PLAN.md:44-45 lists five new classes. Four are explained somewhere in the plan. `TokenStore` is not: no job, no caller, no relation to `AuthCache`, which already stores tokens keyed by tenant, issuer, audience and policy version (PLAN.md:16-22). In an auth system, an unexplained second place that holds tokens is where stale-token and cross-tenant bugs hide. Either it has a real distinct job that belongs in the plan, or it is a leftover name.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Build it blind and you may ship two token stores with drifting invalidation rules; cut it and it turns out to hold something AuthCache cannot (e.g. refresh tokens or mint receipts), forcing a re-plan.\nRecommendation: A because the plan's own contract section says one backing cache; anything TokenStore would do either belongs in AuthCache or has not been justified yet. Re-add it with a written responsibility if a real gap appears.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: remove an undefined moving part now vs carry it forward on faith.": "Cut it from this plan (recommended)"
        },
        "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
        "answeredAt": "2026-09-16T08:55:41.854Z"
      },
      {
        "sessionId": "3d6236a1-ef48-4cc7-80f0-837773805fac",
        "toolUseId": "toolu_01GBYgjgtt1bJXFsPjZx4RHv",
        "questions": [
          {
            "question": "D5 \u2014 Which class arrangement for the remaining four components (AuthBroker, SessionMint, AuthCache, RequestPolicy)?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md \"Multi-tenant Auth Refactor\"; Scope Challenge complexity gate, structure choice. Feature set fixed by D3 (parallelization deferred) and D4 (TokenStore cut).\nELI10: Two of the four remaining classes carry no state. RequestPolicy takes claims plus context and returns allow/deny (PLAN.md:9-13); the author already flags its class boundary as \"a proposal to review\". AuthCache is a wrapper over an adapter that already does the keying, expiry and invalidation (PLAN.md:16-22). A stateless decision is clearest as a plain exported function. A wrapper is worth keeping only when it narrows a wide adapter to the few calls the services need, which also gives one place to hold the shared-instance decision coming in Section 1. This question picks structure only; how the cache instance is shared, error handling and tests are decided separately.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too many classes means four files to read for one allow/deny decision; too few means AuthBroker and SessionMint each talk to the raw adapter and any future guard (serialization, metrics) lands in two places.\nRecommendation: B because RequestPolicy has nothing that needs a class, while AuthCache is the single seam both services share and the natural home for the Section 1 sharing fix.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: fewest files vs one deliberate seam for shared cache access.",
            "header": "Structure",
            "multiSelect": false,
            "options": [
              {
                "label": "3 units: keep AuthCache seam, RequestPolicy as function (recommended)",
                "description": "\u2705 AuthBroker + SessionMint + AuthCache classes; RequestPolicy becomes a pure exported decide(claims, ctx) function in its own module, trivially unit-testable\n\u2705 AuthCache stays the one narrow interface both services use, so the Section 1 sharing decision and any future guard live in one place\n\u274c Still a facade whose only job today is narrowing the adapter API (human: ~1 day / CC: ~20 min)"
              },
              {
                "label": "2 classes: drop AuthCache too, services use the adapter directly",
                "description": "\u2705 Fewest moving parts: AuthBroker + SessionMint, RequestPolicy as a function, existing adapter reused as-is\n\u2705 No new cache abstraction to document or keep aligned with the adapter's tests (human: ~half day / CC: ~15 min)\n\u274c Both services depend on the adapter's full surface; a future serialization or tenant-scoping guard must be added in two call sites"
              },
              {
                "label": "Original 4 classes as planned",
                "description": "\u2705 Matches the author's proposal exactly; RequestPolicy as a class allows later injected policy variants\n\u2705 Uniform shape: every component is a class with the same construction pattern\n\u274c A class for a stateless allow/deny decision is ceremony; four classes plus 12 files for a no-behavior-change refactor (human: ~1.5 days / CC: ~25 min)"
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "answered": true,
        "failed": false,
        "answers": {
          "D5 \u2014 Which class arrangement for the remaining four components (AuthBroker, SessionMint, AuthCache, RequestPolicy)?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md \"Multi-tenant Auth Refactor\"; Scope Challenge complexity gate, structure choice. Feature set fixed by D3 (parallelization deferred) and D4 (TokenStore cut).\nELI10: Two of the four remaining classes carry no state. RequestPolicy takes claims plus context and returns allow/deny (PLAN.md:9-13); the author already flags its class boundary as \"a proposal to review\". AuthCache is a wrapper over an adapter that already does the keying, expiry and invalidation (PLAN.md:16-22). A stateless decision is clearest as a plain exported function. A wrapper is worth keeping only when it narrows a wide adapter to the few calls the services need, which also gives one place to hold the shared-instance decision coming in Section 1. This question picks structure only; how the cache instance is shared, error handling and tests are decided separately.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too many classes means four files to read for one allow/deny decision; too few means AuthBroker and SessionMint each talk to the raw adapter and any future guard (serialization, metrics) lands in two places.\nRecommendation: B because RequestPolicy has nothing that needs a class, while AuthCache is the single seam both services share and the natural home for the Section 1 sharing fix.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: fewest files vs one deliberate seam for shared cache access.": "3 units: keep AuthCache seam, RequestPolicy as function (recommended)"
        },
        "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
        "answeredAt": "2026-09-16T08:56:27.990Z"
      },
      {
        "sessionId": "3d6236a1-ef48-4cc7-80f0-837773805fac",
        "toolUseId": "toolu_0166SMv9rBdN2D7BaeTvs1sa",
        "questions": [
          {
            "question": "D6 \u2014 How should AuthBroker and SessionMint get the shared AuthCache instance?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md \"Multi-tenant Auth Refactor\"; Section 1 Architecture, finding A1 (PLAN.md:28-29).\nELI10: The plan has both services import one cache object from a module and write to it (PLAN.md:28-29). That works until you need two of them: a test that wants a clean cache per case, a second broker for a different tenant pool, or a bundler or test runner that loads the module twice and quietly gives each service a different cache. Handing the cache in through each service's constructor makes the dependency visible and gives you one obvious place (app startup) that owns the single instance.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Tests that pass alone and fail together, or a mint that writes to a cache the broker never reads, both of which look like random auth failures in production.\nRecommendation: A because the plan already promises \"one backing cache\"; constructing it once at startup and injecting it is the standard [Layer 1] way to make that promise true and testable.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=3/10, C=7/10\nNet: explicit single ownership at startup vs convenience of a global import.",
            "header": "Cache sharing",
            "multiSelect": false,
            "options": [
              {
                "label": "Construct once at the composition root, inject into both constructors (recommended)",
                "description": "\u2705 Dependency is explicit in each constructor; a test builds a fresh AuthCache per case with no module reset tricks. \u2705 Exactly one instance by construction, so the \"one backing cache\" contract is enforced where the app boots (human: ~2h / CC: ~10 min). \u274c Every place that constructs AuthBroker or SessionMint must now pass the cache; call sites change."
              },
              {
                "label": "Keep the module-level exported singleton as planned",
                "description": "\u2705 Zero call-site changes; import and go. \u2705 Simplest to write today (human: ~0 / CC: ~0). \u274c Hidden global coupling; test isolation requires jest.resetModules or manual clearing, and duplicate module instances silently split the cache."
              },
              {
                "label": "Module export as default, optional constructor override",
                "description": "\u2705 Existing call sites keep working; tests can still inject a fresh instance. \u2705 Incremental: can migrate call sites to explicit injection later (human: ~1h / CC: ~5 min). \u274c Two ways to obtain the cache; the default path still hides the dependency and keeps the duplicate-instance risk in production."
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "answered": true,
        "failed": false,
        "answers": {
          "D6 \u2014 How should AuthBroker and SessionMint get the shared AuthCache instance?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md \"Multi-tenant Auth Refactor\"; Section 1 Architecture, finding A1 (PLAN.md:28-29).\nELI10: The plan has both services import one cache object from a module and write to it (PLAN.md:28-29). That works until you need two of them: a test that wants a clean cache per case, a second broker for a different tenant pool, or a bundler or test runner that loads the module twice and quietly gives each service a different cache. Handing the cache in through each service's constructor makes the dependency visible and gives you one obvious place (app startup) that owns the single instance.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Tests that pass alone and fail together, or a mint that writes to a cache the broker never reads, both of which look like random auth failures in production.\nRecommendation: A because the plan already promises \"one backing cache\"; constructing it once at startup and injecting it is the standard [Layer 1] way to make that promise true and testable.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=3/10, C=7/10\nNet: explicit single ownership at startup vs convenience of a global import.": "Construct once at the composition root, inject into both constructors (recommended)"
        },
        "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
        "answeredAt": "2026-09-16T08:57:49.766Z"
      },
      {
        "sessionId": "3d6236a1-ef48-4cc7-80f0-837773805fac",
        "toolUseId": "toolu_01AMq93Woihygh79yXgeZnAx",
        "questions": [
          {
            "question": "D7 \u2014 How should validateAndDispatch() handle errors?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md \"Multi-tenant Auth Refactor\"; Section 2 Code Quality, finding C1 (PLAN.md:32-33).\nELI10: The new 60-line function wraps three steps in three nested try/catch blocks, and each catch quietly eats one kind of error (PLAN.md:32-33). In an auth path, a swallowed error is the worst kind: a failed token check or a policy lookup that blew up can fall through and the request gets dispatched anyway, or the user gets a vague failure with nothing in the logs. Three nested blocks also make it hard to see which step a given error belongs to. A flat sequence with one error boundary at the end is shorter, reads top to bottom, and forces every error to become a deliberate outcome.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Fail-open on validation errors (a request proceeds after its check crashed), or hours lost debugging auth failures with no log line.\nRecommendation: A because it fixes both problems at once (no swallowing, no nesting) in less code than the plan proposes, and the typed errors double as test seams.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=3/10\nNet: one explicit error boundary vs three scattered catches vs silence.",
            "header": "Error handling",
            "multiSelect": false,
            "options": [
              {
                "label": "Flat pipeline with typed errors and one boundary mapper (recommended)",
                "description": "\u2705 Every error class maps to an explicit outcome (deny, retryable, internal) and a structured log line with tenant and request id; fail-closed by construction. \u2705 Function shrinks to a readable top-to-bottom sequence; each step is independently unit-testable via its thrown error type (human: ~half day / CC: ~15 min). \u274c Introduces a small AuthError hierarchy that the codebase must adopt consistently."
              },
              {
                "label": "Keep nesting, make every catch explicit (rethrow typed or log + deny)",
                "description": "\u2705 Minimal structural change from the author's draft; keeps step-local handling where it is. \u2705 Removes silent swallowing, so no fail-open path remains (human: ~2h / CC: ~10 min). \u274c Still 3 levels of nesting in a 60-line function; the error-to-outcome mapping is scattered across three catches instead of one place."
              },
              {
                "label": "Keep as planned (each catch swallows its error class)",
                "description": "\u2705 No extra design work; matches the draft exactly. \u2705 Fastest to write (human: ~0 / CC: ~0). \u274c Silent failures in an auth path: possible fail-open, no diagnostics, and behavior that no test can pin down."
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "answered": true,
        "failed": false,
        "answers": {
          "D7 \u2014 How should validateAndDispatch() handle errors?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md \"Multi-tenant Auth Refactor\"; Section 2 Code Quality, finding C1 (PLAN.md:32-33).\nELI10: The new 60-line function wraps three steps in three nested try/catch blocks, and each catch quietly eats one kind of error (PLAN.md:32-33). In an auth path, a swallowed error is the worst kind: a failed token check or a policy lookup that blew up can fall through and the request gets dispatched anyway, or the user gets a vague failure with nothing in the logs. Three nested blocks also make it hard to see which step a given error belongs to. A flat sequence with one error boundary at the end is shorter, reads top to bottom, and forces every error to become a deliberate outcome.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Fail-open on validation errors (a request proceeds after its check crashed), or hours lost debugging auth failures with no log line.\nRecommendation: A because it fixes both problems at once (no swallowing, no nesting) in less code than the plan proposes, and the typed errors double as test seams.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=3/10\nNet: one explicit error boundary vs three scattered catches vs silence.": "Flat pipeline with typed errors and one boundary mapper (recommended)"
        },
        "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
        "answeredAt": "2026-09-16T08:58:59.515Z"
      },
      {
        "sessionId": "3d6236a1-ef48-4cc7-80f0-837773805fac",
        "toolUseId": "toolu_015JxgM616GJtNaBthNBg9UY",
        "questions": [
          {
            "question": "D8 \u2014 How do we prove the rewritten legacyAuthFlow() still behaves exactly as before?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md \"Multi-tenant Auth Refactor\"; Section 3 Test review, finding T1 (PLAN.md:36-37, :23-25). This is the mandatory regression contract; the question is how to cover it, not whether.\nELI10: The whole point of this plan is \"same behavior, better structure\" (PLAN.md:8-9), yet the plan rewrites legacyAuthFlow() with no test that pins down what it does today (PLAN.md:36-37). Without that, \"same behavior\" is a hope. The standard move is to write characterization tests first: feed the old code every kind of request it handles today, record what it does, then run the exact same tests against the new AuthBroker path. Green means parity. A thin shim that keeps existing callers on the old entry point until parity is green means nothing user-facing changes until it is proven.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A tenant that used to be denied gets allowed (or the reverse) and nobody knows until a customer reports it; a refactor becomes an auth incident.\nRecommendation: A because with CC the full characterization suite costs minutes, and it is the only option that turns \"no behavior change\" into a checked claim rather than an assertion.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=10/10 (C adds runtime verification on top of A, not more test coverage)\nNet: proven parity with a reversible switch vs sampling the happy paths vs production-grade verification.",
            "header": "Regression",
            "multiSelect": false,
            "options": [
              {
                "label": "Full characterization suite + compatibility shim until parity (recommended)",
                "description": "\u2705 Every observable legacy outcome (allow, deny, expired, revoked, suspended tenant, IDP error, malformed claims, cache hit/miss, logout invalidation) is recorded as input \u2192 outcome and replayed against the new path. \u2705 Callers stay on legacyAuthFlow() through a shim until the suite is green, so the cutover is a one-line, reversible switch (human: ~1.5 days / CC: ~30 min). \u274c Requires enumerating legacy callers and behaviors up front; the suite is throwaway-adjacent once parity lands (keep it as the regression suite)."
              },
              {
                "label": "Parity tests for the top ~5 paths, no shim",
                "description": "\u2705 Covers the paths users hit most; fast to write (human: ~3h / CC: ~10 min). \u2705 No shim means fewer moving parts during cutover. \u274c Rare paths (suspended tenant, malformed claims, invalidation races) are exactly where auth regressions hide; a cutover with no fallback switch."
              },
              {
                "label": "A plus flag-gated shadow compare in production",
                "description": "\u2705 Catches behaviors the suite author did not think of by diffing old vs new outcomes on real traffic. \u2705 Zero user impact while shadowing: old path serves, new path only logs (human: ~2.5 days / CC: ~45 min). \u274c Doubles IDP load during shadow, needs a flag system and mismatch dashboard; heavier than a structural refactor warrants."
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "answered": true,
        "failed": false,
        "answers": {
          "D8 \u2014 How do we prove the rewritten legacyAuthFlow() still behaves exactly as before?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md \"Multi-tenant Auth Refactor\"; Section 3 Test review, finding T1 (PLAN.md:36-37, :23-25). This is the mandatory regression contract; the question is how to cover it, not whether.\nELI10: The whole point of this plan is \"same behavior, better structure\" (PLAN.md:8-9), yet the plan rewrites legacyAuthFlow() with no test that pins down what it does today (PLAN.md:36-37). Without that, \"same behavior\" is a hope. The standard move is to write characterization tests first: feed the old code every kind of request it handles today, record what it does, then run the exact same tests against the new AuthBroker path. Green means parity. A thin shim that keeps existing callers on the old entry point until parity is green means nothing user-facing changes until it is proven.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A tenant that used to be denied gets allowed (or the reverse) and nobody knows until a customer reports it; a refactor becomes an auth incident.\nRecommendation: A because with CC the full characterization suite costs minutes, and it is the only option that turns \"no behavior change\" into a checked claim rather than an assertion.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=10/10 (C adds runtime verification on top of A, not more test coverage)\nNet: proven parity with a reversible switch vs sampling the happy paths vs production-grade verification.": "Full characterization suite + compatibility shim until parity (recommended)"
        },
        "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
        "answeredAt": "2026-09-16T09:00:29.393Z"
      },
      {
        "sessionId": "3d6236a1-ef48-4cc7-80f0-837773805fac",
        "toolUseId": "toolu_01SaTzyVc1yV8q8QKEDeLU7g",
        "questions": [
          {
            "question": "D9 \u2014 How deep should tests go for the new components beyond success/error paths?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md \"Multi-tenant Auth Refactor\"; Section 3 Test review, finding T2 (PLAN.md:23-24).\nELI10: The plan promises tests for the new pieces when things work and when they fail (PLAN.md:23-24). That misses the cases multi-tenant auth actually breaks on: a token from tenant A being served to tenant B, a token that expires at exactly this second, a policy version bump that should make old cache entries invisible, a session minted a moment after the tenant was suspended. Each of those is a five-line test once the components exist. The regression suite (D8), error-mapping tests (D7) and injection test (D6) are already required; this decides the extra edge-case and end-to-end layer.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Cross-tenant leakage or a resurrected revoked token, found by a customer instead of a test.\nRecommendation: A because these edge cases are the actual failure modes of tenant auth and cost minutes with CC.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10\nNet: prove the failure modes that matter in multi-tenant auth vs the minimum the plan states.",
            "header": "Test depth",
            "multiSelect": false,
            "options": [
              {
                "label": "Full edge-case + E2E coverage (recommended)",
                "description": "\u2705 Pins down tenant isolation, expiry boundary, policy-version bump, malformed claims, mint-after-invalidation and fail-closed on unknown errors. \u2705 Four E2E flows (valid / expired / revoked / suspended) plus IDP-down prove the whole path, not just units (human: ~1 day / CC: ~20 min). \u274c Larger test file count to maintain; E2E flows need a fake IDP or recorded fixtures."
              },
              {
                "label": "Success/error paths as planned",
                "description": "\u2705 Matches the author's stated plan; smaller test surface to write and maintain. \u2705 Fast (human: ~3h / CC: ~8 min). \u274c Leaves the tenant-isolation and invalidation-race cases, the ones that cause auth incidents, unproven."
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "answered": true,
        "failed": false,
        "answers": {
          "D9 \u2014 How deep should tests go for the new components beyond success/error paths?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md \"Multi-tenant Auth Refactor\"; Section 3 Test review, finding T2 (PLAN.md:23-24).\nELI10: The plan promises tests for the new pieces when things work and when they fail (PLAN.md:23-24). That misses the cases multi-tenant auth actually breaks on: a token from tenant A being served to tenant B, a token that expires at exactly this second, a policy version bump that should make old cache entries invisible, a session minted a moment after the tenant was suspended. Each of those is a five-line test once the components exist. The regression suite (D8), error-mapping tests (D7) and injection test (D6) are already required; this decides the extra edge-case and end-to-end layer.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Cross-tenant leakage or a resurrected revoked token, found by a customer instead of a test.\nRecommendation: A because these edge cases are the actual failure modes of tenant auth and cost minutes with CC.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10\nNet: prove the failure modes that matter in multi-tenant auth vs the minimum the plan states.": "Full edge-case + E2E coverage (recommended)"
        },
        "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
        "answeredAt": "2026-09-16T09:01:21.159Z"
      },
      {
        "sessionId": "3d6236a1-ef48-4cc7-80f0-837773805fac",
        "toolUseId": "toolu_01CcDoqu9ffnq2N4nHmT99m1",
        "questions": [
          {
            "question": "D10 \u2014 TODO: parallelize the 5 IDP validation calls (follow-up PR deferred by D3)?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md \"Multi-tenant Auth Refactor\"; Final planning decisions, TODO candidate 1 of 2.\nELI10: You chose in D3 to keep the speedup out of this refactor. A deferred item with no written home gets forgotten. This TODO would record: What: run the 5 independent IDP calls concurrently in AuthBroker's validation step. Why: each cache miss currently pays 5 serial round-trips; users wait for the sum instead of the max. Pros: latency win, small code change. Cons: changes IDP burst shape (5 concurrent per validation) and error ordering; needs Promise.all vs allSettled decision and a load check. Context: land after the characterization suite (D8) is green so the timing change is provable in isolation. Depends on: this refactor merged. TODOS.md does not exist and plan mode forbids creating it now, so an accepted TODO is recorded in the report as not persisted.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Skip it and a known cheap latency fix has no owner; build it now and you reverse D3.\nRecommendation: A because the work is real, cheap, and already has a sequencing constraint worth writing down.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: capture the deferred speedup with its context vs let it drop vs reverse D3.",
            "header": "TODO 1",
            "multiSelect": false,
            "options": [
              {
                "label": "Add to TODOS.md (recommended)",
                "description": "\u2705 The deferred latency fix keeps its rationale, sequencing and the allSettled/burst caveats for whoever picks it up\n\u2705 Consistent with D3: structural PR first, behavior PR second (human: ~half day / CC: ~30 min when built)\n\u274c TODOS.md cannot be written in plan mode; content is recorded in the report as not persisted until you leave plan mode"
              },
              {
                "label": "Skip: not valuable enough",
                "description": "\u2705 Nothing extra to track; smallest bookkeeping\n\u2705 Avoids committing to IDP behavior changes at all\n\u274c The 5 serial round-trips stay forever unless someone rediscovers them"
              },
              {
                "label": "Build it now in this PR",
                "description": "\u2705 Latency win ships with the refactor, no second PR\n\u2705 IDP client code is already open\n\u274c Reverses D3: mixes a behavior change back into the no-behavior-change refactor"
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "answered": true,
        "failed": false,
        "answers": {
          "D10 \u2014 TODO: parallelize the 5 IDP validation calls (follow-up PR deferred by D3)?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md \"Multi-tenant Auth Refactor\"; Final planning decisions, TODO candidate 1 of 2.\nELI10: You chose in D3 to keep the speedup out of this refactor. A deferred item with no written home gets forgotten. This TODO would record: What: run the 5 independent IDP calls concurrently in AuthBroker's validation step. Why: each cache miss currently pays 5 serial round-trips; users wait for the sum instead of the max. Pros: latency win, small code change. Cons: changes IDP burst shape (5 concurrent per validation) and error ordering; needs Promise.all vs allSettled decision and a load check. Context: land after the characterization suite (D8) is green so the timing change is provable in isolation. Depends on: this refactor merged. TODOS.md does not exist and plan mode forbids creating it now, so an accepted TODO is recorded in the report as not persisted.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Skip it and a known cheap latency fix has no owner; build it now and you reverse D3.\nRecommendation: A because the work is real, cheap, and already has a sequencing constraint worth writing down.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: capture the deferred speedup with its context vs let it drop vs reverse D3.": "Add to TODOS.md (recommended)"
        },
        "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
        "answeredAt": "2026-09-16T09:02:39.066Z"
      },
      {
        "sessionId": "3d6236a1-ef48-4cc7-80f0-837773805fac",
        "toolUseId": "toolu_01Gf5LyQNJ3e4iBGUvETg9nc",
        "questions": [
          {
            "question": "D11 \u2014 TODO: confirm the adapter's invalidation-vs-write ordering when two services mutate one cache?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md \"Multi-tenant Auth Refactor\"; Final planning decisions, TODO candidate 2 of 2 (from Architecture finding 2, medium confidence 5/10).\nELI10: The plan says the cache rules \"do not serialize mutations\" (PLAN.md:19) and that both AuthBroker and SessionMint write to it (PLAN.md:29). Node runs one thing at a time, so there is no low-level race, but there is a logical one: a tenant gets suspended (entries invalidated), and a mint that was already in flight writes a fresh entry a moment later, resurrecting access. Whether the existing adapter already guards this (e.g. by checking suspension state on write, or by version stamping) is unknown because the code is not in this repo. This TODO would record: What: a bounded investigation of the adapter's write-after-invalidate behavior. Why: it decides whether the D9 \"mint after invalidation does not resurrect\" test passes for free or needs a guard in AuthCache. Pros: settles a fail-open risk with a 30-minute read. Cons: may find nothing. Context: read the adapter's invalidate and set paths plus their tests. Depends on: nothing; can run before implementation starts.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Skip it and the D9 test is the first place anyone learns the answer, possibly mid-implementation.\nRecommendation: A because it is cheap, bounded, and directly de-risks an approved test.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: a small investigation now vs discovering the answer when a test fails.",
            "header": "TODO 2",
            "multiSelect": false,
            "options": [
              {
                "label": "Add to TODOS.md (recommended)",
                "description": "\u2705 A bounded 30-minute read that settles whether a fail-open window exists before code is written\n\u2705 Directly feeds the approved D9 mint-after-invalidation test; no scope added to the refactor\n\u274c TODOS.md cannot be written in plan mode; content is recorded in the report as not persisted"
              },
              {
                "label": "Skip: not valuable enough",
                "description": "\u2705 Nothing extra to track; the D9 test will surface the answer anyway\n\u2705 Trusts the retained adapter and its existing tests as-is\n\u274c If a resurrection window exists, it is found mid-implementation rather than up front"
              },
              {
                "label": "Build it now: fold the investigation into this PR's first task",
                "description": "\u2705 The implementer reads the adapter before writing AuthCache, which they need to do regardless\n\u2705 No separate tracking item; becomes step 1 of the implementation tasks\n\u274c Slightly widens the PR's stated scope with an investigation step and possible AuthCache guard"
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "answered": true,
        "failed": false,
        "answers": {
          "D11 \u2014 TODO: confirm the adapter's invalidation-vs-write ordering when two services mutate one cache?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md \"Multi-tenant Auth Refactor\"; Final planning decisions, TODO candidate 2 of 2 (from Architecture finding 2, medium confidence 5/10).\nELI10: The plan says the cache rules \"do not serialize mutations\" (PLAN.md:19) and that both AuthBroker and SessionMint write to it (PLAN.md:29). Node runs one thing at a time, so there is no low-level race, but there is a logical one: a tenant gets suspended (entries invalidated), and a mint that was already in flight writes a fresh entry a moment later, resurrecting access. Whether the existing adapter already guards this (e.g. by checking suspension state on write, or by version stamping) is unknown because the code is not in this repo. This TODO would record: What: a bounded investigation of the adapter's write-after-invalidate behavior. Why: it decides whether the D9 \"mint after invalidation does not resurrect\" test passes for free or needs a guard in AuthCache. Pros: settles a fail-open risk with a 30-minute read. Cons: may find nothing. Context: read the adapter's invalidate and set paths plus their tests. Depends on: nothing; can run before implementation starts.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Skip it and the D9 test is the first place anyone learns the answer, possibly mid-implementation.\nRecommendation: A because it is cheap, bounded, and directly de-risks an approved test.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: a small investigation now vs discovering the answer when a test fails.": "Add to TODOS.md (recommended)"
        },
        "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
        "answeredAt": "2026-09-16T09:02:57.158Z"
      },
      {
        "sessionId": "3d6236a1-ef48-4cc7-80f0-837773805fac",
        "toolUseId": "toolu_01R9yZtoKT9xY9zB5ADNY2K9",
        "questions": [
          {
            "question": "D12 \u2014 What next after this engineering review?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md \"Multi-tenant Auth Refactor\"; Next Steps navigation only, no plan change.\nELI10: The engineering review is saved and CLEAR. This refactor has no UI, so a design review does not apply. It does not change product direction, so a CEO review is optional. The remaining step is to build it: seven tasks (T1\u2013T7) in the report, with the characterization suite (T1) first. Navigation only: picking an option approves no new implementation change.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Low; this only chooses where you go next.\nRecommendation: Ready to implement \u2014 this is a taste call, no strong preference either way; the plan has no open decisions.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: start building vs one more optional review first.",
            "header": "Next step",
            "multiSelect": false,
            "options": [
              {
                "label": "Ready to implement (recommended)",
                "description": "\u2705 All reviews required for this change are complete; run /ship when the work is done\n\u2705 Task order is already laid out (T1 characterization suite first, then lanes A/B/C in parallel)\n\u274c Skips the optional CEO scope pass; fine for a behavior-neutral refactor"
              },
              {
                "label": "Run /plan-ceo-review first",
                "description": "\u2705 A scope-and-strategy pass on whether this refactor is the right investment now\n\u2705 Adds a second review row to the dashboard before implementation starts\n\u274c Optional for a refactor with no product-facing change; adds ~10 minutes before coding"
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "answered": true,
        "failed": false,
        "answers": {
          "D12 \u2014 What next after this engineering review?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md \"Multi-tenant Auth Refactor\"; Next Steps navigation only, no plan change.\nELI10: The engineering review is saved and CLEAR. This refactor has no UI, so a design review does not apply. It does not change product direction, so a CEO review is optional. The remaining step is to build it: seven tasks (T1\u2013T7) in the report, with the characterization suite (T1) first. Navigation only: picking an option approves no new implementation change.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Low; this only chooses where you go next.\nRecommendation: Ready to implement \u2014 this is a taste call, no strong preference either way; the plan has no open decisions.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: start building vs one more optional review first.": "Ready to implement (recommended)"
        },
        "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
        "answeredAt": "2026-09-16T09:05:37.108Z"
      }
    ],
    "assistantMessages": [
      {
        "sessionId": "3d6236a1-ef48-4cc7-80f0-837773805fac",
        "text": "Scope gate: plan mode \u2014 auto-selected B (reviewing `PLAN.md`: \"Multi-tenant Auth Refactor\").",
        "timestamp": "2026-09-16T08:52:21.433Z"
      },
      {
        "sessionId": "3d6236a1-ef48-4cc7-80f0-837773805fac",
        "text": "Noted: routing rules will be appended to CLAUDE.md and committed after plan mode exits (plan mode forbids the write now). Continuing with Context Recovery, Brain Context, and the Design Doc Check.",
        "timestamp": "2026-09-16T08:52:45.412Z"
      },
      {
        "sessionId": "3d6236a1-ef48-4cc7-80f0-837773805fac",
        "text": "## Step 0: Scope Challenge\n\nReport file: `/tmp/.../gstack-e2e-plan-eng-o73cy9/gstack-test-plan-eng.md` (user-requested; original plan copied in unchanged). Outside voice: `codex_reviews=disabled`, so no outside reviewer runs this session. No prior learnings, no TODOS.md, no design doc. The repo holds only `CLAUDE.md` and `PLAN.md`, so there is no existing code to probe; every finding below is a plan-level finding, calibrated accordingly.\n\n**Search check** (WebSearch, Aside unavailable): module-level mutable singletons are the documented anti-pattern for anything holding per-request or per-tenant state; the standard [Layer 1] fix is to construct one instance at the composition root and inject it. `Promise.all` is fail-fast and abandons in-flight siblings; `Promise.allSettled` is the [Layer 1] choice when you need every result or every error. Sources: [Singletons in JavaScript](https://blog.openreplay.com/singletons-javascript-tool-trap/), [Singleton, DI, IoC in Node.js](https://medium.com/@moali314/singleton-dependency-injection-ioc-and-service-locator-in-node-js-9a9c7a3326b7), [Promise.all vs allSettled](https://jsmanifest.com/promise-allsettled-vs-promise-all), [Better rejection handling](https://www.coreycleary.me/better-handling-of-rejections-using-promise-allsettled).\n\n**Complexity gate triggered:** 12 files, 5 new classes (threshold: 8 files or 2 classes). Scope findings:\n\n1. **[P1] (confidence 8/10) PLAN.md:8-9 vs :40-41** \u2014 \"reorganize ... without changing its product behavior\" but the Performance section proposes parallelizing 5 IDP calls. That changes timing, IDP load shape, and which error surfaces first. It is a behavior change riding inside a structural refactor (Beck: separate structural and behavioral changes). *Pending: D3.*\n2. **[P1] (confidence 9/10) PLAN.md:44-45** \u2014 `TokenStore` is named as a new class and described nowhere else in the plan. No responsibility, no caller, no relation to `AuthCache` (which already stores tokens per :16-22). Undefined component in an auth path. *Pending: D4.*\n3. **[P2] (confidence 8/10) PLAN.md:13, :20-22** \u2014 `RequestPolicy` is stateless and side-effect free by the author's own description; `AuthCache` is a facade over an adapter that already keys, evicts, and invalidates correctly. Both are candidates for fewer moving parts (a pure function; direct use of the adapter). *Pending: D5 (structure).*\n4. **[P2] (confidence 7/10) PLAN.md:36-37** \u2014 rewriting `legacyAuthFlow()` with no regression coverage is a scope-adjacent test gap; handled by the Test review's regression rule, not cut here.\n\nWhat already exists: the cache adapter (keying, eviction, invalidation hooks, tests) and `legacyAuthFlow()` itself. The plan reuses the adapter; it wraps it once more in `AuthCache`.\n\nAsking about the feature-level cut first (parallelization), then TokenStore, then structure.",
        "timestamp": "2026-09-16T08:55:05.785Z"
      },
      {
        "sessionId": "3d6236a1-ef48-4cc7-80f0-837773805fac",
        "text": "D3 \u2192 parallelization deferred to a follow-up PR (logged as a TODO candidate later). Next: `TokenStore`.",
        "timestamp": "2026-09-16T08:55:26.212Z"
      },
      {
        "sessionId": "3d6236a1-ef48-4cc7-80f0-837773805fac",
        "text": "D4 \u2192 `TokenStore` cut; class count drops to four. Last gate question: structure.",
        "timestamp": "2026-09-16T08:56:11.222Z"
      },
      {
        "sessionId": "3d6236a1-ef48-4cc7-80f0-837773805fac",
        "text": "Saved record verified against the brief. Dispatching D6.",
        "timestamp": "2026-09-16T08:57:39.761Z"
      },
      {
        "sessionId": "3d6236a1-ef48-4cc7-80f0-837773805fac",
        "text": "D6 \u2192 inject one `AuthCache` from the composition root. Recording R4 as approved and saving the Section 2 pending record (R5) before asking.",
        "timestamp": "2026-09-16T08:58:02.888Z"
      },
      {
        "sessionId": "3d6236a1-ef48-4cc7-80f0-837773805fac",
        "text": "D7 \u2192 flat pipeline, typed errors, one boundary mapper. Recording R5 and moving to the Test review.",
        "timestamp": "2026-09-16T08:59:20.256Z"
      },
      {
        "sessionId": "3d6236a1-ef48-4cc7-80f0-837773805fac",
        "text": "## Section 3: Test review\n\nFramework detection: `CLAUDE.md` has no Testing section and the repo holds no `package.json` or test files, so the framework is **unknown**; test file names below use `*.test.ts` as a placeholder convention to match once the real repo is known.\n\n**Coverage diagram (planned codepaths, all new; nothing exists yet):**\n\n```\nCODE PATHS                                                    USER FLOWS\n[+] auth/AuthBroker.ts                                        [+] Authenticated request\n  \u2514\u2500\u2500 validateAndDispatch()                                     \u251c\u2500\u2500 [GAP] [\u2192E2E] valid token \u2192 allow \u2192 dispatch\n      \u251c\u2500\u2500 [GAP] validate: cache hit (fresh)                      \u251c\u2500\u2500 [GAP] [\u2192E2E] expired token \u2192 deny, clear error\n      \u251c\u2500\u2500 [GAP] validate: cache miss \u2192 5 serial IDP calls        \u251c\u2500\u2500 [GAP] [\u2192E2E] revoked token \u2192 deny\n      \u251c\u2500\u2500 [GAP] validate: expired / revoked / suspended          \u251c\u2500\u2500 [GAP] [\u2192E2E] suspended tenant \u2192 deny\n      \u251c\u2500\u2500 [GAP] validate: IDP timeout / 5xx \u2192 IdpUnavailable     \u2514\u2500\u2500 [GAP]        IDP down \u2192 retryable error, not hang\n      \u251c\u2500\u2500 [GAP] decide(): allow / deny / malformed \u2192 deny\n      \u251c\u2500\u2500 [GAP] dispatch: success / DispatchError              [+] Cross-tenant isolation\n      \u2514\u2500\u2500 [GAP] boundary mapper: each AuthError \u2192 outcome + log  \u251c\u2500\u2500 [GAP] [\u2192E2E] tenant A token never hits tenant B key\n          \u2514\u2500\u2500 [GAP] unknown error class \u2192 internal + deny        \u2514\u2500\u2500 [GAP]        policy version bump misses old entries\n[+] auth/requestPolicy.ts\n  \u2514\u2500\u2500 decide(claims, ctx)                                     [+] Lifecycle events\n      \u251c\u2500\u2500 [GAP] allow / deny per existing policy                 \u251c\u2500\u2500 [GAP] logout invalidates \u2192 next request re-validates\n      \u2514\u2500\u2500 [GAP] missing / malformed claims \u2192 deny                \u251c\u2500\u2500 [GAP] revocation invalidates\n[+] auth/AuthCache.ts (facade)                                  \u2514\u2500\u2500 [GAP] suspension racing a SessionMint write\n  \u251c\u2500\u2500 [GAP] delegates get/set/invalidate to adapter unchanged\n  \u2514\u2500\u2500 [GAP] two services, one injected instance (D6)           [+] Regression (legacyAuthFlow parity)  CRITICAL\n[+] auth/SessionMint.ts                                          \u2514\u2500\u2500 [GAP] characterization suite \u2192 pending D8\n  \u251c\u2500\u2500 [GAP] mint writes through AuthCache\n  \u2514\u2500\u2500 [GAP] mint after invalidation does not resurrect entry\n[+] bootstrap / composition root\n  \u2514\u2500\u2500 [GAP] constructs one AuthCache, injects into both (D6)\n[=] existing cache adapter + invalidation hooks: [\u2605\u2605\u2605 TESTED] retained unchanged (PLAN.md:21-22)\n\nCOVERAGE: 1/24 paths tested (4%)  |  Code paths: 1/16 (6%)  |  User flows: 0/8 (0%)\nQUALITY: \u2605\u2605\u2605:1 \u2605\u2605:0 \u2605:0  |  GAPS: 23 (6 E2E, 0 eval, 1 CRITICAL regression)\n```\n\nLLM/eval scope: none; no prompt or LLM code in this plan.\n\n**REGRESSION RULE:** the `legacyAuthFlow()` rewrite is a P1 CRITICAL gap. Record saved and verified; dispatching the dedicated regression question.",
        "timestamp": "2026-09-16T09:00:18.318Z"
      },
      {
        "sessionId": "3d6236a1-ef48-4cc7-80f0-837773805fac",
        "text": "D8 \u2192 full characterization suite + shim. One more test-depth choice: the plan's own \"success/error paths\" for the new components vs full edge-case coverage.",
        "timestamp": "2026-09-16T09:00:34.834Z"
      },
      {
        "sessionId": "3d6236a1-ef48-4cc7-80f0-837773805fac",
        "text": "D9 \u2192 full edge-case + E2E coverage. Recording R7 and writing the Test Plan Artifact.",
        "timestamp": "2026-09-16T09:01:38.437Z"
      },
      {
        "sessionId": "3d6236a1-ef48-4cc7-80f0-837773805fac",
        "text": "Both TODOs accepted (recorded as not persisted; plan mode forbids creating `TODOS.md`). All seven remedy rows cite an actual answer. Writing Approval readiness and the full reviewed plan + report.",
        "timestamp": "2026-09-16T09:03:06.791Z"
      },
      {
        "sessionId": "3d6236a1-ef48-4cc7-80f0-837773805fac",
        "text": "Read-back gate passes: last `## ` heading is `## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT`, final line is the unbolded sentinel. Now Review Log, decision log, tasks JSONL, and dashboard.",
        "timestamp": "2026-09-16T09:04:56.161Z"
      },
      {
        "sessionId": "3d6236a1-ef48-4cc7-80f0-837773805fac",
        "text": "All relevant reviews complete. Run `/ship` when ready. Finishing: learnings, host plan pointer, telemetry.",
        "timestamp": "2026-09-16T09:05:46.531Z"
      }
    ],
    "planReadyRequests": [
      {
        "sessionId": "3d6236a1-ef48-4cc7-80f0-837773805fac",
        "toolUseId": "toolu_01YbmPxpQz2UzC2dk8o1Ptpg",
        "timestamp": "2026-09-16T09:06:29.329Z",
        "failed": false
      }
    ]
  },
  "report": "# Reviewed Plan: Multi-tenant Auth Refactor\n\nReviewed target: `PLAN.md` (\"Multi-tenant Auth Refactor\") in repo `gstack-plan-count-jlbXO0`, branch `main`, commit `8bea2de`.\nReview: `/plan-eng-review`, 2026-09-16. This file holds the reviewed implementation plan, the decision ledger and the terminal review report.\n\n## Original plan (as submitted, unchanged)\n\n### Context supplied by the plan author\nThe goal is to reorganize existing tenant-auth orchestration without changing\nits product behavior. RequestPolicy groups the existing per-request access\ndecision: given already-fetched claims and tenant/request context, it returns\nallow or deny under the existing access policy. AuthBroker.validateAndDispatch()\ncalls it after validation and before dispatch. It adds no policy, network call,\ncache mutation or state. Its separate class boundary remains a proposal to review.\n\n### Existing contracts retained\nThe existing cache adapter keys entries by tenant ID, issuer, audience,\nand policy version. It evicts expired tokens and invalidates entries on\nlogout, token revocation, or tenant suspension. AuthCache retains these\nunchanged validity and tenant-key rules; they do not serialize mutations.\nAuthCache is a service-facing facade over that same existing adapter,\nwith one backing cache. The adapter, its invalidation hooks, and their\nexisting tests remain in use unchanged.\nUnit and integration coverage is planned for the new components and their\nsuccess/error paths. That coverage does not exercise legacyAuthFlow() or\nassert compatibility with its prior behavior.\n\n### Architecture\nTwo new services (`AuthBroker` and `SessionMint`) share a global mutable\n`AuthCache` instance via module-level export. Both services mutate it.\n\n### Code quality\nThe `validateAndDispatch()` function is 60 lines with three nested\ntry/catch blocks; each catch swallows a different error class.\n\n### Tests\nThe existing `legacyAuthFlow()` will get rewritten as part of this work;\nno regression test for the prior behavior is planned.\n\n### Performance\nToken validation issues 5 sequential API calls to the IDP; they could be\nparallelized via Promise.all trivially (calls are independent).\n\n### Architecture (scope smell)\nThis touches 12 files and introduces 5 new classes (AuthBroker, TokenStore,\nSessionMint, AuthCache, RequestPolicy). Worth flagging the complexity check.\n\n## Decision ledger\n\nD1 (gstack routing rules \u2192 add after plan mode exits) and D2 (cross-project learnings \u2192 enabled) were setup questions; they approve no engineering remedy.\n\n### R1: Scope of IDP-call parallelization in this refactor\nFinding: S1, P1, confidence 8/10, PLAN.md:8-9 vs PLAN.md:40-41, reviewer: Claude (plan-eng-review)\nPlan baseline: original proposal bundles Promise.all parallelization of 5 IDP calls into the \"no behavior change\" refactor\nRuntime evidence: unknown; no source in repo. Serial-call claim taken from the plan text.\nState: approved\nComparison grid (initial scope selector, no pre-answer grid required):\n| Choice | Current | Split (chosen) | Bundle | Drop |\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n| R1 parallelization | in this PR | follow-up PR, own tests | in this PR | never |\nQuestion D3: \"Keep the IDP-call parallelization inside this refactor, or split it into its own change?\" Recommendation: split into follow-up PR. Completeness: split 10/10, bundle 7/10, drop 3/10.\nActual answer: \"Split into follow-up PR (recommended)\" (D3)\nAccepted scope: remove parallelization from this plan; record it as a follow-up TODO candidate (asked separately in Final planning decisions). This refactor keeps the existing 5 sequential IDP calls exactly as they are.\nHistory: none\n\n### R2: Disposition of the undefined `TokenStore` class\nFinding: S2, P1, confidence 9/10, PLAN.md:44-45, reviewer: Claude\nPlan baseline: original proposal introduces TokenStore with no described responsibility\nRuntime evidence: unknown; class does not exist yet\nState: approved\nComparison grid: | R2 TokenStore | proposed, undefined | Cut (chosen) | Keep + define first | Hold |\nQuestion D4: \"What happens to TokenStore, the new class the plan names but never describes?\" Recommendation: cut.\nActual answer: \"Cut it from this plan (recommended)\" (D4)\nAccepted scope: TokenStore removed from the plan. Token storage stays in the existing adapter behind AuthCache (one backing cache, PLAN.md:20-22). Re-add only with a written responsibility and invalidation contract.\nHistory: none\n\n### R3: Class arrangement for the remaining components\nFinding: S3, P2, confidence 8/10, PLAN.md:13 and PLAN.md:20-22, reviewer: Claude\nPlan baseline: 4 classes after R2 (AuthBroker, SessionMint, AuthCache, RequestPolicy)\nRuntime evidence: unknown; no source in repo\nState: approved\nComparison grid: | R3 structure | 4 classes | 3 units (chosen): AuthBroker, SessionMint, AuthCache classes + RequestPolicy pure function | 2 classes, adapter used directly | 4 classes |\nQuestion D5: \"Which class arrangement for the remaining four components?\" Recommendation: 3 units. Options differ in kind, no completeness score.\nActual answer: \"3 units: keep AuthCache seam, RequestPolicy as function (recommended)\" (D5)\nAccepted scope: RequestPolicy becomes a pure exported `decide(claims, ctx)` function in its own module; AuthCache remains a class and the single narrow interface both services use over the existing adapter; AuthBroker and SessionMint remain classes. Structure only: instance sharing (R4), error handling and tests are separate rows.\nHistory: none\n\n### R4: How AuthBroker and SessionMint obtain the shared AuthCache instance\nFinding: A1, P1, confidence 8/10, PLAN.md:28-29 (\"share a global mutable `AuthCache` instance via module-level export. Both services mutate it.\"), reviewer: Claude\nPlan baseline: module-level exported singleton, both services import and mutate it (original proposal; nothing approved yet)\nRuntime evidence: unknown; no source in repo. Web research (Layer 1): module-level mutable singletons leak state across test cases and across module-cache boundaries (bundlers, Jest workers), and hide the dependency from the service's constructor.\nState: pending\nComparison grid:\n| Choice | Current | A | B | C |\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n| R4 instance provisioning | module-level export, imported by both services | one AuthCache built at the composition root, passed to both constructors; no module-level export | module-level export kept as planned | module-level export kept as default, constructors accept an optional override |\n| R3 structure (approved D5) | 3 units | fixed | fixed | fixed |\n| Cache validity/tenant-key rules (contract PLAN.md:16-22) | unchanged | fixed | fixed | fixed |\n| One backing cache (contract PLAN.md:20-22) | one | fixed | fixed | fixed |\n| Serialization of concurrent mutations | none | unchanged | unchanged | unchanged |\n| Error handling in validateAndDispatch (R5) | 3 nested swallowing catches | pending | pending | pending |\nQuestion D6:\nD6 \u2014 How should AuthBroker and SessionMint get the shared AuthCache instance?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md \"Multi-tenant Auth Refactor\"; Section 1 Architecture, finding A1 (PLAN.md:28-29).\nELI10: The plan has both services import one cache object from a module and write to it (PLAN.md:28-29). That works until you need two of them: a test that wants a clean cache per case, a second broker for a different tenant pool, or a bundler or test runner that loads the module twice and quietly gives each service a different cache. Handing the cache in through each service's constructor makes the dependency visible and gives you one obvious place (app startup) that owns the single instance.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Tests that pass alone and fail together, or a mint that writes to a cache the broker never reads, both of which look like random auth failures in production.\nRecommendation: A because the plan already promises \"one backing cache\"; constructing it once at startup and injecting it is the standard [Layer 1] way to make that promise true and testable.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=3/10, C=7/10\nPros / cons:\nA) Construct once at the composition root, inject into both constructors (recommended)\n  \u2705 Dependency is explicit in each constructor; a test builds a fresh AuthCache per case with no module reset tricks\n  \u2705 Exactly one instance by construction, so the \"one backing cache\" contract is enforced where the app boots (human: ~2h / CC: ~10 min)\n  \u274c Every place that constructs AuthBroker or SessionMint must now pass the cache; call sites change\nB) Keep the module-level exported singleton as planned\n  \u2705 Zero call-site changes; import and go\n  \u2705 Simplest to write today (human: ~0 / CC: ~0)\n  \u274c Hidden global coupling; test isolation requires jest.resetModules or manual clearing, and duplicate module instances silently split the cache\nC) Module export as default, optional constructor override\n  \u2705 Existing call sites keep working; tests can still inject a fresh instance\n  \u2705 Incremental: can migrate call sites to explicit injection later (human: ~1h / CC: ~5 min)\n  \u274c Two ways to obtain the cache; the default path still hides the dependency and keeps the duplicate-instance risk in production\nNet: explicit single ownership at startup vs convenience of a global import.\nHeader: Cache sharing\nOptions:\nA) Construct once at the composition root, inject into both constructors (recommended)\n\u2705 Dependency is explicit in each constructor; a test builds a fresh AuthCache per case with no module reset tricks. \u2705 Exactly one instance by construction, so the \"one backing cache\" contract is enforced where the app boots (human: ~2h / CC: ~10 min). \u274c Every place that constructs AuthBroker or SessionMint must now pass the cache; call sites change.\nB) Keep the module-level exported singleton as planned\n\u2705 Zero call-site changes; import and go. \u2705 Simplest to write today (human: ~0 / CC: ~0). \u274c Hidden global coupling; test isolation requires jest.resetModules or manual clearing, and duplicate module instances silently split the cache.\nC) Module export as default, optional constructor override\n\u2705 Existing call sites keep working; tests can still inject a fresh instance. \u2705 Incremental: can migrate call sites to explicit injection later (human: ~1h / CC: ~5 min). \u274c Two ways to obtain the cache; the default path still hides the dependency and keeps the duplicate-instance risk in production.\nActual answer: \"Construct once at the composition root, inject into both constructors (recommended)\" (D6)\nState: approved\nAccepted scope: no module-level `AuthCache` export. One `AuthCache` is constructed at the application composition root (bootstrap) wrapping the existing adapter, and passed into `new AuthBroker({ cache })` and `new SessionMint({ cache })`. Tests construct a fresh AuthCache per case. Necessary code, tests and docs for this contract are carried without a further question.\nHistory: none\n\n### R5: Error handling structure of `AuthBroker.validateAndDispatch()`\nFinding: C1, P1, confidence 8/10, PLAN.md:32-33 (\"60 lines with three nested try/catch blocks; each catch swallows a different error class\"), reviewer: Claude\nPlan baseline: original proposal, nothing approved\nRuntime evidence: unknown; function does not exist yet (new orchestration code, so its error handling is new behavior, not retained behavior)\nState: pending\nComparison grid:\n| Choice | Current | A | B | C |\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n| R5 error handling in validateAndDispatch | 3 nested try/catch, each swallows one error class | linear pipeline validate \u2192 decide \u2192 dispatch; steps throw typed AuthError subclasses; one boundary catch maps class \u2192 outcome (deny / retryable / internal) and logs with tenant + request id; nothing swallowed | keep nesting; every catch either rethrows a typed error or logs + returns deny; no silent swallow | as planned: swallow |\n| R4 cache injection (approved D6) | injected | fixed | fixed | fixed |\n| R3 structure (approved D5) | 3 units | fixed | fixed | fixed |\n| RequestPolicy decision semantics (contract PLAN.md:9-13) | existing allow/deny | unchanged | unchanged | unchanged |\n| Regression coverage for legacyAuthFlow (R6) | none planned | pending | pending | pending |\nQuestion D7:\nD7 \u2014 How should validateAndDispatch() handle errors?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md \"Multi-tenant Auth Refactor\"; Section 2 Code Quality, finding C1 (PLAN.md:32-33).\nELI10: The new 60-line function wraps three steps in three nested try/catch blocks, and each catch quietly eats one kind of error (PLAN.md:32-33). In an auth path, a swallowed error is the worst kind: a failed token check or a policy lookup that blew up can fall through and the request gets dispatched anyway, or the user gets a vague failure with nothing in the logs. Three nested blocks also make it hard to see which step a given error belongs to. A flat sequence with one error boundary at the end is shorter, reads top to bottom, and forces every error to become a deliberate outcome.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Fail-open on validation errors (a request proceeds after its check crashed), or hours lost debugging auth failures with no log line.\nRecommendation: A because it fixes both problems at once (no swallowing, no nesting) in less code than the plan proposes, and the typed errors double as test seams.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=3/10\nPros / cons:\nA) Flat pipeline with typed errors and one boundary mapper (recommended)\n  \u2705 Every error class maps to an explicit outcome (deny, retryable, internal) and a structured log line with tenant and request id; fail-closed by construction\n  \u2705 Function shrinks to a readable top-to-bottom sequence; each step is independently unit-testable via its thrown error type (human: ~half day / CC: ~15 min)\n  \u274c Introduces a small AuthError hierarchy that the codebase must adopt consistently\nB) Keep nesting, make every catch explicit (rethrow typed or log + deny)\n  \u2705 Minimal structural change from the author's draft; keeps step-local handling where it is\n  \u2705 Removes silent swallowing, so no fail-open path remains (human: ~2h / CC: ~10 min)\n  \u274c Still 3 levels of nesting in a 60-line function; the error-to-outcome mapping is scattered across three catches instead of one place\nC) Keep as planned (each catch swallows its error class)\n  \u2705 No extra design work; matches the draft exactly\n  \u2705 Fastest to write (human: ~0 / CC: ~0)\n  \u274c Silent failures in an auth path: possible fail-open, no diagnostics, and behavior that no test can pin down\nNet: one explicit error boundary vs three scattered catches vs silence.\nHeader: Error handling\nOptions:\nA) Flat pipeline with typed errors and one boundary mapper (recommended)\n\u2705 Every error class maps to an explicit outcome (deny, retryable, internal) and a structured log line with tenant and request id; fail-closed by construction. \u2705 Function shrinks to a readable top-to-bottom sequence; each step is independently unit-testable via its thrown error type (human: ~half day / CC: ~15 min). \u274c Introduces a small AuthError hierarchy that the codebase must adopt consistently.\nB) Keep nesting, make every catch explicit (rethrow typed or log + deny)\n\u2705 Minimal structural change from the author's draft; keeps step-local handling where it is. \u2705 Removes silent swallowing, so no fail-open path remains (human: ~2h / CC: ~10 min). \u274c Still 3 levels of nesting in a 60-line function; the error-to-outcome mapping is scattered across three catches instead of one place.\nC) Keep as planned (each catch swallows its error class)\n\u2705 No extra design work; matches the draft exactly. \u2705 Fastest to write (human: ~0 / CC: ~0). \u274c Silent failures in an auth path: possible fail-open, no diagnostics, and behavior that no test can pin down.\nActual answer: \"Flat pipeline with typed errors and one boundary mapper (recommended)\" (D7)\nState: approved\nAccepted scope: `validateAndDispatch()` becomes a linear sequence: validate token (IDP client) \u2192 `decide(claims, ctx)` \u2192 dispatch. Each step throws a typed `AuthError` subclass (`TokenValidationError`, `PolicyDeniedError`, `DispatchError`, `IdpUnavailableError`); one boundary `catch` maps class \u2192 outcome (deny / retryable / internal) and emits one structured log line with tenant id and request id. No catch swallows silently; unknown error classes map to internal + deny (fail-closed). Tests for each mapping are carried as required proof of this contract.\nHistory: none\n\n### R6: Regression coverage for the `legacyAuthFlow()` rewrite (IRON RULE)\nFinding: T1, P1 CRITICAL, confidence 9/10, PLAN.md:36-37 (\"legacyAuthFlow() will get rewritten as part of this work; no regression test for the prior behavior is planned\") and PLAN.md:23-25 (\"That coverage does not exercise legacyAuthFlow() or assert compatibility with its prior behavior\"), reviewer: Claude\nPlan baseline: no regression coverage (original proposal); the plan's own goal is \"without changing its product behavior\" (PLAN.md:8-9)\nRuntime evidence: unknown; legacyAuthFlow() source not in repo. Its callers and observable outcomes must be enumerated by the implementer before rewriting.\nState: pending\nComparison grid:\n| Choice | Current | A | B | C |\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n| R6 regression contract | none | characterization suite captured from legacyAuthFlow() before rewrite, run unchanged against the new path; compatibility shim keeps callers on the old entry point until parity passes | parity tests for ~5 top paths (allow, deny, expired, revoked, IDP error), no shim | A plus a flag-gated shadow compare in production logging outcome mismatches |\n| Behavior to preserve | implicit | every observable outcome of legacyAuthFlow(): allow, deny, expired token, revoked token, suspended tenant, IDP timeout/5xx, malformed claims, cache hit vs miss, invalidation-on-logout | top 5 only | same as A |\n| Intentional differences | none stated | none: structural refactor only (D3 deferred the only behavior change) | none | none |\n| R5 error handling (approved D7) | typed errors | fixed; mapping must yield identical caller-visible outcomes to legacy | fixed | fixed |\n| R4 injection (approved D6) | injected | fixed | fixed | fixed |\nQuestion D8:\nD8 \u2014 How do we prove the rewritten legacyAuthFlow() still behaves exactly as before?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md \"Multi-tenant Auth Refactor\"; Section 3 Test review, finding T1 (PLAN.md:36-37, :23-25). This is the mandatory regression contract; the question is how to cover it, not whether.\nELI10: The whole point of this plan is \"same behavior, better structure\" (PLAN.md:8-9), yet the plan rewrites legacyAuthFlow() with no test that pins down what it does today (PLAN.md:36-37). Without that, \"same behavior\" is a hope. The standard move is to write characterization tests first: feed the old code every kind of request it handles today, record what it does, then run the exact same tests against the new AuthBroker path. Green means parity. A thin shim that keeps existing callers on the old entry point until parity is green means nothing user-facing changes until it is proven.\nStakes if we pick wrong: A tenant that used to be denied gets allowed (or the reverse) and nobody knows until a customer reports it; a refactor becomes an auth incident.\nRecommendation: A because with CC the full characterization suite costs minutes, and it is the only option that turns \"no behavior change\" into a checked claim rather than an assertion.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=10/10 (C adds runtime verification on top of A, not more test coverage)\nPros / cons:\nA) Full characterization suite + compatibility shim until parity (recommended)\n  \u2705 Every observable legacy outcome (allow, deny, expired, revoked, suspended tenant, IDP error, malformed claims, cache hit/miss, logout invalidation) is recorded as input \u2192 outcome and replayed against the new path\n  \u2705 Callers stay on legacyAuthFlow() through a shim until the suite is green, so the cutover is a one-line, reversible switch (human: ~1.5 days / CC: ~30 min)\n  \u274c Requires enumerating legacy callers and behaviors up front; the suite is throwaway-adjacent once parity lands (keep it as the regression suite)\nB) Parity tests for the top ~5 paths, no shim\n  \u2705 Covers the paths users hit most; fast to write (human: ~3h / CC: ~10 min)\n  \u2705 No shim means fewer moving parts during cutover\n  \u274c Rare paths (suspended tenant, malformed claims, invalidation races) are exactly where auth regressions hide; a cutover with no fallback switch\nC) A plus flag-gated shadow compare in production\n  \u2705 Catches behaviors the suite author did not think of by diffing old vs new outcomes on real traffic\n  \u2705 Zero user impact while shadowing: old path serves, new path only logs (human: ~2.5 days / CC: ~45 min)\n  \u274c Doubles IDP load during shadow, needs a flag system and mismatch dashboard; heavier than a structural refactor warrants\nNet: proven parity with a reversible switch vs sampling the happy paths vs production-grade verification.\nHeader: Regression\nOptions:\nA) Full characterization suite + compatibility shim until parity (recommended)\n\u2705 Every observable legacy outcome (allow, deny, expired, revoked, suspended tenant, IDP error, malformed claims, cache hit/miss, logout invalidation) is recorded as input \u2192 outcome and replayed against the new path. \u2705 Callers stay on legacyAuthFlow() through a shim until the suite is green, so the cutover is a one-line, reversible switch (human: ~1.5 days / CC: ~30 min). \u274c Requires enumerating legacy callers and behaviors up front; the suite is throwaway-adjacent once parity lands (keep it as the regression suite).\nB) Parity tests for the top ~5 paths, no shim\n\u2705 Covers the paths users hit most; fast to write (human: ~3h / CC: ~10 min). \u2705 No shim means fewer moving parts during cutover. \u274c Rare paths (suspended tenant, malformed claims, invalidation races) are exactly where auth regressions hide; a cutover with no fallback switch.\nC) A plus flag-gated shadow compare in production\n\u2705 Catches behaviors the suite author did not think of by diffing old vs new outcomes on real traffic. \u2705 Zero user impact while shadowing: old path serves, new path only logs (human: ~2.5 days / CC: ~45 min). \u274c Doubles IDP load during shadow, needs a flag system and mismatch dashboard; heavier than a structural refactor warrants.\nActual answer: \"Full characterization suite + compatibility shim until parity (recommended)\" (D8)\nState: approved\nAccepted scope: Before any rewrite, enumerate legacyAuthFlow() callers and write `auth/legacyAuthFlow.characterization.test.*` recording input \u2192 outcome for: allow, deny, expired token, revoked token, suspended tenant, IDP timeout, IDP 5xx, malformed/missing claims, cache hit, cache miss, logout invalidation, policy-version bump. Run the identical suite against `AuthBroker.validateAndDispatch()`. Keep callers on `legacyAuthFlow()` via a one-line shim delegating to the old implementation until the suite is green on the new path; then flip the shim to delegate to AuthBroker (single reversible change). No intentional behavior differences (D3 deferred the only one). The suite is retained as the permanent regression suite.\nHistory: none\n\n### R7: Coverage depth for the new components (AuthBroker, SessionMint, AuthCache, decide())\nFinding: T2, P2, confidence 8/10, PLAN.md:23-24 (\"Unit and integration coverage is planned for the new components and their success/error paths\"), reviewer: Claude\nPlan baseline: success/error paths only (original proposal)\nRuntime evidence: unknown; no tests exist. Framework unknown (no package.json / CLAUDE.md Testing section).\nState: pending\nComparison grid:\n| Choice | Current | A | B |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| R7 new-component test depth | success + error paths | A: success + error + edge cases: tenant isolation (tenant A token never resolves under tenant B key), expiry boundary (exp == now), policy-version bump misses old entries, malformed claims \u2192 deny, mint-after-invalidation does not resurrect, two services share one injected instance, unknown error class \u2192 fail-closed; plus E2E: valid/expired/revoked/suspended request flows and IDP-down | B: success + error paths as planned |\n| R6 regression suite (approved D8) | characterization + shim | fixed (required proof, not counted here) | fixed |\n| R5 error mapping tests (approved D7) | each AuthError \u2192 outcome | fixed (required proof) | fixed |\n| R4 injection test (approved D6) | fresh AuthCache per test | fixed (required proof) | fixed |\n| Framework | unknown | match existing repo framework when known | same |\nQuestion D9:\nD9 \u2014 How deep should tests go for the new components beyond success/error paths?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md \"Multi-tenant Auth Refactor\"; Section 3 Test review, finding T2 (PLAN.md:23-24).\nELI10: The plan promises tests for the new pieces when things work and when they fail (PLAN.md:23-24). That misses the cases multi-tenant auth actually breaks on: a token from tenant A being served to tenant B, a token that expires at exactly this second, a policy version bump that should make old cache entries invisible, a session minted a moment after the tenant was suspended. Each of those is a five-line test once the components exist. The regression suite (D8), error-mapping tests (D7) and injection test (D6) are already required; this decides the extra edge-case and end-to-end layer.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Cross-tenant leakage or a resurrected revoked token, found by a customer instead of a test.\nRecommendation: A because these edge cases are the actual failure modes of tenant auth and cost minutes with CC.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10\nPros / cons:\nA) Full edge-case + E2E coverage (recommended)\n  \u2705 Pins down tenant isolation, expiry boundary, policy-version bump, malformed claims, mint-after-invalidation and fail-closed on unknown errors\n  \u2705 Four E2E flows (valid / expired / revoked / suspended) plus IDP-down prove the whole path, not just units (human: ~1 day / CC: ~20 min)\n  \u274c Larger test file count to maintain; E2E flows need a fake IDP or recorded fixtures\nB) Success/error paths as planned\n  \u2705 Matches the author's stated plan; smaller test surface to write and maintain\n  \u2705 Fast (human: ~3h / CC: ~8 min)\n  \u274c Leaves the tenant-isolation and invalidation-race cases, the ones that cause auth incidents, unproven\nNet: prove the failure modes that matter in multi-tenant auth vs the minimum the plan states.\nHeader: Test depth\nOptions:\nA) Full edge-case + E2E coverage (recommended)\n\u2705 Pins down tenant isolation, expiry boundary, policy-version bump, malformed claims, mint-after-invalidation and fail-closed on unknown errors. \u2705 Four E2E flows (valid / expired / revoked / suspended) plus IDP-down prove the whole path, not just units (human: ~1 day / CC: ~20 min). \u274c Larger test file count to maintain; E2E flows need a fake IDP or recorded fixtures.\nB) Success/error paths as planned\n\u2705 Matches the author's stated plan; smaller test surface to write and maintain. \u2705 Fast (human: ~3h / CC: ~8 min). \u274c Leaves the tenant-isolation and invalidation-race cases, the ones that cause auth incidents, unproven.\nActual answer: \"Full edge-case + E2E coverage (recommended)\" (D9)\nState: approved\nAccepted scope: In addition to the required proof from D6/D7/D8, unit tests for: tenant isolation (tenant A token never resolves under tenant B key), expiry boundary (exp == now \u2192 expired), policy-version bump hides old entries, malformed/missing claims \u2192 deny, mint-after-invalidation does not resurrect an entry, unknown error class \u2192 internal + deny. E2E (fake IDP or recorded fixtures): valid \u2192 allow \u2192 dispatch; expired \u2192 deny; revoked \u2192 deny; suspended tenant \u2192 deny; IDP down \u2192 retryable error within the existing timeout, no hang. Test framework: match the existing repo framework once known.\nHistory: none\n\n### TODO decisions (Final planning decisions)\n- D10 TODO \"Parallelize the 5 IDP validation calls\" \u2192 \"Add to TODOS.md (recommended)\". Not persisted: TODOS.md does not exist and plan mode forbids creating it; content is in the TODOS section below.\n- D11 TODO \"Confirm adapter invalidation-vs-write ordering\" \u2192 \"Add to TODOS.md (recommended)\". Not persisted, same reason.\n\nApproval readiness: PASS \u2014 R1 (D3), R2 (D4), R3 (D5), R4 (D6), R5 (D7), R6 (D8), R7 (D9) each cite an actual answer; no pending remedies. Setup answers D1, D2 and TODO answers D10, D11 approve no engineering remedy.\n\n---\n\n# Reviewed implementation plan\n\n## Context\nReorganize the existing tenant-auth orchestration into named components **without changing product behavior** (PLAN.md:8-9). The review reduced scope from 5 new classes / 12 files to 3 units, deferred the only behavior change (IDP-call parallelization) to a follow-up PR, and added the regression and edge-case coverage a \"no behavior change\" claim needs to be checkable.\n\n## Scope after review\n| Component | Original plan | After review |\n|---|---|---|\n| AuthBroker | new class | new class; `validateAndDispatch()` is a flat pipeline with typed errors (D7) |\n| SessionMint | new class | new class |\n| AuthCache | new class, module-level global | new class, constructed once at bootstrap and injected (D6) |\n| RequestPolicy | new class | pure exported function `decide(claims, ctx)` (D5) |\n| TokenStore | new class, undefined | **cut** (D4) |\n| IDP call parallelization | in this PR | **deferred** to follow-up PR (D3) |\n| legacyAuthFlow() regression | none | characterization suite + shim (D8) |\n| New-component tests | success/error paths | full edge cases + E2E (D9) |\n\n## Architecture\n\n```\n                          composition root (bootstrap)\n                          \u250c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2510\n                          \u2502 adapter = existingCacheAdapter\u2502\n                          \u2502 cache   = new AuthCache(adapter)   (one instance, D6)\n                          \u2502 broker  = new AuthBroker({ cache, idpClient, dispatcher })\n                          \u2502 mint    = new SessionMint({ cache, idpClient })\n                          \u2514\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u252c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u252c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2518\n                                      \u2502           \u2502\n   request \u2500\u2500\u25ba legacyAuthFlow() shim \u2500\u2524           \u2502\n              (delegates to old impl  \u2502           \u2502\n               until D8 suite green,  \u25bc           \u25bc\n               then to broker)   AuthBroker    SessionMint\n                                      \u2502             \u2502 set(tenantKey, session)\n   validateAndDispatch(req):          \u2502             \u25bc\n     1. claims = validate(token)  \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u25ba AuthCache (facade) \u2500\u2500\u25ba existing adapter\n        cache.get(tenantKey) hit? \u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2518    get / set / invalidate     keys: tenant, issuer,\n        miss \u2192 idpClient (5 serial calls,                            audience, policyVersion\n               unchanged in this PR)                                 evicts expired; hooks on\n     2. decision = decide(claims, ctx)   \u2190 pure fn, no I/O           logout / revoke / suspend\n     3. deny \u2192 PolicyDeniedError                                     (unchanged, tests retained)\n        allow \u2192 dispatcher.dispatch(req)\n     catch (e) \u2192 mapAuthError(e) \u2192 { outcome, log(tenantId, requestId) }\n```\n\n### Error boundary (D7)\n```\nTokenValidationError \u2500\u25ba deny (401-class)        \u2500\u2510\nPolicyDeniedError    \u2500\u25ba deny (403-class)          \u251c\u2500\u25ba one structured log line\nIdpUnavailableError  \u2500\u25ba retryable (503-class)     \u2502   { tenantId, requestId, errorClass }\nDispatchError        \u2500\u25ba internal                  \u2502\nunknown              \u2500\u25ba internal + deny (closed) \u2500\u2518\n```\nNo catch swallows. Unknown classes fail closed.\n\n### Component contracts\n- **AuthCache** (`auth/AuthCache.ts`): narrow facade exposing only `get`, `set`, `invalidate` over the existing adapter. Retains keying (tenant ID, issuer, audience, policy version), expiry eviction and invalidation hooks unchanged (PLAN.md:16-22). No module-level export. Constructor takes the adapter.\n- **decide(claims, ctx)** (`auth/requestPolicy.ts`): pure; returns allow/deny under the existing access policy; missing or malformed claims \u2192 deny (matches legacy).\n- **AuthBroker** (`auth/AuthBroker.ts`): constructor `{ cache, idpClient, dispatcher }`; `validateAndDispatch(req)` as diagrammed. Cache hit short-circuits all IDP calls.\n- **SessionMint** (`auth/SessionMint.ts`): constructor `{ cache, idpClient }`; writes through AuthCache only.\n- **Shim**: `legacyAuthFlow()` keeps its signature; body delegates to the old implementation until the characterization suite passes on `AuthBroker`, then delegates to the broker (one-line, reversible).\n- **AuthError hierarchy** (`auth/errors.ts`): `AuthError` base; `TokenValidationError`, `PolicyDeniedError`, `IdpUnavailableError`, `DispatchError`; `mapAuthError()` in `auth/AuthBroker.ts` or `auth/errors.ts`.\n\n## Tests (approved D8, D9; required proof for D6, D7)\nFramework: unknown from this repo (no `package.json`, no CLAUDE.md Testing section); match the target repo's framework. File names below are placeholders.\n\n1. **CRITICAL regression** `auth/legacyAuthFlow.characterization.test.*` (D8): written BEFORE the rewrite against the old implementation. Cases: allow, deny, expired token, revoked token, suspended tenant, IDP timeout, IDP 5xx, malformed/missing claims, cache hit, cache miss, logout invalidation, policy-version bump. Then run unchanged against `AuthBroker.validateAndDispatch()`. Green before the shim flips.\n2. `auth/AuthBroker.test.*`: each step's thrown error type; `mapAuthError` for every class incl. unknown \u2192 internal + deny (D7); cache hit issues zero IDP calls; cache miss issues the existing 5 calls in the existing order.\n3. `auth/requestPolicy.test.*`: allow, deny, missing claims, malformed claims \u2192 deny.\n4. `auth/AuthCache.test.*`: delegates get/set/invalidate unchanged; tenant isolation (tenant A token never resolves under tenant B key); expiry boundary (exp == now); policy-version bump hides old entries.\n5. `auth/SessionMint.test.*`: mint writes through the cache; mint after invalidation does not resurrect an entry (see TODO 2).\n6. `bootstrap.test.*`: one AuthCache constructed, both services receive the same instance; a test constructing two brokers with two fresh caches sees no shared state (D6).\n7. E2E [\u2192E2E] with fake IDP or recorded fixtures: valid \u2192 allow \u2192 dispatch; expired \u2192 deny; revoked \u2192 deny; suspended tenant \u2192 deny; IDP down \u2192 retryable error within existing timeout, no hang.\n\n## Performance\n- Unchanged in this PR: 5 sequential IDP calls per cache miss (D3). Follow-up TODO 1.\n- Cache-hit path must short-circuit IDP entirely (tested, item 2 above).\n- AuthCache facade is pure delegation; no measurable overhead.\n\n## NOT in scope\n- **IDP call parallelization** \u2014 behavior change; deferred to a follow-up PR so this refactor stays provably structural (D3).\n- **TokenStore** \u2014 undefined responsibility; cut. Re-add only with a written contract (D4).\n- **Serializing cache mutations** \u2014 existing adapter behavior retained; a bounded investigation is TODO 2 (D11), not a change here.\n- **Flag-gated production shadow compare** \u2014 heavier than a structural refactor warrants; rejected in D8 (option C).\n- **Any change to the cache adapter, its invalidation hooks or their tests** \u2014 retained unchanged per plan (PLAN.md:21-22).\n- **Distribution/CI** \u2014 no new artifact; not applicable.\n\n## What already exists\n- **Existing cache adapter** (keying by tenant/issuer/audience/policy version, expiry eviction, logout/revocation/suspension invalidation hooks, tests): reused unchanged behind AuthCache. The plan does not rebuild it; the facade only narrows its surface.\n- **legacyAuthFlow()**: the current orchestration and the source of truth for behavior; kept as the shim entry point and the characterization oracle.\n- **IDP client** and its 5 validation calls: reused as-is.\n- **Existing access policy logic**: moved into `decide()`, not rewritten.\n\n## Diagrams\n- Plan: request flow and error boundary above.\n- Code comments: `auth/AuthBroker.ts` header gets the validate \u2192 decide \u2192 dispatch pipeline with the error map; `auth/AuthCache.ts` header gets the key shape and the invalidation-hook list; `auth/legacyAuthFlow.ts` shim gets a 3-line \"old \u2192 new delegation, flip after characterization green\" note. Update these in the same commit as any change to the flow.\n\n## Failure modes\n| New codepath | Realistic production failure | Test | Error handling | User sees |\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n| validate (IDP) | IDP timeout on call 3 of 5 | yes (E2E IDP down, unit IdpUnavailableError) | yes: retryable, logged | clear retryable error |\n| validate (cache) | stale entry after policy-version bump | yes (AuthCache test) | adapter keying | correct deny/re-validate |\n| decide() | claims missing tenant field | yes (malformed \u2192 deny) | fail-closed deny | clear deny |\n| dispatch | downstream throws | yes (DispatchError mapping) | internal, logged | internal error, not silent |\n| mapAuthError | error of unexpected class | yes (unknown \u2192 internal + deny) | fail-closed | error, not fail-open |\n| SessionMint write | mint lands after tenant suspension invalidation | yes (D9 test; adapter behavior unknown, TODO 2) | depends on adapter (unknown) | possible stale access until TODO 2 settles it |\n| bootstrap | second AuthCache constructed by a stray import | yes (D6 test; no module export exists to import) | n/a | n/a |\n| shim | flipped before suite green | process gate, not a test | reversible one-line revert | behavior change |\n\nCritical gaps (no test AND no handling AND silent): **0**. The SessionMint row has a test and an explicit unknown, so it is tracked, not silent.\n\n## Worktree parallelization strategy\n| Step | Modules touched | Depends on |\n|---|---|---|\n| S1 Characterization suite for legacyAuthFlow() | tests/auth/ | \u2014 |\n| S2 AuthError hierarchy + mapAuthError | auth/errors | \u2014 |\n| S3 requestPolicy.decide() + tests | auth/requestPolicy, tests/auth | \u2014 |\n| S4 AuthCache facade + tests | auth/AuthCache, tests/auth | \u2014 |\n| S5 AuthBroker + SessionMint + tests | auth/AuthBroker, auth/SessionMint, tests/auth | S2, S3, S4 |\n| S6 Composition root injection + bootstrap test | bootstrap/ | S4, S5 |\n| S7 Shim + run S1 suite against broker, flip | auth/legacyAuthFlow | S1, S5, S6 |\n| S8 E2E flows | tests/e2e | S6 |\n\nLanes: `Lane A: S1 (independent)` / `Lane B: S2 \u2192 S3 (independent, small)` / `Lane C: S4 (independent)` / then `Lane D: S5 \u2192 S6 \u2192 S7` / `Lane E: S8` after S6.\nExecution: launch A + B + C in parallel worktrees; merge; run D sequentially; E in parallel with S7. Conflict flag: Lanes B, C and D all add files under `tests/auth/` \u2014 distinct files, low conflict risk, but merge A/B/C before D starts.\n\n## Implementation Tasks\nSynthesized from this review's findings. Each task derives from a specific finding above. Run with Claude Code or Codex; checkbox as you ship.\n\n- [ ] **T1 (P1, human: ~1.5 days / CC: ~30 min)** \u2014 tests/auth \u2014 Write the legacyAuthFlow() characterization suite before touching the rewrite\n  - Surfaced by: Test review \u2014 T1 regression gap (PLAN.md:36-37), D8\n  - Files: auth/legacyAuthFlow.characterization.test.*\n  - Verify: suite green against current legacyAuthFlow(); 12 cases listed in Tests \u00a71 present\n- [ ] **T2 (P1, human: ~half day / CC: ~15 min)** \u2014 auth/errors, auth/AuthBroker \u2014 Flat validate \u2192 decide \u2192 dispatch pipeline with typed AuthError classes and one boundary mapper; no swallowing\n  - Surfaced by: Code quality \u2014 C1 (PLAN.md:32-33), D7\n  - Files: auth/errors.ts, auth/AuthBroker.ts, auth/AuthBroker.test.*\n  - Verify: every AuthError class + unknown class has a mapping test; grep shows no empty catch\n- [ ] **T3 (P1, human: ~2h / CC: ~10 min)** \u2014 bootstrap, auth/AuthCache \u2014 Construct one AuthCache at the composition root and inject into AuthBroker and SessionMint; delete any module-level export\n  - Surfaced by: Architecture \u2014 A1 (PLAN.md:28-29), D6\n  - Files: bootstrap/*, auth/AuthCache.ts, auth/AuthBroker.ts, auth/SessionMint.ts, bootstrap.test.*\n  - Verify: grep confirms no `export const cache`; bootstrap test asserts same instance in both services\n- [ ] **T4 (P1, human: ~1h / CC: ~10 min)** \u2014 auth/legacyAuthFlow \u2014 Shim: keep signature, delegate to old impl; flip to AuthBroker only after T1 suite is green on the new path\n  - Surfaced by: Test review \u2014 REGRESSION RULE, D8\n  - Files: auth/legacyAuthFlow.ts\n  - Verify: T1 suite green on both targets before flip; flip is a one-line diff\n- [ ] **T5 (P2, human: ~2h / CC: ~10 min)** \u2014 auth/requestPolicy \u2014 Implement `decide(claims, ctx)` as a pure function (not a class); malformed/missing claims \u2192 deny\n  - Surfaced by: Scope Challenge \u2014 S3 (PLAN.md:13), D5\n  - Files: auth/requestPolicy.ts, auth/requestPolicy.test.*\n  - Verify: allow/deny/missing/malformed tests pass; no I/O imports in the module\n- [ ] **T6 (P2, human: ~1 day / CC: ~20 min)** \u2014 tests/auth, tests/e2e \u2014 Edge-case and E2E coverage: tenant isolation, expiry boundary, policy-version bump, mint-after-invalidation, cache-hit short-circuit, 5 E2E flows\n  - Surfaced by: Test review \u2014 T2 (PLAN.md:23-24), D9; Performance \u2014 finding 2\n  - Files: auth/AuthCache.test.*, auth/SessionMint.test.*, auth/AuthBroker.test.*, tests/e2e/auth.*\n  - Verify: all listed cases present and green; E2E uses a fake IDP or fixtures\n- [ ] **T7 (P2, human: ~1h / CC: ~5 min)** \u2014 auth/* \u2014 Remove TokenStore from the design; add the three ASCII header diagrams listed under Diagrams\n  - Surfaced by: Scope Challenge \u2014 S2 (PLAN.md:44-45), D4; Architecture \u2014 finding 3\n  - Files: auth/AuthBroker.ts, auth/AuthCache.ts, auth/legacyAuthFlow.ts\n  - Verify: no TokenStore symbol in the tree; diagrams match the flow\n\n_No new tasks from Performance beyond T6's cache-hit test (parallelization deferred to TODO 1)._\n\n## TODOS (accepted D10, D11 \u2014 not persisted: TODOS.md does not exist and plan mode forbids creating it; copy into TODOS.md after plan mode exits)\n- **Parallelize the 5 IDP validation calls.** Why: each cache miss pays 5 serial round-trips. Pros: latency win, small change. Cons: changes IDP burst shape (5 concurrent per validation) and error ordering; needs a `Promise.all` vs `Promise.allSettled` decision and an IDP load check. Context: land after the characterization suite is green so the timing change is provable alone. Depends on: this refactor merged.\n- **Confirm adapter invalidation-vs-write ordering.** Why: two services write one cache with no serialization (PLAN.md:19, :29); an in-flight mint landing after a suspension invalidation could resurrect access. Pros: 30-minute bounded read settles a fail-open question. Cons: may find nothing. Context: read the adapter's `invalidate` and `set` paths and their tests; decides whether the D9 mint-after-invalidation test needs a guard in AuthCache. Depends on: nothing; do before T6.\n\n## Unresolved decisions that may bite you later\nNone. All seven remedy rows (R1\u2013R7) are approved with actual answers; TODO answers recorded.\n\n## Suppressed findings (appendix, confidence \u2264 4 or unverifiable)\n- (confidence 4/10) 12-file count may already include test files; if so the file-count smell is smaller than stated. Unverifiable without the target repo.\n\n## Completion summary\n- Step 0: Scope Challenge \u2014 scope reduced per recommendation (parallelization deferred, TokenStore cut, RequestPolicy \u2192 function; 5 classes \u2192 3 units)\n- Architecture Review: 3 issues found (1 resolved D6, 1 medium-confidence unknown \u2192 TODO 2, 1 diagram added)\n- Code Quality Review: 1 issue found (resolved D7)\n- Test Review: diagram produced, 23 gaps identified (all covered by D8/D9 approved requirements; 1 CRITICAL regression gap resolved D8)\n- Performance Review: 2 issues found (1 deferred per D3 \u2192 TODO 1, 1 covered by test)\n- NOT in scope: written\n- What already exists: written\n- TODOS.md updates: 2 items proposed to user (both accepted, not persisted)\n- Failure modes: 0 critical gaps flagged\n- Unresolved decisions: 0 in this review\n- Outside voice: codex, disabled (codex_reviews=disabled; no native replacement by design)\n- Parallelization: 5 lanes, 3 parallel / 2 sequential\n- Lake Score: 5/5 (D3, D6, D7, D8, D9 all selected 10/10; D4, D5 differ in kind and are excluded)\n\n## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT\n\n| Review | Trigger | Why | Runs | Status | Findings |\n|--------|---------|-----|------|--------|----------|\n| CEO Review | `/plan-ceo-review` | Scope & strategy | 0 | \u2014 | \u2014 |\n| Outside Review | codex via `/plan-eng-review` | Independent 2nd opinion | 1 | DISABLED (host: claude, provider: codex, phase: plan-review) | skipped by config |\n| Eng Review | `/plan-eng-review` | Architecture & tests (required) | 1 | CLEAR (this run) | 9 issues, 0 critical gaps |\n| Design Review | `/plan-design-review` | UI/UX gaps | 0 | \u2014 | \u2014 |\n| DX Review | `/plan-devex-review` | Developer experience gaps | 0 | \u2014 | \u2014 |\n\n- **OUTSIDE COVERAGE:** provider codex, phase plan-review, status disabled (codex_reviews=disabled), findings: none; no native fallback dispatched (disabled is an opt-out, not a failure).\n- **VERDICT:** ENG CLEARED \u2014 ready to implement (mode SCOPE_REDUCED; 0 unresolved, 0 critical gaps).\n\nNO UNRESOLVED DECISIONS\n"
}