gstack/test/fixtures/coverage-shell-display-aq.json

{
  "provenance": {
    "sourceSHA256": "b64881aae2bea272add2481f5235de5f47d707b488f7a65ec3da9d269b77c8e1",
    "projection": "Only parent init identity, one exact Bash tool_use and its exact successful tool_result from each failed attempt; no private reasoning.",
    "actualPassedCases": 0
  },
  "rows": [
    {
      "attempt": 1,
      "transcript": [
        {
          "type": "system",
          "subtype": "init",
          "cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-072o0E/tmp/skill-e2e-plan-coverage-v7qyNI",
          "session_id": "6b012ba1-affd-4d55-a609-f2e0d294fea4"
        },
        {
          "type": "assistant",
          "session_id": "6b012ba1-affd-4d55-a609-f2e0d294fea4",
          "parent_tool_use_id": null,
          "message": {
            "role": "assistant",
            "content": [
              {
                "type": "tool_use",
                "id": "toolu_01QACqWdKuVn474ma4M7A2Tz",
                "name": "Bash",
                "input": {
                  "command": "grep -n \"3. Test review\\|coverage\\|diagram\" plan-eng-review/sections/review-sections.md | head -40; echo ======; awk '/^### 3\\. Test review/,/^### 4\\./' plan-eng-review/sections/review-sections.md | head -150; echo ======SRC; cat -n src/billing.ts; echo ======TEST; cat -n test/billing.test.ts",
                  "description": "Read test-review section, source, and tests"
                },
                "caller": {
                  "type": "direct"
                }
              }
            ]
          }
        },
        {
          "type": "user",
          "session_id": "6b012ba1-affd-4d55-a609-f2e0d294fea4",
          "parent_tool_use_id": null,
          "message": {
            "role": "user",
            "content": [
              {
                "tool_use_id": "toolu_01QACqWdKuVn474ma4M7A2Tz",
                "type": "tool_result",
                "content": "126:* Whether key flows deserve ASCII diagrams in the plan or in code comments.\n141:* Existing ASCII diagrams in touched files — are they still accurate after this change?\n147:### 3. Test review\n149:100% coverage is the goal. Evaluate every codepath in the plan and ensure the plan includes tests for each one. If the plan is missing tests, add them — the plan should be complete enough that implementation includes full test coverage from the start.\n153:Before analyzing coverage, detect the project's test framework:\n176:3. **If no framework detected:** still produce the coverage diagram, but skip test generation.\n188:3. **Diagram the execution.** For each changed file, draw an ASCII diagram showing:\n195:This is the critical step — you're building a map of every line of code that can execute differently based on input. Every branch in this diagram needs a test.\n199:Code coverage isn't enough — you need to cover how real users interact with the changed code. For each changed feature, think through:\n214:Add these to your diagram alongside the code branches. A user flow with no test is just as much a gap as an untested if/else.\n218:Go through your diagram branch by branch — both code paths AND user flows. For each one, search for a test that exercises it:\n235:**RECOMMEND E2E (mark as [→E2E] in the diagram):**\n240:**RECOMMEND EVAL (mark as [→EVAL] in the diagram):**\n252:**IRON RULE:** When the coverage audit identifies a REGRESSION — code that previously worked but the diff broke — a regression test is added to the plan as a critical requirement. No AskUserQuestion. No skipping. Regressions are the highest-priority test because they prove something broke.\n261:**Step 4. Output ASCII coverage diagram:**\n263:Include BOTH code paths and user flows in the same diagram. Mark E2E-worthy and eval-worthy paths:\n285:**Fast path:** All paths covered → \"Test review: All new code paths have test coverage ✓\" Continue.\n289:For each GAP identified in the diagram, add a test requirement to the plan. Be specific:\n299:After producing the coverage diagram, write a test plan artifact to the project directory so `/qa` and `/qa-only` can consume it as primary test input:\n394:- **`under_codex`** — stale artifact selected its own harness. Print: \"Codex outside review unavailable: harness mismatch; no outside process started. Missing coverage. Repair: setup --host codex.\" Skip the outside invocation; retain the section's native pass if defined. Conflicting inherited harness markers are not grounds to guess another provider.\n400:A stale artifact selecting its own harness must report missing coverage and run no outside CLI. Repair: `setup --host codex`. Never infer a replacement provider from inherited environment markers. The invocation below repeats this guard.\n417:  echo 'Cannot read codex_reviews; disabled outside coverage was not recorded.' >&2\n456:  echo 'Codex outside review unavailable: harness mismatch; no outside process started. Missing coverage.' >&2\n479:  echo 'Codex outside review unavailable: execution failed; missing coverage. Check the provider diagnosis above.' >&2\n487:Show the full response in a `tool-output` fence. Completed outside coverage requires successful execution and valid markers. Refusal, empty/malformed output, missing score/severity/completion markers, timeout, or CLI failure means `outside_status: unavailable`. Follow this caller's fallback; missing coverage is never clean/PASS. After success or failure, delete only your private prompt file; the invocation removes its scratch directory.\n512:subagent below. A native result never supplies outside coverage.\n551:Score completeness only when the concrete remedies differ in coverage. Otherwise,\n552:use the preamble's kind-not-coverage note; accepting, keeping, investigating, and\n571:Substitute: STATUS = \"clean\" only if a reviewer completed and found no issues; \"issues_found\" if findings exist, or \"unavailable\" if neither reviewer completed. Never count missing coverage as a clean review.\n594:* **Coverage vs kind:** for every per-issue AskUserQuestion you raise in this review, decide whether the options differ in coverage or in kind. If coverage (e.g., more tests vs fewer, complete error handling vs happy-path-only, full edge-case coverage vs shortcut), include `Completeness: N/10` on each option. If kind (e.g., architectural choice between two different systems, posture-over-posture, A/B/C where each is a different kind of thing), skip the score and add one line: `Note: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.` Do NOT fabricate scores on kind-differentiated questions — filler scores are worse than no score.\n621:The plan itself should use ASCII diagrams for any non-trivial data flow, state machine, or processing pipeline. Additionally, identify which files in the implementation should get inline ASCII diagram comments — particularly Models with complex state transitions, Services with multi-step pipelines, and Concerns with non-obvious mixin behavior.\n624:For each new codepath identified in the test review diagram, list one realistic way it could fail in production (timeout, nil reference, race condition, stale data, etc.) and whether:\n735:- Test Review: diagram produced, ___ gaps identified\n788:Render each record using its recorded host, source, outside_provider, outside_status, and phase. Historical source \"claude\" means a native Claude subagent; source \"claude-code\" means the external CLI. Never infer a historical provider from the current harness. Unknown model identity remains unknown. Missing/disabled/skipped outside coverage is distinct from native completion.\n794:Read `autoplan-voices` and `design-outside-voices` for the coverage detail below the dashboard. Group by workflow run and phase, not merely skill. Show each phase’s recorded provider and outside_status; partial coverage must remain partial. These records do not change the engineering gate.\n819:- **Outside Voice (default-on):** Independent plan review through the host-selected provider after /plan-ceo-review and /plan-eng-review. The codex_reviews switch disables the entire extra step. Provider failure uses the existing native fallback and reports missing outside coverage. Never gates shipping.\n848:Parse each JSONL entry using recorded provenance. Historical source \"claude\" is a native Claude subagent; \"claude-code\" is the external CLI. Keep historical codex identifiers and never relabel old records from the current harness. Unknown model identity remains unknown. For new records, show host, outside_provider, outside_status, and phase. Only completed external records establish outside coverage; native fallbacks do not.\n1014:**Suggest /plan-design-review if UI changes exist and no design review has been run** — detect from the test diagram, architecture review, or any section that touched frontend components, CSS, views, or user-facing interaction flows. If an existing design review's commit hash shows it predates significant changes found in this eng review, note that it may be stale.\n======\n### 3. Test review\n\n100% coverage is the goal. Evaluate every codepath in the plan and ensure the plan includes tests for each one. If the plan is missing tests, add them — the plan should be complete enough that implementation includes full test coverage from the start.\n\n### Test Framework Detection\n\nBefore analyzing coverage, detect the project's test framework:\n\n1. **Read CLAUDE.md** — look for a `## Testing` section with test command and framework name. If found, use that as the authoritative source.\n2. **If CLAUDE.md has no testing section, auto-detect:**\n\n```bash\nsetopt +o nomatch 2>/dev/null || true  # zsh compat\n# Detect project runtime (markers are evidence, not commands to run blind)\n[ -f manage.py ] && echo \"RUNTIME:python FRAMEWORK:django\"\n{ [ -f pyproject.toml ] || [ -f pytest.ini ] || [ -f tox.ini ] || [ -f setup.cfg ] || [ -f requirements.txt ]; } && echo \"RUNTIME:python\"\n[ -f Gemfile ] || [ -f Rakefile ] || [ -f .rspec ] && echo \"RUNTIME:ruby\"\n[ -f package.json ] && echo \"RUNTIME:node\"\n[ -f go.mod ] && echo \"RUNTIME:go\"\n[ -f Cargo.toml ] && echo \"RUNTIME:rust\"\n[ -f pom.xml ] && echo \"RUNTIME:jvm BUILD:maven\"\n{ [ -f build.gradle ] || [ -f build.gradle.kts ]; } && echo \"RUNTIME:jvm BUILD:gradle\"\n# Check for existing test infrastructure — config files, scripts, AND test files\nls jest.config.* vitest.config.* playwright.config.* cypress.config.* .rspec pytest.ini tox.ini phpunit.xml 2>/dev/null\n[ -f package.json ] && grep -q '\"test\"[[:space:]]*:' package.json && echo \"SCRIPT:package.json test\"\n[ -f Makefile ] && grep -qE '^(test|check):' Makefile && echo \"TARGET:make test\"\ngit ls-files | grep -cE '(^|/)(tests?|spec|__tests__)/|(^|/)tests?\\.py$|(^|/)test_[^/]+\\.py$|_test\\.(go|py|rb|ts|js|exs)$|\\.(test|spec)\\.[jt]sx?$|_spec\\.rb$|Test\\.(java|kt)$' | sed 's/^/TESTFILES:/'\n```\n\n3. **If no framework detected:** still produce the coverage diagram, but skip test generation.\n\n**Step 1. Trace every codepath in the plan:**\n\nRead the plan document. For each new feature, service, endpoint, or component described, trace how data will flow through the code — don't just list planned functions, actually follow the planned execution:\n\n1. **Read the plan.** For each planned component, understand what it does and how it connects to existing code.\n2. **Trace data flow.** Starting from each entry point (route handler, exported function, event listener, component render), follow the data through every branch:\n   - Where does input come from? (request params, props, database, API call)\n   - What transforms it? (validation, mapping, computation)\n   - Where does it go? (database write, API response, rendered output, side effect)\n   - What can go wrong at each step? (null/undefined, invalid input, network failure, empty collection)\n3. **Diagram the execution.** For each changed file, draw an ASCII diagram showing:\n   - Every function/method that was added or modified\n   - Every conditional branch (if/else, switch, ternary, guard clause, early return)\n   - Every error path (try/catch, rescue, error boundary, fallback)\n   - Every call to another function (trace into it — does IT have untested branches?)\n   - Every edge: what happens with null input? Empty array? Invalid type?\n\nThis is the critical step — you're building a map of every line of code that can execute differently based on input. Every branch in this diagram needs a test.\n\n**Step 2. Map user flows, interactions, and error states:**\n\nCode coverage isn't enough — you need to cover how real users interact with the changed code. For each changed feature, think through:\n\n- **User flows:** What sequence of actions does a user take that touches this code? Map the full journey (e.g., \"user clicks 'Pay' → form validates → API call → success/failure screen\"). Each step in the journey needs a test.\n- **Interaction edge cases:** What happens when the user does something unexpected?\n  - Double-click/rapid resubmit\n  - Navigate away mid-operation (back button, close tab, click another link)\n  - Submit with stale data (page sat open for 30 minutes, session expired)\n  - Slow connection (API takes 10 seconds — what does the user see?)\n  - Concurrent actions (two tabs, same form)\n- **Error states the user can see:** For every error the code handles, what does the user actually experience?\n  - Is there a clear error message or a silent failure?\n  - Can the user recover (retry, go back, fix input) or are they stuck?\n  - What happens with no network? With a 500 from the API? With invalid data from the server?\n- **Empty/zero/boundary states:** What does the UI show with zero results? With 10,000 results? With a single character input? With maximum-length input?\n\nAdd these to your diagram alongside the code branches. A user flow with no test is just as much a gap as an untested if/else.\n\n**Step 3. Check each branch against existing tests:**\n\nGo through your diagram branch by branch — both code paths AND user flows. For each one, search for a test that exercises it:\n- Function `processPayment()` → look for `billing.test.ts`, `billing.spec.ts`, `test/billing_test.rb`\n- An if/else → look for tests covering BOTH the true AND false path\n- An error handler → look for a test that triggers that specific error condition\n- A call to `helperFn()` that has its own branches → those branches need tests too\n- A user flow → look for an integration or E2E test that walks through the journey\n- An interaction edge case → look for a test that simulates the unexpected action\n\nQuality scoring rubric:\n- ★★★  Tests behavior with edge cases AND error paths\n- ★★   Tests correct behavior, happy path only\n- ★    Smoke test / existence check / trivial assertion (e.g., \"it renders\", \"it doesn't throw\")\n\n### E2E Test Decision Matrix\n\nWhen checking each branch, also determine whether a unit test or E2E/integration test is the right tool:\n\n**RECOMMEND E2E (mark as [→E2E] in the diagram):**\n- Common user flow spanning 3+ components/services (e.g., signup → verify email → first login)\n- Integration point where mocking hides real failures (e.g., API → queue → worker → DB)\n- Auth/payment/data-destruction flows — too important to trust unit tests alone\n\n**RECOMMEND EVAL (mark as [→EVAL] in the diagram):**\n- Critical LLM call that needs a quality eval (e.g., prompt change → test output still meets quality bar)\n- Changes to prompt templates, system instructions, or tool definitions\n\n**STICK WITH UNIT TESTS:**\n- Pure function with clear inputs/outputs\n- Internal helper with no side effects\n- Edge case of a single function (null input, empty array)\n- Obscure/rare flow that isn't customer-facing\n\n### REGRESSION RULE (mandatory)\n\n**IRON RULE:** When the coverage audit identifies a REGRESSION — code that previously worked but the diff broke — a regression test is added to the plan as a critical requirement. No AskUserQuestion. No skipping. Regressions are the highest-priority test because they prove something broke.\n\nA regression is when:\n- The diff modifies existing behavior (not new code)\n- The existing test suite (if any) doesn't cover the changed path\n- The change introduces a new failure mode for existing callers\n\nWhen uncertain whether a change is a regression, err on the side of writing the test.\n\n**Step 4. Output ASCII coverage diagram:**\n\nInclude BOTH code paths and user flows in the same diagram. Mark E2E-worthy and eval-worthy paths:\n\n```\nCODE PATHS                                            USER FLOWS\n[+] src/services/billing.ts                           [+] Payment checkout\n  ├── processPayment()                                  ├── [★★★ TESTED] Complete purchase — checkout.e2e.ts:15\n  │   ├── [★★★ TESTED] happy + declined + timeout      ├── [GAP] [→E2E] Double-click submit\n  │   ├── [GAP]         Network timeout                 └── [GAP]        Navigate away mid-payment\n  │   └── [GAP]         Invalid currency\n  └── refundPayment()                                 [+] Error states\n      ├── [★★  TESTED] Full refund — :89                ├── [★★  TESTED] Card declined message\n      └── [★   TESTED] Partial (non-throw only) — :101  └── [GAP]        Network timeout UX\n\nLLM integration: [GAP] [→EVAL] Prompt template change — needs eval test\n\nCOVERAGE: 5/13 paths tested (38%)  |  Code paths: 3/5 (60%)  |  User flows: 2/8 (25%)\nQUALITY: ★★★:2 ★★:2 ★:1  |  GAPS: 8 (2 E2E, 1 eval)\n```\n\nLegend: ★★★ behavior + edge + error  |  ★★ happy path  |  ★ smoke check\n[→E2E] = needs integration test  |  [→EVAL] = needs LLM eval\n\n**Fast path:** All paths covered → \"Test review: All new code paths have test coverage ✓\" Continue.\n\n**Step 5. Add missing tests to the plan:**\n\nFor each GAP identified in the diagram, add a test requirement to the plan. Be specific:\n- What test file to create (match existing naming conventions)\n- What the test should assert (specific inputs → expected outputs/behavior)\n- Whether it's a unit test, E2E test, or eval (use the decision matrix)\n- For regressions: flag as **CRITICAL** and explain what broke\n\nThe plan should be complete enough that when implementation begins, every test is written alongside the feature code — not deferred to a follow-up.\n\n======SRC\n     1\t\n     2\texport function processPayment(amount: number, currency: string) {\n     3\t  if (amount <= 0) throw new Error('Invalid amount');\n     4\t  if (currency !== 'USD' && currency !== 'EUR') throw new Error('Unsupported currency');\n     5\t  return { status: 'success', amount, currency };\n     6\t}\n     7\t\n     8\texport function refundPayment(paymentId: string, reason: string) {\n     9\t  if (!paymentId) throw new Error('Payment ID required');\n    10\t  if (!reason) throw new Error('Reason required');\n    11\t  return { status: 'refunded', paymentId, reason };\n    12\t}\n======TEST\n     1\t\n     2\timport { describe, test, expect } from 'vitest';\n     3\timport { processPayment } from '../src/billing';\n     4\t\n     5\tdescribe('processPayment', () => {\n     6\t  test('processes valid payment', () => {\n     7\t    const result = processPayment(100, 'USD');\n     8\t    expect(result.status).toBe('success');\n     9\t  });\n    10\t  // GAP: no test for invalid amount\n    11\t  // GAP: no test for unsupported currency\n    12\t  // GAP: refundPayment not tested at all\n    13\t});",
                "is_error": false
              }
            ]
          }
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "attempt": 2,
      "transcript": [
        {
          "type": "system",
          "subtype": "init",
          "cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-072o0E/tmp/skill-e2e-plan-coverage-v7qyNI",
          "session_id": "801bfd5d-d84c-4b05-84da-62dab15f9aa9"
        },
        {
          "type": "assistant",
          "session_id": "801bfd5d-d84c-4b05-84da-62dab15f9aa9",
          "parent_tool_use_id": null,
          "message": {
            "role": "assistant",
            "content": [
              {
                "type": "tool_use",
                "id": "toolu_01QEq3CuDQnntY6DCUx4KSjS",
                "name": "Bash",
                "input": {
                  "command": "cd /tmp/gstack-paid-shard-072o0E/tmp/skill-e2e-plan-coverage-v7qyNI; echo \"=====SRC=====\"; cat -n src/billing.ts; echo \"=====TEST=====\"; cat -n test/billing.test.ts; echo \"=====TREE=====\"; ls -la; cat package.json 2>/dev/null; ls *.config.* vitest* jest* 2>/dev/null; git log --oneline -3; git diff main --stat 2>/dev/null",
                  "description": "Read source, tests, and detect test framework"
                },
                "caller": {
                  "type": "direct"
                }
              }
            ]
          }
        },
        {
          "type": "user",
          "session_id": "801bfd5d-d84c-4b05-84da-62dab15f9aa9",
          "parent_tool_use_id": null,
          "message": {
            "role": "user",
            "content": [
              {
                "tool_use_id": "toolu_01QEq3CuDQnntY6DCUx4KSjS",
                "type": "tool_result",
                "content": "=====SRC=====\n     1\t\n     2\texport function processPayment(amount: number, currency: string) {\n     3\t  if (amount <= 0) throw new Error('Invalid amount');\n     4\t  if (currency !== 'USD' && currency !== 'EUR') throw new Error('Unsupported currency');\n     5\t  return { status: 'success', amount, currency };\n     6\t}\n     7\t\n     8\texport function refundPayment(paymentId: string, reason: string) {\n     9\t  if (!paymentId) throw new Error('Payment ID required');\n    10\t  if (!reason) throw new Error('Reason required');\n    11\t  return { status: 'refunded', paymentId, reason };\n    12\t}\n=====TEST=====\n     1\t\n     2\timport { describe, test, expect } from 'vitest';\n     3\timport { processPayment } from '../src/billing';\n     4\t\n     5\tdescribe('processPayment', () => {\n     6\t  test('processes valid payment', () => {\n     7\t    const result = processPayment(100, 'USD');\n     8\t    expect(result.status).toBe('success');\n     9\t  });\n    10\t  // GAP: no test for invalid amount\n    11\t  // GAP: no test for unsupported currency\n    12\t  // GAP: refundPayment not tested at all\n    13\t});\n=====TREE=====\ntotal 16\ndrwx------ 6 vercel-sandbox vercel-sandbox 143 Sep 10 14:46 .\ndrwxr-xr-x 6 vercel-sandbox vercel-sandbox 117 Sep 10 14:47 ..\ndrwxr-xr-x 7 vercel-sandbox vercel-sandbox 150 Sep 10 14:46 .git\n-rw-r--r-- 1 vercel-sandbox vercel-sandbox  12 Sep 10 14:46 CHANGELOG.md\n-rw-r--r-- 1 vercel-sandbox vercel-sandbox   8 Sep 10 14:46 VERSION\n-rw-r--r-- 1 vercel-sandbox vercel-sandbox 182 Sep 10 14:46 package.json\ndrwxr-xr-x 3 vercel-sandbox vercel-sandbox  59 Sep 10 14:46 plan-eng-review\ndrwxr-xr-x 2 vercel-sandbox vercel-sandbox  24 Sep 10 14:46 src\ndrwxr-xr-x 2 vercel-sandbox vercel-sandbox  29 Sep 10 14:46 test\n-rw-r--r-- 1 vercel-sandbox vercel-sandbox  89 Sep 10 14:46 vitest.config.ts\n{\n  \"name\": \"test-coverage-app\",\n  \"version\": \"1.0.0\",\n  \"type\": \"module\",\n  \"scripts\": {\n    \"test\": \"echo \\\"no tests yet\\\"\"\n  },\n  \"devDependencies\": {\n    \"vitest\": \"^1.0.0\"\n  }\n}vitest.config.ts\nvitest.config.ts\n72b8736 initial commit",
                "is_error": false
              }
            ]
          }
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}