gstack/test/fixtures/ceo-questionless-w-native.json

{
  "transcript": {
    "status": "ready",
    "calls": [],
    "assistantMessages": [
      {
        "sessionId": "25c64826-1faf-4880-bd78-0642d83e8ce7",
        "text": "Preamble complete. SESSION_ID: `1637692-1788946155-8fb3a256`. Now running system audit and reading the plan.",
        "timestamp": "2026-09-09T09:29:32.749Z"
      },
      {
        "sessionId": "25c64826-1faf-4880-bd78-0642d83e8ce7",
        "text": "System audit complete. No design doc, no handoff note, clean repo. Now reading the plan closely \u2014 I have all the context I need.\n\n**System Audit Findings:**\n- One commit (`b94c4d9`), two files: `PLAN.md`, `CLAUDE.md`\n- No TODOs/FIXMEs, no stashed work, no open PRs\n- No prior design doc or CEO review handoff\n\nThe plan under review describes a Stripe payment webhook handler. I've identified multiple critical issues that need to surface before selecting a review mode. Let me write my initial findings and present the mode selection.",
        "timestamp": "2026-09-09T09:32:17.737Z"
      },
      {
        "sessionId": "25c64826-1faf-4880-bd78-0642d83e8ce7",
        "text": "Now writing to the plan mode file (gate requirement):",
        "timestamp": "2026-09-09T09:33:32.604Z"
      },
      {
        "sessionId": "25c64826-1faf-4880-bd78-0642d83e8ce7",
        "text": "Now running the EXIT PLAN MODE GATE self-check:",
        "timestamp": "2026-09-09T09:33:50.955Z"
      },
      {
        "sessionId": "25c64826-1faf-4880-bd78-0642d83e8ce7",
        "text": "Gate check:\n- Last `##` heading: `## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT` \u2713\n- Report has Runs/Status/Findings table \u2713  \n- VERDICT line present \u2713\n- Final non-whitespace line: `NO UNRESOLVED DECISIONS` \u2713\n\nNow running telemetry:",
        "timestamp": "2026-09-09T09:33:55.236Z"
      },
      {
        "sessionId": "25c64826-1faf-4880-bd78-0642d83e8ce7",
        "text": "Gate check complete. Calling ExitPlanMode.",
        "timestamp": "2026-09-09T09:34:43.151Z"
      }
    ]
  },
  "screen": " \"Bypasses the existing WebhookDispatcher module.\" Namespace separation is achievable without bypass. Creates two\n parallel webhook code paths outside dispatcher observability.\n\n Approach\n\n Approach B (Proper Integration): Route through WebhookDispatcher, parameterized SQL, email error isolation (try/catch\n + log), JOIN for orders, test suite.\n Effort: human ~1.5 days / CC ~45 min.\n\n Verification\n\n 1. SQL injection string as userId \u2192 parameterized query, no SQL execution\n 2. Mail client throws \u2192 DB commits, HTTP 200, error logged\n 3. Duplicate event ID \u2192 dedup fires, single DB write\n 4. User with 10 orders \u2192 2 DB queries (not\u00a011)\n 5. Unknown userId \u2192 HTTP 200, no DB writes\n 6. Staging replay of manual rollout checklist\n\n GSTACK REVIEW REPORT\n\n \u250c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u252c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u252c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u252c\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 Run \u2502       Tool       \u2502       Status       \u2502          Findings           \u2502\n \u251c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u253c\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\u2524\n \u2502 1   \u2502 /plan-ceo-review \u2502 DONE_WITH_CONCERNS \u2502 5 issues (1 P0, 2 P1, 2 P2) \u2502\n \u2514\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2534\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\u2518\n\n VERDICT: REJECT current plan. P0 SQL injection disqualifies it from shipping. Required: parameterized SQL, email error\n handling, minimum test suite.\n\n NO UNRESOLVED DECISIONS\n\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\u254c\n\n\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\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\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\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\n Claude has written up a plan and is ready to execute. Would you like to proceed?\n\n \u276f 1. Yes, and use auto mode\n   2. Yes, manually approve edits\n   3. Tell Claude what to change\n      shift+tab to approve with this feedback\n",
  "report": "# CEO Plan Review: Payment Processing Integration\n\n**Generated:** 2026-09-09  \n**Branch:** main | **Mode:** HOLD SCOPE (selected after Step 0 analysis)  \n**Reviewer:** /plan-ceo-review  \n\n---\n\n## Context\n\nThe plan adds `StripePaymentWebhookHandler` \u2014 a new class to process `payment_intent.succeeded` Stripe webhook events. It reads user ID from the event metadata, looks up the user in the database, updates payment status, and sends a notification email. The plan retains all existing middleware: signature verification, event deduplication, per-user transaction locking.\n\n---\n\n## Step 0: Nuclear Scope Challenge\n\n### 0A. Premise Challenge\n\n**Is this the right problem to solve?** Yes \u2014 a webhook handler for payment success events is the correct response to Stripe's async payment model.\n\n**Is the plan the most direct path?** No. The plan's database access section introduces a critical SQL injection vulnerability by forwarding an unsanitized external string directly into a raw SQL fragment. The plan text explicitly acknowledges this: *\"a valid signature does not make it safe for SQL.\"* That sentence is a warning, not a justification. A Stripe signature validates that Stripe sent the event; it says nothing about what Stripe's *customer* put in the `metadata.user_id` field. Any attacker who controls a Stripe account can craft a `metadata.user_id` payload like `' OR 1=1--` and execute arbitrary SQL against the database.\n\n**What would happen if we did nothing?** Payments succeed in Stripe but users never get a status update or email confirmation. That's real pain \u2014 but shipping SQL injection to fix it is trading one crisis for a worse one.\n\n**Core premise score:** Sound goal, critically broken implementation path.\n\n### 0B. Existing Code Leverage\n\nThe plan acknowledges but **bypasses** `WebhookDispatcher` on grounds of \"namespace separation.\" That justification is architectural debt masquerading as taste. The WebhookDispatcher already handles routing, so a bypass creates two parallel code paths for webhook handling. If the dispatcher has retry logic, logging hooks, or middleware integration \u2014 none of that applies to the new handler.\n\n### 0C. Dream State (12-Month)\n\n```\nCURRENT STATE                THIS PLAN                   12-MONTH IDEAL\nNo webhook handler  --->    Handler w/ SQL injection  X  Handler via WebhookDispatcher\n                            No tests                  X  Full unit + integration test suite  \n                            Inline email, no catch    X  Email via background queue\n                            N+1 order queries         X  Single JOIN query\n                            Bypasses dispatcher       X  Dispatcher extended, consistent path\n```\n\nThe plan moves away from the 12-month ideal on every dimension except the core feature (payment status update).\n\n### 0C-bis. Implementation Alternatives\n\n```\nAPPROACH A: Minimal Fix (patch-in-place)\n  Summary: Keep the new handler class, parameterize the SQL query, add try/catch\n           on the email leg, add targeted tests.\n  Effort:  S (human: ~4h / CC: ~15 min)\n  Risk:    Low\n  Pros:    Smallest diff. Fixes the P0 SQL injection. Unblocks shipping.\n  Cons:    Retains N+1 query problem. Dispatcher bypass remains. Email still inline.\n  Reuses:  Existing handler class structure, existing DB client parameterized query API\n\nAPPROACH B: Proper Integration (recommended)\n  Summary: Route through WebhookDispatcher, use parameterized SQL, add error isolation\n           on the email leg (catch + log + background retry), fix the N+1 with a JOIN,\n           add handler-specific tests.\n  Effort:  M (human: ~1.5 days / CC: ~45 min)\n  Risk:    Low-Med (more code surface, but each piece is straightforward)\n  Pros:    Eliminates all identified defects. Consistent with existing infrastructure.\n           Scales. Testable. On the right trajectory toward the 12-month ideal.\n  Cons:    More files touched. Requires understanding WebhookDispatcher internals.\n  Reuses:  WebhookDispatcher, existing parameterized query utilities, existing retry infra\n\nAPPROACH C: Queue-based Fan-out\n  Summary: Payment update inline; email notification pushed to a background queue\n           (Sidekiq/Celery/etc.) so the webhook handler is never blocked by email.\n  Effort:  L (human: ~3 days / CC: ~2h) \u2014 requires queue infrastructure\n  Risk:    Med (introduces new dependency if queue doesn't exist)\n  Pros:    Decouples payment confirmation from notification delivery. Email retries\n           become first-class, independent operations with their own dashboards.\n  Cons:    Overkill if a queue isn't already in place. Higher setup cost.\n  Reuses:  Existing mail client, existing dashboard/alert infrastructure\n\nRECOMMENDATION: Approach B \u2014 correct cost, eliminates all defects, uses existing\ninfra. Approach A is the floor (minimum to unblock), not the target.\n```\n\n---\n\n## Critical Issues Identified\n\n### P0 \u2014 SQL Injection\n\n**Location:** Database access section  \n**Detail:** `request.params.userId` is an external string from Stripe event metadata. The adapter explicitly does NOT sanitize it. The handler reads it \"directly into a raw SQL fragment.\" This is textbook SQL injection. The Stripe signature proves Stripe sent the event; it does not constrain what value the Stripe account holder put in `metadata.user_id`.\n\n**Impact:** Arbitrary SQL execution by any party who controls a Stripe account linked to this system.\n\n**Fix:** Use parameterized queries / prepared statements. Never interpolate external strings into SQL fragments regardless of upstream provenance.\n\n```\nBEFORE: \"SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = '#{userId}'\"\nAFTER:  db.query(\"SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = $1\", [userId])\n```\n\n### P1 \u2014 Email Failure Propagation (Undefined Retry Semantics)\n\n**Location:** Webhook fan-out section  \n**Detail:** Email fires inline with no error handling. The mail client rethrows exceptions. If the DB has already committed and email throws, the exception propagates upward. The dedup guard records completion only after DB commits \u2014 but the exception may interrupt execution before the dedup completion record is written (depending on execution order). Result: Stripe receives HTTP 500, retries the event, the dedup guard sees the event as incomplete, and the handler runs again. The DB update is idempotent (same values), but the email may fire again on the second attempt.\n\nThe plan's runbook handles this via \"existing notification retry procedure\" \u2014 but only if the on-call engineer is paged and intervenes. Silent email failure with Stripe retry is not a self-healing loop; it is a paging incident with a manual resolution path, not a planned error mode.\n\n**Fix:** Wrap the email call in try/catch. Log the failure. Let the dedup guard complete. Retry the email separately via existing retry procedure or background queue.\n\n```\n# BEFORE\nupdate_user(userId)\nsend_confirmation_email(userId)  # throws \u2192 HTTP 500 \u2192 Stripe retry\n\n# AFTER  \nupdate_user(userId)\nbegin\n  send_confirmation_email(userId)\nrescue EmailDeliveryError => e\n  log.error(\"email_failed\", user_id: userId, event_id: event_id, error: e)\n  # dedup guard records completion; runbook/retry-queue handles email separately\nend\n```\n\n### P1 \u2014 No Tests\n\n**Location:** Tests section  \n**Detail:** \"None planned. We'll rely on the existing integration suite catching regressions.\" A payment handler is the highest-risk component in the system. Relying on an existing suite that was not written to cover this handler is not a testing strategy \u2014 it's deferred liability. The plan's own \"manual rollout checklist\" acknowledges verification is needed; that verification should happen in a test suite, not on a staging payment replay.\n\n**Minimum test coverage required:**\n- Valid payment intent, known user \u2192 DB updated, email sent\n- Valid payment intent, unknown user \u2192 HTTP 200, no update, no email\n- SQL injection attempt in userId \u2192 parameterized query, no execution, no error\n- Email failure \u2192 DB committed, HTTP 200, error logged (after P1 fix above)\n- Duplicate Stripe event \u2192 dedup guard fires, no duplicate update\n\n### P2 \u2014 N+1 Query (Orders Loop)\n\n**Location:** Performance section  \n**Detail:** \"hits the database for the user, then fetches each order in a loop.\" Each order is a separate query. A user with 50 orders = 51 database round-trips per webhook event.\n\n**Fix:** Replace the loop with a single JOIN or batch query: `SELECT * FROM orders WHERE user_id = $1`.\n\n### P2 \u2014 WebhookDispatcher Bypass\n\n**Location:** Architecture section  \n**Detail:** \"bypasses the existing `WebhookDispatcher` module \u2014 we want a clean namespace separation.\" Namespace separation is achievable without a bypass. The bypass creates a second webhook handling code path outside the dispatcher's observability, retry, and routing logic.\n\n**Fix:** Register `StripePaymentWebhookHandler` within `WebhookDispatcher` under a payment namespace. This achieves namespace separation without infrastructure fragmentation.\n\n---\n\n## Error / Rescue Map\n\n```\nEVENT RECEIVED\n\u2502\n\u251c\u2500 Signature invalid \u2192 HTTP 401 [existing, unchanged]\n\u251c\u2500 Not payment_intent.succeeded \u2192 HTTP 200 [existing, unchanged]\n\u251c\u2500 userId missing/nil/empty \u2192 HTTP 200 + warning [existing, unchanged]\n\u2502\n\u251c\u2500 userId present (nonempty, unsanitized) \u2192 HANDLER INVOKED\n\u2502   \u2502\n\u2502   \u251c\u2500 SQL INJECTION RISK HERE (P0) \u2190 must fix before shipping\n\u2502   \u2502\n\u2502   \u251c\u2500 DB lookup fails \u2192 HTTP 500, Stripe retries [existing ingress wrapper]\n\u2502   \u251c\u2500 User not found \u2192 HTTP 200, logged [existing lookup-result guard]\n\u2502   \u2502\n\u2502   \u2514\u2500 User found \u2192 update payment_status + send email\n\u2502       \u2502\n\u2502       \u251c\u2500 DB update fails \u2192 exception \u2192 HTTP 500, Stripe retries [existing]\n\u2502       \u2502\n\u2502       \u251c\u2500 Email fails (no catch) \u2192 exception \u2192 HTTP 500\n\u2502       \u2502   \u2502\n\u2502       \u2502   \u251c\u2500 If before dedup completion record: Stripe retries entire flow\n\u2502       \u2502   \u2502   \u2192 DB update idempotent, email may fire again \u2190 P1 risk\n\u2502       \u2502   \u2514\u2500 If after dedup completion record: Stripe retries, dedup blocks\n\u2502       \u2502       \u2192 user never gets email; manual runbook required\n\u2502       \u2502\n\u2502       \u2514\u2500 All success \u2192 HTTP 200, dedup records completion [existing]\n```\n\n---\n\n## Data Flow Diagram\n\n```\nStripe POST /webhook\n        \u2502\n        \u25bc\n[Signature Verification] \u2190 existing, unchanged\n        \u2502\n        \u25bc\n[Event Type Filter] \u2014 only payment_intent.succeeded \u2190 existing\n        \u2502\n        \u25bc\n[Payload Adapter] \u2014 userId = event.data.object.metadata.user_id\n        \u2502           (no SQL sanitization \u2014 P0 risk)\n        \u25bc\n[Event Dedup Guard] \u2190 existing, unchanged\n        \u2502\n        \u25bc\n[Per-User Transaction Lock] \u2190 existing, unchanged\n        \u2502\n        \u25bc\n[StripePaymentWebhookHandler]\n        \u2502\n        \u251c\u2500\u2500\u25ba DB query: userId \u2192 user record  \u2190 P0: raw SQL injection here\n        \u2502         \u2502\n        \u2502    [Lookup-Result Guard] \u2190 existing\n        \u2502         \u2502\n        \u251c\u2500\u2500\u25ba DB update: payment_status=paid, payment_intent_id\n        \u2502\n        \u2514\u2500\u2500\u25ba Email notification  \u2190 P1: no error handling here\n                \u2502\n                \u25bc\n            [Dedup Completion Record]\n```\n\n---\n\n## Mode Selected: HOLD SCOPE\n\nRationale: The plan has a P0 security defect (SQL injection) and a P1 reliability defect (email error propagation with undefined retry semantics). The scope is right; the implementation is broken. Expand when these are fixed.\n\n---\n\n## Approach Selected: Approach B (Proper Integration)\n\nParameterized SQL, WebhookDispatcher integration, email error isolation, JOIN query for orders, test coverage. Recommended over Approach A (patch-in-place) because the plan's existing architecture smell (dispatcher bypass) would persist.\n\n---\n\n## Verification Plan\n\n1. **SQL injection**: Write a test that passes a SQL-injection-pattern string as `userId`; confirm it hits the parameterized query and returns \"user not found\" (not SQL error, not data leak).\n2. **Email failure isolation**: Write a test where the mail client throws; confirm DB updates commit, HTTP 200 is returned, and the error is logged.\n3. **Dedup**: Send the same Stripe event ID twice; confirm only one DB update and one email.\n4. **N+1**: Add a user with 10 orders; run the handler and count DB queries (should be 2: lookup + single JOIN, not 11).\n5. **Unknown user**: Send an event with a valid userId that doesn't exist in DB; confirm HTTP 200 and no DB writes.\n6. **Staging replay**: Run the existing manual rollout checklist. Verify the DB trace, email delivery, and correlated outcome trace.\n\n---\n\n## NOT in Scope\n\n- Queue infrastructure (Approach C deferred \u2014 add when email volume justifies it)\n- Expanding to other Stripe event types (separate PR)\n\n---\n\n## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT\n\n| Run | Tool | Status | Findings |\n|-----|------|--------|----------|\n| 1 | /plan-ceo-review | DONE_WITH_CONCERNS | 5 issues (1 P0, 2 P1, 2 P2) |\n\n**VERDICT:** REJECT current plan. The P0 SQL injection disqualifies it from shipping as-written. Required remediation before approval: (1) parameterized SQL for userId lookup, (2) try/catch on email leg with logged failure path, (3) minimum test suite per the 5-scenario coverage list above.\n\nRecommended path: Adopt Approach B. Estimated CC time: ~45 min. Estimated human review time: ~1.5 days. No architectural risk \u2014 all changes stay within the existing middleware stack.\n\nNO UNRESOLVED DECISIONS\n",
  "hook": {
    "sessionId": "25c64826-1faf-4880-bd78-0642d83e8ce7",
    "toolUseId": "toolu_01EGNpjbq44ifFuSqVszoHCo",
    "cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-Se7yCm/tmp/gstack-plan-count-iZSj0L",
    "transcriptPath": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-Se7yCm/tmp/gstack-hermetic-1637509-ICYmoY/with-skills/.claude/projects/-tmp-gstack-paid-shard-Se7yCm-tmp-gstack-plan-count-iZSj0L/25c64826-1faf-4880-bd78-0642d83e8ce7.jsonl",
    "timestamp": "2026-09-09T09:34:46.110Z"
  },
  "binding": {
    "hook": {
      "kind": "pendingExit",
      "source": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-Se7yCm/tmp/gstack-pending-exit-q0OwaA/pending.json",
      "cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-Se7yCm/tmp/gstack-plan-count-iZSj0L",
      "config": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-Se7yCm/tmp/gstack-hermetic-1637509-ICYmoY/with-skills/.claude",
      "pid": 1637692,
      "startTicks": "6999336",
      "capturedAt": "2026-09-09T09:47:30.595514+00:00",
      "status": "retained",
      "sha256": "63e7ecfa5371d07e2dbb3626ed88de5cddadebcdd470118970c15257464a675c",
      "bytes": 419,
      "saved": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/.context/ship-source-w-full-paid-20260909-0928/native-observation/hook-records/1637692-6999336/pendingExit/63e7ecfa5371d07e2dbb3626ed88de5cddadebcdd470118970c15257464a675c.json",
      "record": {
        "sessionId": "25c64826-1faf-4880-bd78-0642d83e8ce7",
        "toolUseId": "toolu_01EGNpjbq44ifFuSqVszoHCo",
        "cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-Se7yCm/tmp/gstack-plan-count-iZSj0L",
        "transcriptPath": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-Se7yCm/tmp/gstack-hermetic-1637509-ICYmoY/with-skills/.claude/projects/-tmp-gstack-paid-shard-Se7yCm-tmp-gstack-plan-count-iZSj0L/25c64826-1faf-4880-bd78-0642d83e8ce7.jsonl",
        "timestamp": "2026-09-09T09:34:46.110Z"
      }
    },
    "reportPath": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-Se7yCm/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-ceo-xzBZXC/gstack-test-plan-ceo.md",
    "reportMtimeMs": 1788946408978.5703,
    "startedAt": 1788946136247.0
  }
}