gstack/test/fixtures/ceo-count-ac-calls.json

{
  "source": "AC job 4 first paired attempt; complete native calls, original answers unchanged",
  "calls": [
    {
      "sessionId": "d44e9486-7772-4618-a28a-cdf3b994ed80",
      "toolUseId": "toolu_01Gdv5oCRQPXAJyw4YYz49eN",
      "questions": [
        {
          "header": "Routing",
          "question": "D1 \u2014 Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-OyYPMX on main, reviewing PLAN.md (payment test coverage) in HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: gstack wants a short 'Skill routing' section in CLAUDE.md so future requests like 'review this diff' auto-route to the right skill. This is a one-time setup prompt, unrelated to the plan itself. Plan mode forbids editing CLAUDE.md right now, so a yes would be applied after plan mode ends.\nStakes if we pick wrong: none for this review; only affects how readily skills get suggested later.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules are cheap and make skill invocation predictable.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nA) Add routing rules (recommended)\n  \u2705 Future requests auto-route to the matching gstack skill without guessing names\n  \u2705 One short section appended to CLAUDE.md, committed once, never prompted again\n  \u274c Adds ~15 lines to CLAUDE.md that some teammates may not use\nB) No thanks\n  \u2705 CLAUDE.md stays exactly as the fixture seeded it, no extra commit\n  \u2705 Preference is recorded so this prompt never repeats for this project\n  \u274c Skills must be invoked by name manually every time\nNet: a small convenience trade; no effect on the review.",
          "options": [
            {
              "label": "Add routing rules (recommended)",
              "description": "Append the Skill routing section to CLAUDE.md and commit it once plan mode ends."
            },
            {
              "label": "No thanks",
              "description": "Record routing_declined=true; invoke skills manually by name."
            }
          ],
          "multiSelect": false
        },
        {
          "header": "Office hours",
          "question": "D1.b \u2014 Run /office-hours first, or proceed with the standard review?\nProject/branch/task: same repo; no design doc found for branch main.\nELI10: /office-hours produces a structured problem statement, premise challenge, and explored alternatives before a plan review. It takes about 10 minutes and gives this review sharper input. This plan is a two-test coverage addition with already-implemented behavior, so the problem statement is short and mostly known.\nStakes if we pick wrong: skipping risks reviewing without a problem framing; running it costs ~10 minutes on a plan whose 'why' is already explicit.\nRecommendation: B because the plan's problem statement is already precise (two named contracts, no direct tests) and HOLD SCOPE limits how much a design doc would change.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nA) Run /office-hours now\n  \u2705 Produces a design doc that downstream reviews and teammates can reuse\n  \u2705 Forces an explicit premise challenge before any rigor work starts\n  \u274c ~10 minutes (human) spent framing a two-test change whose premise is already stated\nB) Skip, proceed with standard review (recommended)\n  \u2705 Goes straight to the rigor work the user asked for in HOLD SCOPE\n  \u2705 Premise challenge still happens inside Step 0A of this review\n  \u274c No standalone design doc artifact for this branch\nNet: framing depth versus time on a plan that is already narrowly framed.",
          "options": [
            {
              "label": "Skip, standard review (recommended)",
              "description": "Proceed directly; Step 0A already covers the premise challenge."
            },
            {
              "label": "Run /office-hours now",
              "description": "Produce a design doc first, then resume this review."
            }
          ],
          "multiSelect": false
        },
        {
          "header": "Learnings",
          "question": "D1.c \u2014 Let gstack search learnings from your other local projects?\nProject/branch/task: same repo; cross_project_learnings is unset (first time).\nELI10: gstack keeps per-project notes about pitfalls and patterns. It can also look at notes from your other projects on this machine to spot patterns that apply here. Nothing leaves your machine. Solo developers usually want this on; people working across multiple client codebases usually keep it off.\nStakes if we pick wrong: on for a multi-client setup could surface one client's patterns while working on another; off for a solo dev just means fewer hints.\nRecommendation: A because this is a fresh fixture with zero local learnings, so cross-project is the only source of prior hints, and the data stays local.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nA) Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)\n  \u2705 Prior learnings from other repos on this machine can surface as 'Prior learning applied' hints\n  \u2705 Stays local; nothing is uploaded or shared\n  \u274c Not ideal if you juggle multiple client codebases and want strict separation\nB) Keep learnings project-scoped only\n  \u2705 Strict separation between projects on the same machine\n  \u2705 Simplest mental model: this repo's learnings only\n  \u274c This repo has zero learnings today, so no hints will appear\nNet: a privacy-posture choice with no effect on the review's findings.",
          "options": [
            {
              "label": "Enable cross-project (recommended)",
              "description": "gstack-config set cross_project_learnings true (applied after plan mode)."
            },
            {
              "label": "Project-scoped only",
              "description": "gstack-config set cross_project_learnings false (applied after plan mode)."
            }
          ],
          "multiSelect": false
        }
      ],
      "answered": true,
      "failed": false,
      "answers": {
        "D1 \u2014 Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-OyYPMX on main, reviewing PLAN.md (payment test coverage) in HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: gstack wants a short 'Skill routing' section in CLAUDE.md so future requests like 'review this diff' auto-route to the right skill. This is a one-time setup prompt, unrelated to the plan itself. Plan mode forbids editing CLAUDE.md right now, so a yes would be applied after plan mode ends.\nStakes if we pick wrong: none for this review; only affects how readily skills get suggested later.\nRecommendation: A because routing rules are cheap and make skill invocation predictable.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nA) Add routing rules (recommended)\n  \u2705 Future requests auto-route to the matching gstack skill without guessing names\n  \u2705 One short section appended to CLAUDE.md, committed once, never prompted again\n  \u274c Adds ~15 lines to CLAUDE.md that some teammates may not use\nB) No thanks\n  \u2705 CLAUDE.md stays exactly as the fixture seeded it, no extra commit\n  \u2705 Preference is recorded so this prompt never repeats for this project\n  \u274c Skills must be invoked by name manually every time\nNet: a small convenience trade; no effect on the review.": "Add routing rules (recommended)",
        "D1.b \u2014 Run /office-hours first, or proceed with the standard review?\nProject/branch/task: same repo; no design doc found for branch main.\nELI10: /office-hours produces a structured problem statement, premise challenge, and explored alternatives before a plan review. It takes about 10 minutes and gives this review sharper input. This plan is a two-test coverage addition with already-implemented behavior, so the problem statement is short and mostly known.\nStakes if we pick wrong: skipping risks reviewing without a problem framing; running it costs ~10 minutes on a plan whose 'why' is already explicit.\nRecommendation: B because the plan's problem statement is already precise (two named contracts, no direct tests) and HOLD SCOPE limits how much a design doc would change.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nA) Run /office-hours now\n  \u2705 Produces a design doc that downstream reviews and teammates can reuse\n  \u2705 Forces an explicit premise challenge before any rigor work starts\n  \u274c ~10 minutes (human) spent framing a two-test change whose premise is already stated\nB) Skip, proceed with standard review (recommended)\n  \u2705 Goes straight to the rigor work the user asked for in HOLD SCOPE\n  \u2705 Premise challenge still happens inside Step 0A of this review\n  \u274c No standalone design doc artifact for this branch\nNet: framing depth versus time on a plan that is already narrowly framed.": "Skip, standard review (recommended)",
        "D1.c \u2014 Let gstack search learnings from your other local projects?\nProject/branch/task: same repo; cross_project_learnings is unset (first time).\nELI10: gstack keeps per-project notes about pitfalls and patterns. It can also look at notes from your other projects on this machine to spot patterns that apply here. Nothing leaves your machine. Solo developers usually want this on; people working across multiple client codebases usually keep it off.\nStakes if we pick wrong: on for a multi-client setup could surface one client's patterns while working on another; off for a solo dev just means fewer hints.\nRecommendation: A because this is a fresh fixture with zero local learnings, so cross-project is the only source of prior hints, and the data stays local.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nA) Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)\n  \u2705 Prior learnings from other repos on this machine can surface as 'Prior learning applied' hints\n  \u2705 Stays local; nothing is uploaded or shared\n  \u274c Not ideal if you juggle multiple client codebases and want strict separation\nB) Keep learnings project-scoped only\n  \u2705 Strict separation between projects on the same machine\n  \u2705 Simplest mental model: this repo's learnings only\n  \u274c This repo has zero learnings today, so no hints will appear\nNet: a privacy-posture choice with no effect on the review's findings.": "Enable cross-project (recommended)"
      },
      "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
      "answeredAt": "2026-09-09T16:37:35.604Z"
    },
    {
      "sessionId": "d44e9486-7772-4618-a28a-cdf3b994ed80",
      "toolUseId": "toolu_01BCALJsWcEqvcmY7GmTnuHK",
      "questions": [
        {
          "header": "Approach",
          "question": "D2 \u2014 Which implementation approach for the two processPayment tests?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-OyYPMX on main, PLAN.md adds two unit tests to the existing processPayment suite (HOLD SCOPE).\nELI10: The plan states two exact contracts: a success returns { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }, and repeated 502s produce exactly two charge attempts, one recorded 100 ms backoff, then PaymentUnavailable. The proposed tests only check 'receipt is truthy' and 'it rejects with PaymentUnavailable'. A test that passes when the receipt has the wrong amount, or when the retry loop makes one or five attempts, is a green checkmark that proves nothing. The factory already exposes the mock call history and the virtual sleeper record, so pinning the exact contract costs a few assertion lines.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a regression in receipt shape or retry count ships with the suite still green, which is the exact silent failure these tests exist to prevent.\nRecommendation: B because it is the complete version of the plan's own stated scope (well-tested and explicit over minimal) without adding any new behavior; C is an expansion and out of HOLD SCOPE.\nCompleteness: A=3/10, B=9/10, C=10/10\nA) As written: truthy receipt, rejects-only (human ~20 min / CC ~3 min)\n  \u2705 Smallest possible diff, no new fixtures or helper usage beyond the mock\n  \u2705 Matches PLAN.md text exactly, nothing to renegotiate\n  \u274c Passes on wrong chargeId, wrong amountCents, wrong currency, 1 or 5 retry attempts, 0 ms backoff\nB) Contract-pinning: same two tests, exact assertions (recommended) (human ~45 min / CC ~5 min)\n  \u2705 Success test deep-equals the receipt, asserts one charge call carrying amountCents=1000/currency=USD, and an empty sleeper record\n  \u2705 502 test asserts rejection is a PaymentUnavailable instance, exactly 2 charge calls, exactly one 100 ms sleep, using helpers the factory already exposes\n  \u274c Assertions depend on the sleeper record's existing shape, so the implementer must read the factory helper once\nC) B plus shadow-path tests for nil / zero / non-integer amount (human ~2 h / CC ~15 min)\n  \u2705 Full input-shape coverage of processPayment in one PR\n  \u2705 Would surface any missing production validation early\n  \u274c Adds behaviors PLAN.md does not state and may require production changes; exceeds HOLD SCOPE\nNet: B pins every invariant the plan already writes down, using only helpers it already names; A leaves those invariants unverified and C changes scope.",
          "options": [
            {
              "label": "B: Contract-pinning (recommended)",
              "description": "Same two tests; assert exact receipt, call count, backoff record, and error class."
            },
            {
              "label": "A: As written",
              "description": "Keep truthy / rejects-only assertions exactly as PLAN.md describes."
            },
            {
              "label": "C: B + shadow paths",
              "description": "Add nil/zero/non-integer amount tests; leaves HOLD SCOPE."
            }
          ],
          "multiSelect": false
        }
      ],
      "answered": true,
      "failed": false,
      "answers": {
        "D2 \u2014 Which implementation approach for the two processPayment tests?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-OyYPMX on main, PLAN.md adds two unit tests to the existing processPayment suite (HOLD SCOPE).\nELI10: The plan states two exact contracts: a success returns { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }, and repeated 502s produce exactly two charge attempts, one recorded 100 ms backoff, then PaymentUnavailable. The proposed tests only check 'receipt is truthy' and 'it rejects with PaymentUnavailable'. A test that passes when the receipt has the wrong amount, or when the retry loop makes one or five attempts, is a green checkmark that proves nothing. The factory already exposes the mock call history and the virtual sleeper record, so pinning the exact contract costs a few assertion lines.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a regression in receipt shape or retry count ships with the suite still green, which is the exact silent failure these tests exist to prevent.\nRecommendation: B because it is the complete version of the plan's own stated scope (well-tested and explicit over minimal) without adding any new behavior; C is an expansion and out of HOLD SCOPE.\nCompleteness: A=3/10, B=9/10, C=10/10\nA) As written: truthy receipt, rejects-only (human ~20 min / CC ~3 min)\n  \u2705 Smallest possible diff, no new fixtures or helper usage beyond the mock\n  \u2705 Matches PLAN.md text exactly, nothing to renegotiate\n  \u274c Passes on wrong chargeId, wrong amountCents, wrong currency, 1 or 5 retry attempts, 0 ms backoff\nB) Contract-pinning: same two tests, exact assertions (recommended) (human ~45 min / CC ~5 min)\n  \u2705 Success test deep-equals the receipt, asserts one charge call carrying amountCents=1000/currency=USD, and an empty sleeper record\n  \u2705 502 test asserts rejection is a PaymentUnavailable instance, exactly 2 charge calls, exactly one 100 ms sleep, using helpers the factory already exposes\n  \u274c Assertions depend on the sleeper record's existing shape, so the implementer must read the factory helper once\nC) B plus shadow-path tests for nil / zero / non-integer amount (human ~2 h / CC ~15 min)\n  \u2705 Full input-shape coverage of processPayment in one PR\n  \u2705 Would surface any missing production validation early\n  \u274c Adds behaviors PLAN.md does not state and may require production changes; exceeds HOLD SCOPE\nNet: B pins every invariant the plan already writes down, using only helpers it already names; A leaves those invariants unverified and C changes scope.": "B: Contract-pinning (recommended)"
      },
      "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
      "answeredAt": "2026-09-09T16:38:04.224Z"
    },
    {
      "sessionId": "d44e9486-7772-4618-a28a-cdf3b994ed80",
      "toolUseId": "toolu_01FyuWV4Sb2UY37isvM5NfPd",
      "questions": [
        {
          "header": "Backoff order",
          "question": "D3 \u2014 Finding 1: should Test 2 prove the 100 ms backoff happens BETWEEN the two charge attempts, not just that it happened?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-OyYPMX on main, PLAN.md Test 2 (repeated 502), HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: PLAN.md's contract says two attempts 'separated by' one 100 ms backoff. The approved D2 assertions check the final counts: two charge calls, one 100 ms sleep. But a retry loop that calls Stripe twice back-to-back and only then sleeps before throwing produces the same final counts. That bug would hammer Stripe with no gap and still pass. Proving the order needs one extra check taken mid-flight: when the mock serves the second 502, the sleeper must already hold exactly one 100 ms entry.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a reordering bug in the retry loop (sleep after the last attempt, or sleep before the first) ships green; Stripe sees two instant hits instead of a spaced retry.\nRecommendation: 1A because 'separated by' is a stated invariant of this plan, the check reuses the mock and sleeper the factory already exposes, and it costs a few lines (well-tested, explicit over clever).\nCompleteness: 1A=10/10, 1B=7/10, 1C=5/10\n1A) Assert interleaving via the second mock response (recommended) (human ~15 min / CC ~2 min)\n  \u2705 Second 502 response is served by a mock implementation that snapshots sleeper.record at call time; test asserts that snapshot equals [100] and the first call's snapshot equals []\n  \u2705 Rejects both violating orders (sleep-after-last, sleep-before-first) with a failure message showing the captured snapshots\n  \u274c Slightly more setup than a queued-response mock; the snapshot must be captured synchronously inside the mock implementation\n1B) Assert a combined call/sleep timeline if the factory already exposes one (human ~10 min / CC ~2 min)\n  \u2705 Reads as a single expected sequence: [charge, sleep 100, charge], which is the clearest statement of the contract\n  \u2705 Zero mock-implementation logic if the factory records a unified timeline\n  \u274c PLAN.md names separate call history and sleeper record; if there is no unified timeline this falls back to 1A anyway\n1C) Keep the approved D2 count assertions only, document ordering as untested (human ~0 / CC ~0)\n  \u2705 No additional test code beyond what D2 already approved\n  \u2705 Still catches wrong retry counts and missing or wrong-length backoff\n  \u274c Leaves the 'separated by' clause of the stated contract unverified; a sleep-after-last-attempt bug passes\nNet: 1A proves the ordering the plan promises with helpers already in hand; 1C accepts a documented gap in the only invariant the counts cannot see.",
          "options": [
            {
              "label": "1A: Snapshot in 2nd mock response (recommended)",
              "description": "Capture sleeper.record inside the mock at each call; assert [] then [100]."
            },
            {
              "label": "1B: Unified timeline, else 1A",
              "description": "Assert [charge, sleep 100, charge] if the factory exposes one; fall back to 1A."
            },
            {
              "label": "1C: Counts only, document gap",
              "description": "Keep D2 assertions; note ordering as untested in the plan."
            }
          ],
          "multiSelect": false
        }
      ],
      "answered": true,
      "failed": false,
      "answers": {
        "D3 \u2014 Finding 1: should Test 2 prove the 100 ms backoff happens BETWEEN the two charge attempts, not just that it happened?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-OyYPMX on main, PLAN.md Test 2 (repeated 502), HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: PLAN.md's contract says two attempts 'separated by' one 100 ms backoff. The approved D2 assertions check the final counts: two charge calls, one 100 ms sleep. But a retry loop that calls Stripe twice back-to-back and only then sleeps before throwing produces the same final counts. That bug would hammer Stripe with no gap and still pass. Proving the order needs one extra check taken mid-flight: when the mock serves the second 502, the sleeper must already hold exactly one 100 ms entry.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a reordering bug in the retry loop (sleep after the last attempt, or sleep before the first) ships green; Stripe sees two instant hits instead of a spaced retry.\nRecommendation: 1A because 'separated by' is a stated invariant of this plan, the check reuses the mock and sleeper the factory already exposes, and it costs a few lines (well-tested, explicit over clever).\nCompleteness: 1A=10/10, 1B=7/10, 1C=5/10\n1A) Assert interleaving via the second mock response (recommended) (human ~15 min / CC ~2 min)\n  \u2705 Second 502 response is served by a mock implementation that snapshots sleeper.record at call time; test asserts that snapshot equals [100] and the first call's snapshot equals []\n  \u2705 Rejects both violating orders (sleep-after-last, sleep-before-first) with a failure message showing the captured snapshots\n  \u274c Slightly more setup than a queued-response mock; the snapshot must be captured synchronously inside the mock implementation\n1B) Assert a combined call/sleep timeline if the factory already exposes one (human ~10 min / CC ~2 min)\n  \u2705 Reads as a single expected sequence: [charge, sleep 100, charge], which is the clearest statement of the contract\n  \u2705 Zero mock-implementation logic if the factory records a unified timeline\n  \u274c PLAN.md names separate call history and sleeper record; if there is no unified timeline this falls back to 1A anyway\n1C) Keep the approved D2 count assertions only, document ordering as untested (human ~0 / CC ~0)\n  \u2705 No additional test code beyond what D2 already approved\n  \u2705 Still catches wrong retry counts and missing or wrong-length backoff\n  \u274c Leaves the 'separated by' clause of the stated contract unverified; a sleep-after-last-attempt bug passes\nNet: 1A proves the ordering the plan promises with helpers already in hand; 1C accepts a documented gap in the only invariant the counts cannot see.": "1A: Snapshot in 2nd mock response (recommended)"
      },
      "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
      "answeredAt": "2026-09-09T16:39:58.356Z"
    },
    {
      "sessionId": "d44e9486-7772-4618-a28a-cdf3b994ed80",
      "toolUseId": "toolu_01JCRLYG3TKvLh7WVevVvx2N",
      "questions": [
        {
          "header": "Next review",
          "question": "D4 \u2014 Which review runs next?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-OyYPMX on main; CEO review of PLAN.md is complete and clean (HOLD SCOPE, 0 critical gaps, 3 P1 tasks).\nELI10: gstack chains reviews. The CEO review just settled scope and strategy. The engineering review is the required gate before shipping: it checks architecture, test design, and code quality in detail. skip_eng_review is false, so it is still required. No UI scope was detected, so the design review does not apply here.\nStakes if we pick wrong: skipping eng review leaves the ship gate NOT CLEARED; the plan is small, so the eng review should be quick.\nRecommendation: A because eng review is the required gate and the plan now has exact assertions worth a second structured pass on test design.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nA) Run /plan-eng-review next (recommended)\n  \u2705 Clears the required shipping gate on a plan that is small and already decided\n  \u2705 Gives the three tasks a test-design pass focused on the assertion mechanics (mock implementation, sleeper record shape)\n  \u274c One more review session before implementation starts (human ~30 min / CC ~5 min)\nB) Skip, handle reviews manually\n  \u2705 Move straight to implementing T1 to T3 in the real repo\n  \u2705 No further review time on a three-task change\n  \u274c Dashboard verdict stays NOT CLEARED until an eng review is logged\nNet: gate discipline versus getting to the code faster on a change that is already tightly specified.",
          "options": [
            {
              "label": "A: Run /plan-eng-review next (recommended)",
              "description": "Required gate; runs after this plan is approved."
            },
            {
              "label": "B: Skip, manual reviews",
              "description": "Proceed to implementation; eng gate remains open."
            }
          ],
          "multiSelect": false
        }
      ],
      "answered": true,
      "failed": false,
      "answers": {
        "D4 \u2014 Which review runs next?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-OyYPMX on main; CEO review of PLAN.md is complete and clean (HOLD SCOPE, 0 critical gaps, 3 P1 tasks).\nELI10: gstack chains reviews. The CEO review just settled scope and strategy. The engineering review is the required gate before shipping: it checks architecture, test design, and code quality in detail. skip_eng_review is false, so it is still required. No UI scope was detected, so the design review does not apply here.\nStakes if we pick wrong: skipping eng review leaves the ship gate NOT CLEARED; the plan is small, so the eng review should be quick.\nRecommendation: A because eng review is the required gate and the plan now has exact assertions worth a second structured pass on test design.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nA) Run /plan-eng-review next (recommended)\n  \u2705 Clears the required shipping gate on a plan that is small and already decided\n  \u2705 Gives the three tasks a test-design pass focused on the assertion mechanics (mock implementation, sleeper record shape)\n  \u274c One more review session before implementation starts (human ~30 min / CC ~5 min)\nB) Skip, handle reviews manually\n  \u2705 Move straight to implementing T1 to T3 in the real repo\n  \u2705 No further review time on a three-task change\n  \u274c Dashboard verdict stays NOT CLEARED until an eng review is logged\nNet: gate discipline versus getting to the code faster on a change that is already tightly specified.": "A: Run /plan-eng-review next (recommended)"
      },
      "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
      "answeredAt": "2026-09-09T16:42:24.264Z"
    }
  ]
}