Files
gstack/test/skill-llm-eval.test.ts
T
Garry TanandOpenAI Codex 636175d349 v1.87.6.0 fix: make checks reliable and everyday validation faster (#2898)
* fix: acknowledge seeded plans before invoking review skills

* fix: distinguish current plan input from conversation history

* fix: keep hermetic plan reviews on manual permissions

* fix: distinguish tool discovery from file permission ownership

* fix: preserve initial plan mode in observation tests

* fix: wait for scope decisions before writing review findings

* fix: carry autoplan decisions consistently into review artifacts

* test: retain native failure context in periodic assertions

* fix: advance active file permissions before queued questions

* fix: finish red-team attempts before retry and cleanup

* fix: finalize plan format captures and judges before retry

* fix: cancel setup-gbrain SDK attempts before fixture cleanup

* test: select periodic consumers of the bounded attempt helper

* fix native Bash permission cards and queued questions

* fix: preserve independent decisions and review scope

Keep CEO approach, engineering scope and outside-review choices from approving independent remedies together. Carry declared contracts through DX polish and resolve new gaps before editing the plan. Regenerate every host and retain existing stop boundaries.

Validation: 654 focused tests passed across nine files; all-host generation passed. Full free and periodic validation pending.

Co-Authored-By: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com>

* fix: require approval before design plan amendments

Align the Design review philosophy and rating recipe with its section protocol: resolve one proposed fix, then apply only that approved decision and retain honest scores for declined fixes.

Validation: 469 focused tests passed across four files; all-host generation passed.

Co-Authored-By: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com>

* fix: observe native question completion before transcript persistence

Match owned completion hooks to submitted choices, reject conflicting or late answers, and retain bounded failure evidence.

* test: recognize review posture in acknowledged native questions

Require the selected mode acknowledgement, a completed follow-up question, and its current decoded display while preserving existing posture assertions.

* fix: preserve settled CEO choices and isolate pending remedies

Resolve established approach gates with cited authority and keep independent fixes out of unrelated option commitments and plan amendments.

* fix: carry approved DX choices through later review steps

Choose documentation approaches within the accepted scope and map resolved confusion points without reopening them through a bulk menu.

* test: handle native settings-file edit prompts

Keep one-time owned-file approvals and retain the actual sampled Autoplan permission frame with its matching barrier state.

* test: accept standard CEO reply directives with tuning footers

Recognize the exact trailing preference footer and letter-list directive while preserving current-display and exact acknowledgement checks.

* test: scope split reviewers to their generated plan artifacts

* test: observe native Bash permissions and invocation results

* test: handle owned Bash prompts during mode preference checks

* test: preserve synchronous subprocess rejection in Codex fixture

* Fix periodic review handoff navigation

Recognize review-first and explicit manual-next-step labels while preserving exact action families, manual preference, and ambiguous-menu rejection.

Co-authored-by: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com>

* Bind pending file permissions to distinct current targets

Allow one captured file request to own the complete current dialog while unrelated file work is pending. Preserve same-path ambiguity, exact input ownership, and one-time grant checks.

Co-authored-by: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com>

* Make paired CEO verification choices genuinely unresolved

Start the positive control with proposed manual checks so its unchanged oracle measures two new coverage decisions. Preserve runtime contracts, targets, count bounds, and all assertions.

Co-authored-by: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com>

* Keep CEO review options and verification within approved scope

Audit every offered option for independent add-ons and keep new verification depth pending until accepted. Preserve already requested coverage and trace plan changes to the actual decision.

Co-authored-by: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com>

* Assemble DX review artifacts before appending the final report

Keep early DX evidence above decisions, update artifact sections in place, and append the report using the actual current file suffix. Re-read after deleting an existing report before choosing the append anchor.

Co-authored-by: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com>

* Keep outside plan reviews exclusive and invocation-owned

Follow one preflight-selected backend, terminate failed Codex work before fallback, and allocate extra prompt/output files uniquely. Consume only the current invocation’s completed output.

Co-authored-by: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com>

* Select periodic completion evaluations for report writer changes

Register the shared review resolver for eight missing consumers and regress selection for all nine completion cases without changing their IDs or tiers.

Co-authored-by: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com>

* Keep permission ambiguity fixtures on the same normalized target

Use distinct raw spellings of one target in the four negative fixtures so they exercise the normalized duplicate-owner guard after exact current-file disambiguation. Preserve the existing exception, no-input, diagnostic and cleanup assertions.

Co-authored-by: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com>

* Clarify preserved contracts in engineering review fixture

Co-authored-by: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com>

* Recognize the offered DX follow-up handoff

Co-authored-by: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com>

* Check independent commitments before presenting review options

Co-authored-by: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com>

* Keep Codex review output and status in one shell invocation

Co-authored-by: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com>

* Distinguish seeded plans from reports written by a test attempt

Co-authored-by: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com>

* Recover clipped Autoplan file approvals with bounded viewport resizing

Co-authored-by: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com>

* Recover clipped Bash approvals before binding the complete command

Co-authored-by: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com>

* Isolate setup message tests from the shared checkout

Run the real installer in a temporary payload with private config, require successful completion, and guard source and binary contents and mtimes.

Co-authored-by: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com>

* Fix periodic native permission and report completion handling

Match the pinned CLI's soft wraps and clipped headings without granting from incomplete frames. Retire completed file requests, retain mode annotations, and ask section captures for a short final acknowledgement after their full report is saved.

Co-authored-by: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com>

* Preserve review approvals and validate DX comparison artifacts

Keep independent remedies and approved amendments explicit. Give the synthetic DX review its existing documentation and validate peer comparison as required analysis alongside four native decisions. Add positive and negative semantic calibrations while preserving review counts, model budgets and prompt size limits.

Co-authored-by: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com>

* Make the five-finding CEO fixture's application boundary explicit

Materialize the request adapter and service composition used by the synthetic payment application. Explicitly declare the revised unregistered-event and mail-telemetry assumptions while preserving uncaught handler errors, the original invoice path and all five unresolved findings.

Co-authored-by: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com>

* Keep CEO state-path checks scoped to directory preparation

Co-authored-by: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com>

* Use checked ports and bounded cleanup in pair-agent tests

Discover the daemon port from its owned state file, retain startup diagnostics, and await failed-start cleanup. Add occupied-port, early-exit, deadline, and foreign-state regressions while preserving the existing HTTP assertions and hook budgets.

Co-authored-by: Codex <noreply@openai.com>

* Preserve queued edit identity and recover clipped Bash permissions

Distinguish separately queued unfinished edits from mutation of one native tool ID. Keep grants bound to an exact owned request and reject reused IDs, ambiguous inputs, and competing owners.

Support the pinned renderer's literal em dash and request a repaint when only the Bash card's top rule is clipped. Grants still require the complete fresh card and an exact native acknowledgment.

Validation: 413 integrated parser/event tests passed; private repaint controls and joint source review passed. Full canonical suite and native periodic rerun remain pending.

Co-authored-by: Codex <noreply@openai.com>

* Keep periodic reviews within their approved contracts and deliverables

Carry exact approvals through engineering review, preserve declared contracts when amending CEO plans, and keep prioritization at the requested decision level. Materialize the revised synthetic SDK reference contract while retaining the five original documentation gaps.

Accept the observed semicolon in the finite DX handoff menu and register the direct source dependencies used by the engineering cases. Regenerate canonical review documents without changing model budgets, retries, count bands, or native completion assertions.

Validation: all-host generation and 275 review, fixture, selection and parity tests passed. Full free-suite and native periodic validation remain pending.

Co-authored-by: Codex <noreply@openai.com>

* Keep Eng approval cadence and independence guards explicit

* Accept ordinary punctuation in manual review handoffs

* Recover file permissions alongside queued Bash calls

* Carry approved DX work through later review findings

* Clarify the synthetic auth internal failure decision

* Bound the periodic DX fixture to onboarding changes

* Recognize native Design review handoff labels

* Hold scope in the integration-choice review fixture

* Carry approved Design decisions through review evidence

* Capture listener state when feedback reload fails

* Exclude workspace caches before checking deprecated flags

* Verify Design UI scope against a seeded review plan

* Clarify plan review decisions and outside-voice approval flow

* Reject setup menus in the Design UI gate

* docs: require focused repair validation before final acceptance

* fix: separate review commitments within existing prompt budgets

* docs: align generation and contributor validation guidance

* fix: advance native review prompts and count acknowledged findings

* chore: bump version and changelog (v1.87.1.0)

Co-Authored-By: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com>

* chore: enforce cheap checks and side-effect-free validation previews

* fix: handle owned Fetch permissions and oversized native cards

* test: ground review fixtures in independent executable contracts

* fix: preserve review decisions and verify reports before completion

* test: construct the synthetic credential URL without a scanner false positive

* test: materialize DX examples and verify their actual local behavior

* fix: clarify CEO review decisions and execution order

* fix: clarify review workflow ordering and select Design quality checks

* Fix review decision gates and incomplete evaluation fixtures

Persist CEO and engineering commitment ledgers before menus, preserve exact
approvals, and distinguish implementation structure from feature scope.
Route Autoplan through the canonical CEO Step 0 ordering. Classify DX findings
before requesting approval and ground runtime claims in actual evidence.

Complete neutral non-target fixture contracts and accept the captured Design
handoff purpose without relaxing its ownership or acknowledgment checks.
Record runtime-capability verification in AGENTS.md validation discipline.

Validation: 1,335 focused tests passed across 21 files; build, all-host freshness,
skill validation (647 artifacts / 107 tracked), and credential checks passed.
Prior paid failures are preserved; behavioral acceptance remains pending.

* Fix review decision boundaries and owned Read prompts

Preserve exact approvals across review options, compare consistent DX milestones,
and keep proposed implementation separate from review evidence. Bind modern
Read prompts to one immutable native request and wait for its result.

Retain captured regression verdicts, correct fixture error names, improve import
probe diagnostics, and record focused-first validation discipline in AGENTS.md.

* Clarify CEO and engineering review decisions

Use explicit decision steps, one engineering ledger, and clear scope/write transitions. Preserve exact approvals and distinguish pending test requirements. Keep unrelated generated content unchanged.

* Fix review decision ordering and native evaluation interactions

* Clarify engineering decisions and test artifact order

* Clarify pending choices and approvals in CEO reviews

* Make CEO review phases sequential and clarify completion

* Fix Design board submission intent matching

* Seed an existing browser test baseline for Autoplan

* Document decision-log payloads before state initialization

* Preserve exact review scope and decide one change before drafting options

* Require input identity before repeating passing model judges

* Honor permitted storage throughout CEO review completion

* Match complete native permission text within the pinned renderer contract

* Align review approvals, independent choices, and bounded validation

* fix: preserve reopened approvals and declare fixture interfaces

* fix: isolate review artifacts and audit complete questions

* fix: match detector artifact permissions to configured storage

* fix: complete native permissions and review fixture workflows

* fix: order CEO review work and separate engineering guarantees

* fix: preserve native validation and separate review choices

* fix: clarify review decisions and judge complete report context

* fix: constrain review judgments and retain parse failures

* fix: compare each affected value before review decisions

* fix: make engineering review decisions and completion order explicit

* fix: give the complete Autoplan evaluation a bounded chain budget

* fix(cso): diagnose forbidden Docker endpoints before tool lookup

* fix(reviews): reconcile workflow contracts and generated artifacts after main integration

* fix(evals): migrate retained regressions to the native review harness

* fix(tests): close native harness and workflow integration regressions

* fix(evals): preserve complete permission context and native menu contracts

* fix(tests): capture synchronous command output without pipe drain stalls

* fix(reviews): clarify decision and completion ordering

* fix(reviews): separate decision readiness from final completion checks

* refactor(reviews): consolidate decision rules and completion branches

* fix(plan-eng-review): order preparation and clarify decision routing

* fix(plan-eng-review): restore size and question-format guard parity

* fix(plan-eng-review): clarify scope phases and blocked completion

* fix(plan-eng-review): unify review flow and report destination

* fix(plan-eng-review): define bootstrap and question stage ownership

* fix(plan-eng-review): clarify review structure and design lookup

* fix(plan-eng-review): render report examples and show saved decisions

* fix: consolidate Eng review decisions and select their evaluations

* test: cover overlapping terminal attachments and clean merged runner type

* fix: preserve Office Hours relationship closings during review updates

* fix: retain pasted review targets across slash invocations

* docs: preserve validation traces and correct release scope

* test: cover pasted targets in both review skills

* fix: validate report artifacts before recording success

* fix: redact source roots at CSO report boundaries

* fix: bind native Design questions before answering

* test: select report privacy and native recovery regressions

* test: bind rejection predicate in extracted observers

* fix: bind complete boxed native questions

* test: keep the Design UI fixture on native review

* fix: preserve review decisions and evaluation completion outcomes

* fix: clarify CEO approval and report completion order

* fix: align native review evaluation ownership and completion

* fix: bind review evaluators to native decisions and owned artifacts

* fix: validate review decisions against native outcomes

* fix: preserve review evidence and Autoplan phase handoffs

* test: bind review evidence to owned decisions and completion

* fix: retain owned native history across compaction

* fix(evals): validate current review decisions and setup choices

* fix: bind Autoplan reviews and phase completion to current amended input

* fix: reconcile native review evidence and close Autoplan phases

* test: recognize owned whole-candidate complexity decisions

* test: preserve report freshness for approved investigation handoffs

* fix: recognize scoped review findings and isolate dual voice fixtures

* fix: make review handoffs and question dispatch self-contained

* test: recognize complete CEO decisions and procedural pauses

* fix: bind current CEO comparison options and risk intervals

* test: bind engineering decisions and completion to owned evidence

* fix: publish Autoplan phase reports before continuing tools

* test: verify actual Autoplan dual-review dispatch evidence

* test: select dual review when shared evidence fixtures change

* fix: clarify plan review decisions and completion gates

* fix: make CEO review decisions and return paths explicit

* test: keep Autoplan prompt files inside attempt state

* test: preserve source whitespace across permission dialog wraps

* fix: publish Autoplan phase reports before continuing

* test: recognize current CEO comparisons and reject inactive records

* fix: reconcile engineering decision states before completion

* test: recognize complete Design decisions and reports

* test: verify current engineering decisions before navigation

* Recognize source-owned component reduction choices

* fix: recognize current CEO ledger and commitment grids

* test: supply RequestPolicy context to Eng count fixture

* fix: save complete engineering decisions before asking

* fix: bind Autoplan publication to the complete phase readback

* chore: prepare 1.87.5.0 reliability release

* fix: clarify engineering review completion and preserve log failures

* fix: bind CEO saved choices and current section ancestry

* fix(evals): bind review execution and completion evidence

* fix(plan-ceo-review): verify complete decisions before asking

* fix(evals): preserve complete engineering choice records

* fix(evals): preserve complete review outcomes and bounded fixtures

* fix(autoplan): publish phase reports before advancing

* fix(plan-ceo-review): validate option fields before asking

* fix(plan-eng-review): verify current decisions after answers

* fix(evals): bind review decisions and bound fixture scope

* fix(plan-ceo-review): verify decision rows and edit saved checkpoints

* fix(evals): bind review evidence and scope document lookup

* fix(plan-eng-review): update resolution state with its answer

* fix(reviews): preserve complete questions through dispatch

* fix(evals): recognize completed mode declarations

* fix(evals): define cache consistency at wrapper completion

* fix(evals): validate owned initial scope and completed review handoffs

* fix: assemble complete CEO decision fields before saving

* fix: authenticate automatic mode decisions without guessing selectors

* fix: bind engineering coverage to approved regression contracts

* fix(evals): supply review helpers to native Eng capture

* fix(plan-eng-review): preserve the full selected option scope

* fix(evals): recognize owned engineering seed and regression evidence

* fix(evals): bind engineering retry reports to native approvals

* docs: clarify release guarantees (v1.87.5.0)

Co-Authored-By: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com>

* fix(evals): recognize owned engineering decisions and handoffs

* fix(evals): bind engineering decisions and completion evidence

* fix(tests): align review contracts and selection fixtures

* fix(skills): restore review prompt size limits

* fix(plan-eng-review): clarify review execution and completion

* fix(evals): preserve configured retries through all supervision layers

* Clarify Engineering decisions and report completion

* Keep native decision assertions within their source boundary

* fix: recognize owned engineering decisions and completed navigation

* fix: bind completed auto decisions to their current review

* fix: recognize explicit CEO source attribution

* fix: dispatch verified CEO decisions without recomposing fields

* test: expose existing execution deadlines to review actors

* fix: distinguish CEO decision records from incidental headings

* test: bind split-scope choices to the registered native actor

* test: connect reviewed regressions to required evaluation coverage

* Clarify CEO decision routing and completion stages

* test: expose existing section review deadlines to fixture actors

* test: recognize complete native CEO pacing inventories

* test: exclude answered history from current CEO payloads

* test: detect phase entry through owned skill HOME aliases

* test: validate native review completion and owned report permissions

* fix: make Autoplan close packets carry the parent handoff steps

* test: assess source-bound HOLD decisions within the existing deadline

* fix: keep CEO native decision fields under one formatting authority

* test: register integrated review and permission dependencies

* test: align native review adapters and finding coverage

Preserve explicit AUTO decisions, apply native single-select defaults, and bind complete cropped questions and report permissions to their owned requests. Require seeded review findings instead of crediting setup menus.

Keep captured failure controls and additive selection dependencies. The integrated candidate passed 3,099 focused tests across 65 files; affected paid validation remains required before publication.

* fix(autoplan): require phase reports before advancing

* fix(evals): bind setup and evidence to complete attempts

* fix(evals): bind native answers and pending writes to fixture scope

Preserve complete option rows when native descriptions wrap, retain current
owned Write arguments before journal publication, and keep engineering and
DX answers within their declared fixture interfaces. Add captured free
regressions without increasing model budgets or relaxing completion checks.

* fix(autoplan): verify phase reports across native tool paths

Guard owned methodology reads and reviewer dispatches, detect complete driver
loads through Bash, and distinguish report-only edits from implementation
changes. Follow authenticated native UUID ancestry when journal writes arrive
out of order and verify earlier native content for cached phase reads.

Keep current close acknowledgment and parent publication in order, require CEO
entry before later phases, and register captured failure regressions.

* fix(evals): honor native input and collection lifecycles

Match complete native Edit panes and truncated question borders, reject stderr close before EOF, and stop the CEO split fixture once its acknowledged scope decisions are collected. Keep semantic validation, process failures, report requirements, and absolute deadlines authoritative.

Add captured-event and real-process regressions with selection dependencies. Focused checks pass; final integrated paid and full-suite acceptance remain pending.

* fix(autoplan): retain native session ownership across directory changes

Recover missed native UUID ancestry through the existing strict graph while preserving ordinary event order and legacy scoping. Bind publication hooks to Claude's original project directory while retaining current cwd for requested file paths.

Captured public-event regressions, existing caller checks, and a pinned native CLI loopback verify both fixes. Preserve failed attempts and require fresh paid and final full-suite acceptance.

* docs: align evaluation limits and completion version

* fix(autoplan): allow authenticated phase reads during journal streaming

* fix(evals): bind clipped native questions and owned edit dialogs

* fix: preserve overlay retries and bounded cleanup

* fix: recognize owned planning preludes in native questions

* docs: explain overlay scheduling and cleanup guarantees

* fix: require fresh publication after Autoplan phase reruns

* Release gstack 1.87.6

* fix: preserve CI paths, process identity, and test deadlines

* fix: keep informational setup commands independent of install probes

* fix: clarify plan review decisions and bound source audit reports

* Fix remaining Windows identity and native path CI failures

* Clarify CEO review decision and reviewer-result routing

* test: accept no-install planner in retry supervision

* fix(ceo-review): make review decisions and report completion explicit

* perf(test): add fast PR gates, input-keyed judge reuse and isolated free shards

* fix(test): start isolated CEO smoke from its existing project plan

* fix(test): repair CI fixture races and preserve retry evidence

* fix(ceo-review): clarify approvals, depth and saved completion

---------

Co-authored-by: OpenAI Codex <noreply@openai.com>
2026-09-22 14:57:52 -04:00

945 lines
43 KiB
TypeScript

/**
* LLM-as-a-Judge evals for generated SKILL.md quality.
*
* Uses the Anthropic API directly (not Agent SDK) to evaluate whether
* generated command docs are clear, complete, and actionable for an AI agent.
*
* Requires: ANTHROPIC_API_KEY env var (or EVALS=1 with key already set)
* Run: EVALS=1 bun run test:eval
*
* Cost: ~$0.05-0.15 per run (sonnet)
*/
import { afterAll, expect } from 'bun:test';
import { JUDGE_MS } from './helpers/eval-budgets';
import Anthropic from '@anthropic-ai/sdk';
import * as fs from 'fs';
import * as path from 'path';
import { callJudge, judge } from './helpers/llm-judge';
import { ENG_REVIEW_EXCERPT } from './helpers/workflow-excerpt';
import type { JudgeScore } from './helpers/llm-judge';
import { readWorkflowJudgeInput, buildWorkflowJudgePrompt } from './helpers/workflow-judge-input';
import { prepareWorkflowJudgeCache } from './helpers/workflow-judge-cache';
import { LLM_JUDGE_TOUCHFILES } from './helpers/touchfiles';
// Runs when EVALS=1 is set (requires ANTHROPIC_API_KEY in env) — the EVALS
// gate lives in the shared describeIfSelected. Selection machinery is shared
// with the E2E suite; only the touchfiles table (LLM_JUDGE_TOUCHFILES, passed
// explicitly below) differs. No EVALS_TIER filter applies here — LLM-judge
// tests have no E2E_TIERS entries and run in both tier lanes.
import {
ROOT,
computeDiffSelection,
resolveModuleSelection,
createEvalCollector,
finalizeEvalCollector,
describeIfSelected as describeIfSelectedShared,
testConcurrentIfSelected,
} from './helpers/e2e-helpers';
// Eval result collector
const evalCollector = createEvalCollector('llm-judge');
/**
* Browse carve (token-reduction Phase 4): the '## Snapshot Flags' and
* '## Full Command List' reference blocks moved from browse/SKILL.md into the
* generated on-demand section browse/sections/command-list.md ('## Snapshot
* Flags' first, then '## Full Command List'). '## SETUP', '## Core QA
* Patterns', and '## CSS Inspector' stay in the skeleton. Non-empty guard:
* judging an empty slice would silently pass garbage to the judge.
*/
function readBrowseCommandSection(): string {
const p = path.join(ROOT, 'browse', 'sections', 'command-list.md');
const content = fs.readFileSync(p, 'utf-8');
if (!content.includes('## Snapshot Flags') || !content.includes('## Full Command List')) {
throw new Error(
`${p} is missing the expected headers — regenerate with: bun run gen:skill-docs`,
);
}
return content;
}
/** Slice a section out of the command-list section file, guarded non-empty. */
function sliceBrowseSection(startHeader: string, endHeader?: string): string {
const content = readBrowseCommandSection();
const start = content.indexOf(startHeader);
if (start < 0) throw new Error(`browse/sections/command-list.md: "${startHeader}" not found`);
const end = endHeader ? content.indexOf(endHeader) : -1;
const section = end > start ? content.slice(start, end) : content.slice(start);
if (section.trim().length < 200) {
throw new Error(`browse/sections/command-list.md slice at "${startHeader}" is empty/stub — regenerate with: bun run gen:skill-docs`);
}
return section;
}
// --- Diff-based test selection (LLM_JUDGE_TOUCHFILES, not the E2E table) ---
const selectedTests = resolveModuleSelection(
process.env.EVALS ? process.env.EVALS_JUDGE_SELECTION_JSON : undefined,
() => computeDiffSelection(LLM_JUDGE_TOUCHFILES, 'LLM-judge'),
);
/** Wrap a describe block to skip if none of THIS FILE's tests are selected. */
function describeIfSelected(name: string, testNames: string[], fn: () => void) {
describeIfSelectedShared(name, testNames, fn, selectedTests);
}
/** Per-test gate against this file's selection (concurrent, as before). */
function testIfSelected(testName: string, fn: () => Promise<void>, timeout: number) {
testConcurrentIfSelected(testName, fn, timeout, selectedTests);
}
describeIfSelected('LLM-as-judge quality evals', [
'command reference table', 'snapshot flags reference',
'browse/SKILL.md reference', 'setup block', 'regression vs baseline',
], () => {
testIfSelected('command reference table', async () => {
const t0 = Date.now();
// Browse carve: the command reference lives in the generated on-demand
// section browse/sections/command-list.md now (read via non-empty guard).
const section = sliceBrowseSection('## Full Command List');
const scores = await judge('command reference table', section);
console.log('Command reference scores:', JSON.stringify(scores, null, 2));
// Completeness threshold is 3 (not 4) — the command reference table is
// intentionally terse (quick-reference format). The judge consistently scores
// completeness=3 because detailed argument docs live in per-command sections.
evalCollector?.addTest({
name: 'command reference table',
suite: 'LLM-as-judge quality evals',
tier: 'llm-judge',
passed: scores.clarity >= 4 && scores.completeness >= 3 && scores.actionability >= 4,
duration_ms: Date.now() - t0,
cost_usd: 0.02,
judge_scores: { clarity: scores.clarity, completeness: scores.completeness, actionability: scores.actionability },
judge_reasoning: scores.reasoning,
});
expect(scores.clarity).toBeGreaterThanOrEqual(4);
expect(scores.completeness).toBeGreaterThanOrEqual(3);
expect(scores.actionability).toBeGreaterThanOrEqual(4);
}, JUDGE_MS);
testIfSelected('snapshot flags reference', async () => {
const t0 = Date.now();
// Browse carve: snapshot flags live in browse/sections/command-list.md now,
// ordered before '## Full Command List' (the '## CSS Inspector' end boundary
// stayed in the skeleton).
const section = sliceBrowseSection('## Snapshot Flags', '## Full Command List');
const scores = await judge('snapshot flags reference', section);
console.log('Snapshot flags scores:', JSON.stringify(scores, null, 2));
evalCollector?.addTest({
name: 'snapshot flags reference',
suite: 'LLM-as-judge quality evals',
tier: 'llm-judge',
passed: scores.clarity >= 4 && scores.completeness >= 4 && scores.actionability >= 4,
duration_ms: Date.now() - t0,
cost_usd: 0.02,
judge_scores: { clarity: scores.clarity, completeness: scores.completeness, actionability: scores.actionability },
judge_reasoning: scores.reasoning,
});
expect(scores.clarity).toBeGreaterThanOrEqual(4);
expect(scores.completeness).toBeGreaterThanOrEqual(4);
expect(scores.actionability).toBeGreaterThanOrEqual(4);
}, JUDGE_MS);
testIfSelected('browse/SKILL.md reference', async () => {
const t0 = Date.now();
// Browse carve: flags + commands are the whole generated section file.
const section = sliceBrowseSection('## Snapshot Flags');
const scores = await judge('browse skill reference (flags + commands)', section);
console.log('Browse SKILL.md scores:', JSON.stringify(scores, null, 2));
evalCollector?.addTest({
name: 'browse/SKILL.md reference',
suite: 'LLM-as-judge quality evals',
tier: 'llm-judge',
passed: scores.clarity >= 4 && scores.completeness >= 4 && scores.actionability >= 4,
duration_ms: Date.now() - t0,
cost_usd: 0.02,
judge_scores: { clarity: scores.clarity, completeness: scores.completeness, actionability: scores.actionability },
judge_reasoning: scores.reasoning,
});
expect(scores.clarity).toBeGreaterThanOrEqual(4);
expect(scores.completeness).toBeGreaterThanOrEqual(4);
expect(scores.actionability).toBeGreaterThanOrEqual(4);
}, JUDGE_MS);
testIfSelected('setup block', async () => {
const t0 = Date.now();
// P2 (v1.2.0): the browse setup block moved from the root router to browse/SKILL.md.
const content = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'browse', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
// The setup block is the Aside contract ('## BROWSER SETUP (Aside ...') with
// the browse binary as fallback; older renders headed it '## SETUP'. Slice
// from whichever heading is present to the next H2.
let setupStart = content.indexOf('## BROWSER SETUP');
if (setupStart < 0) setupStart = content.indexOf('## SETUP');
const setupEnd = content.indexOf('\n## ', setupStart + 3);
if (setupStart < 0 || setupEnd < 0) throw new Error('browse/SKILL.md: setup block not found — regenerate with: bun run gen:skill-docs');
const section = content.slice(setupStart, setupEnd);
const scores = await judge('setup/binary discovery instructions', section);
console.log('Setup block scores:', JSON.stringify(scores, null, 2));
evalCollector?.addTest({
name: 'setup block',
suite: 'LLM-as-judge quality evals',
tier: 'llm-judge',
passed: scores.actionability >= 3 && scores.clarity >= 3,
duration_ms: Date.now() - t0,
cost_usd: 0.02,
judge_scores: { clarity: scores.clarity, completeness: scores.completeness, actionability: scores.actionability },
judge_reasoning: scores.reasoning,
});
// Setup block is intentionally minimal (binary discovery only).
// SKILL_DIR is inferred from context, so judge sometimes scores 3.
expect(scores.actionability).toBeGreaterThanOrEqual(3);
expect(scores.clarity).toBeGreaterThanOrEqual(3);
}, JUDGE_MS);
testIfSelected('regression vs baseline', async () => {
const t0 = Date.now();
// Browse carve: the command reference lives in browse/sections/command-list.md.
const genSection = sliceBrowseSection('## Full Command List');
const baseline = `## Command Reference
### Navigation
| Command | Description |
|---------|-------------|
| \`goto <url>\` | Navigate to URL |
| \`back\` / \`forward\` | History navigation |
| \`reload\` | Reload page |
| \`url\` | Print current URL |
### Interaction
| Command | Description |
|---------|-------------|
| \`click <sel>\` | Click element |
| \`fill <sel> <val>\` | Fill input |
| \`select <sel> <val>\` | Select dropdown |
| \`hover <sel>\` | Hover element |
| \`type <text>\` | Type into focused element |
| \`press <key>\` | Press key (Enter, Tab, Escape) |
| \`scroll [sel]\` | Scroll element into view |
| \`wait <sel>\` | Wait for element (max 10s) |
| \`wait --networkidle\` | Wait for network to be idle |
| \`wait --load\` | Wait for page load event |
### Inspection
| Command | Description |
|---------|-------------|
| \`js <expr>\` | Run JavaScript |
| \`css <sel> <prop>\` | Computed CSS |
| \`attrs <sel>\` | Element attributes |
| \`is <prop> <sel>\` | State check (visible/hidden/enabled/disabled/checked/editable/focused) |
| \`console [--clear\\|--errors]\` | Console messages (--errors filters to error/warning) |`;
const client = new Anthropic();
const response = await client.messages.create({
model: 'claude-sonnet-4-6',
max_tokens: 1024,
messages: [{
role: 'user',
content: `You are comparing two versions of CLI documentation for an AI coding agent.
VERSION A (baseline — hand-maintained):
${baseline}
VERSION B (auto-generated from source):
${genSection}
Which version is better for an AI agent trying to use these commands? Consider:
- Completeness (more commands documented? all args shown?)
- Clarity (descriptions helpful?)
- Coverage (missing commands in either version?)
Respond with ONLY valid JSON:
{"winner": "A" or "B" or "tie", "reasoning": "brief explanation", "a_score": N, "b_score": N}
Scores are 1-5 overall quality.`,
}],
});
const text = response.content[0].type === 'text' ? response.content[0].text : '';
const jsonMatch = text.match(/\{[\s\S]*\}/);
if (!jsonMatch) throw new Error(`Judge returned non-JSON: ${text.slice(0, 200)}`);
const result = JSON.parse(jsonMatch[0]);
console.log('Regression comparison:', JSON.stringify(result, null, 2));
evalCollector?.addTest({
name: 'regression vs baseline',
suite: 'LLM-as-judge quality evals',
tier: 'llm-judge',
passed: result.b_score >= result.a_score,
duration_ms: Date.now() - t0,
cost_usd: 0.02,
judge_scores: { a_score: result.a_score, b_score: result.b_score },
judge_reasoning: result.reasoning,
});
expect(result.b_score).toBeGreaterThanOrEqual(result.a_score);
}, JUDGE_MS);
});
// --- Part 7: QA skill quality evals (C6) ---
/**
* QA carve (token-reduction Phase 4): the '## Modes', '## Workflow',
* '## Health Score Rubric', '## Framework-Specific Guidance', and
* '## Important Rules' blocks moved from qa/SKILL.md into the generated
* on-demand section qa/sections/qa-patterns.md. Monolith-tolerant: falls back
* to the skeleton when the section file doesn't exist (pre-carve checkout).
*/
function readQaPatterns(): string {
const sectionPath = path.join(ROOT, 'qa', 'sections', 'qa-patterns.md');
return fs.existsSync(sectionPath)
? fs.readFileSync(sectionPath, 'utf-8')
: fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'qa', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
}
/** Slice out of the qa-patterns section, guarded non-empty: judging an empty
* slice would silently pass garbage to the judge. */
function sliceQaPatterns(startHeader: string, endHeader?: string): string {
const content = readQaPatterns();
const start = content.indexOf(startHeader);
if (start < 0) throw new Error(`qa/sections/qa-patterns.md: "${startHeader}" not found — regenerate with: bun run gen:skill-docs`);
const end = endHeader ? content.indexOf(endHeader, start) : -1;
const section = end > start ? content.slice(start, end) : content.slice(start);
if (section.trim().length < 200) {
throw new Error(`qa/sections/qa-patterns.md slice at "${startHeader}" is empty/stub — regenerate with: bun run gen:skill-docs`);
}
return section;
}
describeIfSelected('QA skill quality evals', ['qa/SKILL.md workflow', 'qa/SKILL.md health rubric', 'qa/SKILL.md anti-refusal'], () => {
testIfSelected('qa/SKILL.md workflow', async () => {
const t0 = Date.now();
const section = sliceQaPatterns('## Workflow', '## Health Score Rubric');
const scores = await callJudge<JudgeScore>(`You are evaluating the quality of a QA testing workflow document for an AI coding agent.
The agent reads this document to learn how to systematically QA test a web application. The workflow references
a browser driver (Aside 'aside repl' scripts, with the headless browse CLI's $B commands as fallback) that is documented
separately in the skill's BROWSER SETUP section — do NOT penalize for missing driver definitions.
Instead, evaluate whether the workflow itself is clear, complete, and actionable.
Rate on three dimensions (1-5 scale):
- **clarity** (1-5): Can an agent follow the step-by-step phases without ambiguity?
- **completeness** (1-5): Are all phases, decision points, and outputs well-defined?
- **actionability** (1-5): Can an agent execute the workflow and produce the expected deliverables?
Respond with ONLY valid JSON:
{"clarity": N, "completeness": N, "actionability": N, "reasoning": "brief explanation"}
Here is the QA workflow to evaluate:
${section}`);
console.log('QA workflow scores:', JSON.stringify(scores, null, 2));
evalCollector?.addTest({
name: 'qa/SKILL.md workflow',
suite: 'QA skill quality evals',
tier: 'llm-judge',
passed: scores.clarity >= 4 && scores.completeness >= 3 && scores.actionability >= 4,
duration_ms: Date.now() - t0,
cost_usd: 0.02,
judge_scores: { clarity: scores.clarity, completeness: scores.completeness, actionability: scores.actionability },
judge_reasoning: scores.reasoning,
});
expect(scores.clarity).toBeGreaterThanOrEqual(4);
// Completeness scores 3 when judge notes the health rubric is in a separate
// section (the eval only passes the Workflow section, not the full document).
expect(scores.completeness).toBeGreaterThanOrEqual(3);
expect(scores.actionability).toBeGreaterThanOrEqual(4);
}, JUDGE_MS);
testIfSelected('qa/SKILL.md health rubric', async () => {
const t0 = Date.now();
const section = sliceQaPatterns('## Health Score Rubric');
const scores = await callJudge<JudgeScore>(`You are evaluating a health score rubric that an AI agent must follow to compute a numeric QA score.
The agent uses this rubric after QA testing a website. It needs to:
1. Understand each scoring category and what counts as a deduction
2. Apply the weights correctly to compute a final score out of 100
3. Produce a consistent, reproducible score
Rate on three dimensions (1-5 scale):
- **clarity** (1-5): Are the categories, deduction criteria, and weights unambiguous?
- **completeness** (1-5): Are all edge cases and scoring boundaries defined?
- **actionability** (1-5): Can an agent compute a correct score from this rubric alone?
Respond with ONLY valid JSON:
{"clarity": N, "completeness": N, "actionability": N, "reasoning": "brief explanation"}
Here is the rubric to evaluate:
${section}`);
console.log('QA health rubric scores:', JSON.stringify(scores, null, 2));
evalCollector?.addTest({
name: 'qa/SKILL.md health rubric',
suite: 'QA skill quality evals',
tier: 'llm-judge',
passed: scores.clarity >= 4 && scores.completeness >= 3 && scores.actionability >= 4,
duration_ms: Date.now() - t0,
cost_usd: 0.02,
judge_scores: { clarity: scores.clarity, completeness: scores.completeness, actionability: scores.actionability },
judge_reasoning: scores.reasoning,
});
expect(scores.clarity).toBeGreaterThanOrEqual(4);
expect(scores.completeness).toBeGreaterThanOrEqual(3);
expect(scores.actionability).toBeGreaterThanOrEqual(4);
}, JUDGE_MS);
testIfSelected('qa/SKILL.md anti-refusal', async () => {
const t0 = Date.now();
// Extract both the diff-aware mode section and Important Rules section.
// (Pre-carve this sliced '## Important Rules' → '## Framework-Specific',
// which was EMPTY — Framework-Specific precedes Important Rules — so the
// judge only ever saw excerpt 1. The section-file slice fixes that: rules
// run to the end of qa-patterns.md, so rule 12 "Never refuse to use the
// browser" now actually reaches the judge.)
const diffAwareSection = sliceQaPatterns('### Diff-aware', '### Full');
const rulesSection = sliceQaPatterns('## Important Rules');
const result = await callJudge<{ would_browse: boolean; fallback_behavior: string; confidence: number; reasoning: string }>(`You are evaluating whether a QA testing skill document would cause an AI agent to USE THE BROWSER or REFUSE to use the browser in a specific scenario.
SCENARIO:
A user runs /qa (a browser-based QA testing skill). The branch diff shows ONLY prompt template files and config file changes — no routes, views, controllers, components, or CSS were changed. The changes are "purely backend" with no obvious UI surface.
QUESTION: Based on the document excerpts below, would the agent open the browser and test the application, or would it decline/refuse to browse and suggest running evals or unit tests instead?
DOCUMENT EXCERPT 1 (Diff-aware mode instructions):
${diffAwareSection}
DOCUMENT EXCERPT 2 (Important Rules):
${rulesSection}
Respond with ONLY valid JSON:
{
"would_browse": true or false,
"fallback_behavior": "description of what the agent would do when no UI pages are identified from the diff",
"confidence": N (1-5, how confident you are in your answer),
"reasoning": "brief explanation"
}
Rules:
- would_browse should be true if the document instructs the agent to always use the browser regardless of diff content
- would_browse should be false if the document allows the agent to skip browser testing for non-UI changes
- confidence: 5 = document is unambiguous, 1 = document is unclear or contradictory`);
console.log('QA anti-refusal result:', JSON.stringify(result, null, 2));
evalCollector?.addTest({
name: 'qa/SKILL.md anti-refusal',
suite: 'QA skill quality evals',
tier: 'llm-judge',
passed: result.would_browse === true && result.confidence >= 4,
duration_ms: Date.now() - t0,
cost_usd: 0.02,
judge_scores: { would_browse: result.would_browse ? 1 : 0, confidence: result.confidence },
judge_reasoning: result.reasoning,
});
expect(result.would_browse).toBe(true);
expect(result.confidence).toBeGreaterThanOrEqual(4);
}, JUDGE_MS);
});
// --- Part 7: Cross-skill consistency judge (C7) ---
describeIfSelected('Cross-skill consistency evals', ['cross-skill greptile consistency'], () => {
testIfSelected('cross-skill greptile consistency', async () => {
const t0 = Date.now();
const reviewContent = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'review', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
const shipContent = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'ship', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
const triageContent = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'review', 'greptile-triage.md'), 'utf-8');
const retroContent = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'retro', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
const extractGrepLines = (content: string, filename: string) => {
const lines = content.split('\n')
.filter(l => /greptile|history\.md|REMOTE_SLUG/i.test(l))
.map(l => l.trim());
return `--- ${filename} ---\n${lines.join('\n')}`;
};
const collected = [
extractGrepLines(reviewContent, 'review/SKILL.md'),
extractGrepLines(shipContent, 'ship/SKILL.md'),
extractGrepLines(triageContent, 'review/greptile-triage.md'),
extractGrepLines(retroContent, 'retro/SKILL.md'),
].join('\n\n');
const result = await callJudge<{ consistent: boolean; issues: string[]; score: number; reasoning: string }>(`You are evaluating whether multiple skill configuration files implement the same data architecture consistently.
INTENDED ARCHITECTURE:
- greptile-history has TWO paths: per-project (~/.gstack/projects/{slug}/greptile-history.md) and global (~/.gstack/greptile-history.md)
- /review and /ship WRITE to BOTH paths (per-project for suppressions, global for retro aggregation)
- /review and /ship delegate write mechanics to greptile-triage.md
- /retro READS from the GLOBAL path only (it aggregates across all projects)
- REMOTE_SLUG derivation should be consistent across files that use it
Below are greptile-related lines extracted from each skill file:
${collected}
Evaluate consistency. Respond with ONLY valid JSON:
{
"consistent": true/false,
"issues": ["issue 1", "issue 2"],
"score": N,
"reasoning": "brief explanation"
}
score (1-5): 5 = perfectly consistent, 1 = contradictory`);
console.log('Cross-skill consistency:', JSON.stringify(result, null, 2));
evalCollector?.addTest({
name: 'cross-skill greptile consistency',
suite: 'Cross-skill consistency evals',
tier: 'llm-judge',
passed: result.consistent && result.score >= 4,
duration_ms: Date.now() - t0,
cost_usd: 0.02,
judge_scores: { consistency_score: result.score },
judge_reasoning: result.reasoning,
});
expect(result.consistent).toBe(true);
expect(result.score).toBeGreaterThanOrEqual(4);
}, JUDGE_MS);
});
// --- Part 7: Baseline score pinning (C9) ---
describeIfSelected('Baseline score pinning', ['baseline score pinning'], () => {
const baselinesPath = path.join(ROOT, 'test', 'fixtures', 'eval-baselines.json');
testIfSelected('baseline score pinning', async () => {
const t0 = Date.now();
if (!fs.existsSync(baselinesPath)) {
console.log('No baseline file found — skipping pinning check');
return;
}
const baselines = JSON.parse(fs.readFileSync(baselinesPath, 'utf-8'));
const regressions: string[] = [];
// Browse carve: the command reference lives in browse/sections/command-list.md.
const cmdSection = sliceBrowseSection('## Full Command List');
const cmdScores = await judge('command reference table', cmdSection);
for (const dim of ['clarity', 'completeness', 'actionability'] as const) {
if (cmdScores[dim] < baselines.command_reference[dim]) {
regressions.push(`command_reference.${dim}: ${cmdScores[dim]} < baseline ${baselines.command_reference[dim]}`);
}
}
if (process.env.UPDATE_BASELINES) {
baselines.command_reference = {
clarity: cmdScores.clarity,
completeness: cmdScores.completeness,
actionability: cmdScores.actionability,
};
fs.writeFileSync(baselinesPath, JSON.stringify(baselines, null, 2) + '\n');
console.log('Updated eval baselines');
}
const passed = regressions.length === 0;
evalCollector?.addTest({
name: 'baseline score pinning',
suite: 'Baseline score pinning',
tier: 'llm-judge',
passed,
duration_ms: Date.now() - t0,
cost_usd: 0.02,
judge_scores: { clarity: cmdScores.clarity, completeness: cmdScores.completeness, actionability: cmdScores.actionability },
judge_reasoning: passed ? 'All scores at or above baseline' : regressions.join('; '),
});
if (!passed) {
throw new Error(`Score regressions detected:\n${regressions.join('\n')}`);
}
}, JUDGE_MS);
});
// --- Workflow SKILL.md quality evals (10 new tests for 100% coverage) ---
/**
* DRY helper for workflow SKILL.md judge tests.
* Extracts a section from a SKILL.md file and judges its quality as an agent workflow.
*/
// Keep model work at JUDGE_MS. Only terminal recording/cache I/O gets grace.
const WORKFLOW_JUDGE_RECORD_MS = 5_000;
const WORKFLOW_JUDGE_TEST_MS = JUDGE_MS + 10_000;
const workflowJudgeAttempts = new Map<string, { attempt: number; cancel(): void }>();
async function runWorkflowJudge(opts: {
testName: string;
suite: string;
skillPath: string;
startMarker: string;
endMarker: string | null;
judgeContext: string;
judgeGoal: string;
thresholds?: { clarity: number; completeness: number; actionability: number };
}) {
const started = performance.now();
const previous = workflowJudgeAttempts.get(opts.testName);
previous?.cancel();
const attempt = (previous?.attempt ?? 0) + 1;
const controller = new AbortController();
const workDeadline = started + JUDGE_MS;
let stage: 'input' | 'judge' | 'validation' | 'recording' = 'input';
let finalized = false;
let scores: JudgeScore | undefined;
let reused: ReturnType<ReturnType<typeof prepareWorkflowJudgeCache>['lookup']> = null;
let timer: ReturnType<typeof setTimeout>;
let rejectStopped: (error: Error) => void;
const stopped = new Promise<never>((_, reject) => { rejectStopped = reject; });
const deadlineError = () => Object.assign(new Error(`${opts.testName} exceeded its workflow judge ${stage === 'recording' ? 'recording' : 'work'} deadline`), { name: 'WorkflowJudgeDeadline' });
const deadline = () => workDeadline + (stage === 'recording' ? WORKFLOW_JUDGE_RECORD_MS : 0);
const active = () => !finalized && workflowJudgeAttempts.get(opts.testName) === state
&& performance.now() < deadline();
const finish = (passed: boolean, error?: unknown) => {
if (finalized) return;
finalized = true;
clearTimeout(timer);
if (!passed) controller.abort(error);
evalCollector?.addTest({
name: opts.testName, suite: opts.suite, tier: 'llm-judge', passed,
duration_ms: Math.max(0, performance.now() - started),
cost_usd: reused || !scores ? 0 : 0.02,
execution: reused ? 'reused' : 'executed',
...(reused ? { reused_from: { input_key: reused.reuse.key, run_id: reused.reuse.source.runId,
revision: reused.reuse.source.revision, completed_at: new Date(reused.reuse.source.completedAt).toISOString() } } : {}),
...(scores ? { judge_scores: { clarity: scores.clarity, completeness: scores.completeness, actionability: scores.actionability },
judge_reasoning: scores.reasoning } : {}),
...(passed ? {} : { exit_reason: error instanceof Error && error.name === 'WorkflowJudgeDeadline' ? 'timeout'
: error instanceof Error && error.name === 'WorkflowJudgeSuperseded' ? 'cancelled'
: stage === 'validation' ? 'validation_failed' : 'harness_error',
error: `${error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error)}${scores ? '' : '\nNo completed model response; cost and usage unavailable.'}` }),
});
};
const stop = (error: Error) => {
if (finalized) return;
try { finish(false, error); } finally { rejectStopped(error); }
};
const state = { attempt, cancel: () => stop(performance.now() >= deadline() ? deadlineError()
: Object.assign(new Error(`${opts.testName} attempt superseded by retry`), { name: 'WorkflowJudgeSuperseded' })) };
// Register before any input read: a failed fixture read is still attempt one.
workflowJudgeAttempts.set(opts.testName, state);
const checkActive = () => {
if (!active()) {
if (!finalized) stop(deadlineError());
throw controller.signal.reason ?? deadlineError();
}
};
const arm = () => { clearTimeout(timer); timer = setTimeout(() => stop(deadlineError()), Math.max(0, deadline() - performance.now())); };
arm();
// registered attempt -> bounded request -> unchanged assertions -> terminal record
// Timeout/retry finalizes once; late provider continuations cannot publish evidence.
const work = async () => {
checkActive();
const thresholds = { clarity: 4, completeness: 3, actionability: 4, ...opts.thresholds };
const input = readWorkflowJudgeInput({ root: ROOT, skillPath: opts.skillPath,
startMarker: opts.startMarker, endMarker: opts.endMarker });
checkActive();
const prompt = buildWorkflowJudgePrompt(opts, input);
const cache = prepareWorkflowJudgeCache({ ...opts, root: ROOT, thresholds, prompt, attempt });
checkActive();
reused = cache.lookup();
checkActive();
stage = 'judge';
const result = reused?.scores ?? await callJudge<JudgeScore>(prompt, undefined, { signal: controller.signal });
checkActive();
scores = result;
console.log(`[workflow-judge] ${opts.testName}: ${reused ? `reused ${reused.reuse.source.runId} @ ${reused.reuse.source.revision} (${new Date(reused.reuse.source.completedAt).toISOString()})` : 'executed'}`);
console.log(`${opts.testName} scores:`, JSON.stringify(scores, null, 2));
stage = 'validation';
expect(scores.clarity).toBeGreaterThanOrEqual(thresholds.clarity);
expect(scores.completeness).toBeGreaterThanOrEqual(thresholds.completeness);
expect(scores.actionability).toBeGreaterThanOrEqual(thresholds.actionability);
checkActive();
stage = 'recording';
arm();
const discardReceipt = reused ? undefined : cache.publish(scores, active);
try { checkActive(); finish(true); }
catch (error) { discardReceipt?.(); throw error; }
};
try { await Promise.race([work(), stopped]); }
catch (error) {
const failure = finalized ? controller.signal.reason ?? error
: performance.now() >= deadline() ? deadlineError() : error;
if (!finalized) finish(false, failure);
throw failure;
}
}
// Block 1: Ship & Release skills
describeIfSelected('Ship & Release skill evals', ['ship/SKILL.md workflow', 'document-release/SKILL.md workflow'], () => {
testIfSelected('ship/SKILL.md workflow', async () => {
await runWorkflowJudge({
testName: 'ship/SKILL.md workflow',
suite: 'Ship & Release skill evals',
skillPath: 'ship/SKILL.md',
startMarker: '## Step 0: Detect platform and base branch',
endMarker: '## Important Rules',
judgeContext: 'a ship/release workflow document',
judgeGoal: 'how to create a PR: merge base branch, run tests, review diff, bump version, update changelog, push, and open PR',
});
}, WORKFLOW_JUDGE_TEST_MS);
testIfSelected('document-release/SKILL.md workflow', async () => {
await runWorkflowJudge({
testName: 'document-release/SKILL.md workflow',
suite: 'Ship & Release skill evals',
skillPath: 'document-release/SKILL.md',
startMarker: '# Document Release:',
endMarker: '## Important Rules',
judgeContext: 'a post-ship documentation update workflow',
judgeGoal: 'how to audit and update project documentation after code ships: README, ARCHITECTURE, CONTRIBUTING, CLAUDE.md, CHANGELOG, TODOS',
});
}, WORKFLOW_JUDGE_TEST_MS);
});
// Block 2: Plan Review skills
describeIfSelected('Plan Review skill evals', [
'plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md modes', 'plan-eng-review/SKILL.md sections', 'plan-design-review/SKILL.md passes',
], () => {
testIfSelected('plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md modes', async () => {
await runWorkflowJudge({
testName: 'plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md modes',
suite: 'Plan Review skill evals',
skillPath: 'plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md',
startMarker: '## Step 0: Nuclear Scope Challenge',
endMarker: '## Review Sections',
judgeContext: 'a CEO/founder plan review framework with 4 scope modes',
judgeGoal: 'how to conduct a CEO-perspective plan review: challenge scope, select a mode (Expansion, Selective Expansion, Hold Scope, Reduction), then review sections interactively',
});
}, WORKFLOW_JUDGE_TEST_MS);
testIfSelected('plan-eng-review/SKILL.md sections', async () => {
await runWorkflowJudge({
testName: 'plan-eng-review/SKILL.md sections',
suite: 'Plan Review skill evals',
skillPath: ENG_REVIEW_EXCERPT.skillPath,
startMarker: '# Plan Review Mode',
endMarker: null,
judgeContext: 'an engineering plan review framework with 4 review sections',
judgeGoal: 'how to review a plan for architecture quality, code quality, test coverage, and performance — walking through each section interactively with AskUserQuestion',
});
}, WORKFLOW_JUDGE_TEST_MS);
testIfSelected('plan-design-review/SKILL.md passes', async () => {
await runWorkflowJudge({
testName: 'plan-design-review/SKILL.md passes',
suite: 'Plan Review skill evals',
skillPath: 'plan-design-review/SKILL.md',
startMarker: '## Review Sections',
endMarker: '## CRITICAL RULE',
judgeContext: 'a design plan review framework with 7 review passes',
judgeGoal: 'how to review a plan for design quality using a 0-10 rating method: rate each dimension, explain what a 10 looks like, edit the plan to fix gaps, then re-rate',
});
}, WORKFLOW_JUDGE_TEST_MS);
});
// Block 3: Design skills
describeIfSelected('Design skill evals', ['design-review/SKILL.md fix loop', 'design-consultation/SKILL.md research'], () => {
testIfSelected('design-review/SKILL.md fix loop', async () => {
await runWorkflowJudge({
testName: 'design-review/SKILL.md fix loop',
suite: 'Design skill evals',
skillPath: 'design-review/SKILL.md',
startMarker: '## Phase 7:',
endMarker: '## Additional Rules',
judgeContext: 'a design audit triage and fix loop workflow',
judgeGoal: 'how to triage design issues by severity, fix them atomically in source code, commit each fix, and re-verify with before/after screenshots',
});
}, WORKFLOW_JUDGE_TEST_MS);
testIfSelected('design-consultation/SKILL.md research', async () => {
await runWorkflowJudge({
testName: 'design-consultation/SKILL.md research',
suite: 'Design skill evals',
skillPath: 'design-consultation/SKILL.md',
startMarker: '## Phase 0:',
endMarker: '## Phase 4:',
judgeContext: 'a design consultation research and proposal workflow',
judgeGoal: 'how to gather product context, research the competitive landscape, and produce a complete design system proposal with typography, color, spacing, and motion specifications',
});
}, WORKFLOW_JUDGE_TEST_MS);
});
// Block 4: Deploy skills
describeIfSelected('Deploy skill evals', [
'land-and-deploy/SKILL.md workflow', 'canary/SKILL.md monitoring loop',
'benchmark/SKILL.md perf collection', 'setup-deploy/SKILL.md platform setup',
], () => {
testIfSelected('land-and-deploy/SKILL.md workflow', async () => {
await runWorkflowJudge({
testName: 'land-and-deploy/SKILL.md workflow',
suite: 'Deploy skill evals',
skillPath: 'land-and-deploy/SKILL.md',
startMarker: '## Step 1: Pre-flight',
endMarker: '## Important Rules',
judgeContext: 'a merge-deploy-verify workflow for landing PRs to production',
judgeGoal: 'how to merge a PR via GitHub CLI, wait for CI and deploy workflows (with platform-specific strategies for Fly.io/Render/Vercel/Netlify), run canary health checks on production, and offer revert if something breaks — with timing data logged for retrospectives',
});
}, WORKFLOW_JUDGE_TEST_MS);
testIfSelected('canary/SKILL.md monitoring loop', async () => {
await runWorkflowJudge({
testName: 'canary/SKILL.md monitoring loop',
suite: 'Deploy skill evals',
skillPath: 'canary/SKILL.md',
startMarker: '### Phase 2: Baseline Capture',
endMarker: '## Important Rules',
judgeContext: 'a post-deploy canary monitoring workflow driving a real browser (Aside first, the gstack headless browser as fallback)',
judgeGoal: 'how to capture baseline screenshots and metrics before deploy, run a continuous monitoring loop checking each page every 60 seconds for console errors and performance regressions, fire alerts with evidence (screenshots), and produce a health report with per-page status and verdict',
});
}, WORKFLOW_JUDGE_TEST_MS);
testIfSelected('benchmark/SKILL.md perf collection', async () => {
await runWorkflowJudge({
testName: 'benchmark/SKILL.md perf collection',
suite: 'Deploy skill evals',
skillPath: 'benchmark/SKILL.md',
startMarker: '### Phase 3: Performance Data Collection',
endMarker: '## Important Rules',
judgeContext: 'a performance regression detection workflow using browser-based Web Vitals measurement (Aside first, the gstack headless browser as fallback)',
judgeGoal: 'how to collect real performance metrics (TTFB, FCP, LCP, bundle sizes, request counts) via performance.getEntries(), compare against baselines with regression thresholds, produce a performance report with delta analysis, and track trends over time',
});
}, WORKFLOW_JUDGE_TEST_MS);
testIfSelected('setup-deploy/SKILL.md platform setup', async () => {
await runWorkflowJudge({
testName: 'setup-deploy/SKILL.md platform setup',
suite: 'Deploy skill evals',
skillPath: 'setup-deploy/SKILL.md',
startMarker: '### Step 2: Detect platform',
endMarker: '## Important Rules',
judgeContext: 'a deployment configuration setup workflow that detects deploy platforms and writes config to CLAUDE.md',
judgeGoal: 'how to detect deploy platforms (Fly.io, Render, Vercel, Netlify, Heroku, GitHub Actions, custom), gather platform-specific configuration (URLs, status commands, health checks, custom hooks), and persist everything to CLAUDE.md for future automated use',
});
}, WORKFLOW_JUDGE_TEST_MS);
});
// Block 5: Other skills
describeIfSelected('Other skill evals', [
'retro/SKILL.md instructions', 'qa-only/SKILL.md workflow', 'gstack-upgrade/SKILL.md upgrade flow',
], () => {
testIfSelected('retro/SKILL.md instructions', async () => {
await runWorkflowJudge({
testName: 'retro/SKILL.md instructions',
suite: 'Other skill evals',
skillPath: 'retro/SKILL.md',
startMarker: '## Instructions',
endMarker: '## Tone',
judgeContext: 'an engineering retrospective data gathering and analysis workflow',
judgeGoal: 'how to gather git metrics (commit history, test counts, work patterns), analyze them, produce a structured retro report with praise, growth areas, and trend tracking',
});
}, WORKFLOW_JUDGE_TEST_MS);
testIfSelected('qa-only/SKILL.md workflow', async () => {
await runWorkflowJudge({
testName: 'qa-only/SKILL.md workflow',
suite: 'Other skill evals',
skillPath: 'qa-only/SKILL.md',
startMarker: '## Workflow',
endMarker: '## Important Rules',
judgeContext: 'a report-only QA testing workflow',
judgeGoal: 'how to systematically QA test a web application and produce a structured report with health score, screenshots, and repro steps — without fixing anything',
});
}, WORKFLOW_JUDGE_TEST_MS);
testIfSelected('gstack-upgrade/SKILL.md upgrade flow', async () => {
await runWorkflowJudge({
testName: 'gstack-upgrade/SKILL.md upgrade flow',
suite: 'Other skill evals',
skillPath: 'gstack-upgrade/SKILL.md',
startMarker: '## Inline upgrade flow',
endMarker: '## Standalone usage',
judgeContext: 'a version upgrade detection and execution workflow',
judgeGoal: 'how to detect install type, compare versions, back up current install, upgrade via git or fresh clone, run setup, and show what changed',
});
}, WORKFLOW_JUDGE_TEST_MS);
});
// Voice directive eval — tests that the voice section produces the right tone
describeIfSelected('Voice directive eval', ['voice directive tone'], () => {
testIfSelected('voice directive tone', async () => {
const t0 = Date.now();
// Read a tier 2+ skill to get the full voice directive in context
const content = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'review', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
const voiceStart = content.indexOf('## Voice');
if (voiceStart === -1) {
throw new Error('Voice section not found in review/SKILL.md. Was preamble.ts regenerated?');
}
const voiceEnd = content.indexOf('\n## ', voiceStart + 1);
const voiceSection = content.slice(voiceStart, voiceEnd > 0 ? voiceEnd : voiceStart + 3000);
const result = await callJudge<{
directness: number;
concreteness: number;
avoids_corporate: number;
avoids_ai_vocabulary: number;
connects_user_outcomes: number;
reasoning: string;
}>(`You are evaluating a voice directive for an AI coding assistant framework called GStack.
Score each dimension 1-5 where 5 is excellent:
1. directness: Does it instruct the agent to be direct, lead with the point, take positions?
2. concreteness: Does it instruct the agent to name specific files, commands, line numbers, real numbers?
3. avoids_corporate: Does it explicitly ban corporate/formal/academic tone and provide alternatives?
4. avoids_ai_vocabulary: Does it ban AI-tell words and phrases with specific lists?
5. connects_user_outcomes: Does it instruct the agent to connect technical work to real user experience?
Return JSON only:
{"directness": N, "concreteness": N, "avoids_corporate": N, "avoids_ai_vocabulary": N, "connects_user_outcomes": N, "reasoning": "..."}
THE VOICE DIRECTIVE:
${voiceSection}`);
console.log('Voice directive scores:', JSON.stringify(result, null, 2));
evalCollector?.addTest({
name: 'voice directive tone',
suite: 'Voice directive eval',
tier: 'llm-judge',
passed: result.directness >= 4 && result.concreteness >= 4 && result.avoids_corporate >= 4
&& result.avoids_ai_vocabulary >= 4 && result.connects_user_outcomes >= 4,
duration_ms: Date.now() - t0,
cost_usd: 0.02,
judge_scores: {
directness: result.directness,
concreteness: result.concreteness,
avoids_corporate: result.avoids_corporate,
avoids_ai_vocabulary: result.avoids_ai_vocabulary,
connects_user_outcomes: result.connects_user_outcomes,
},
judge_reasoning: result.reasoning,
});
expect(result.directness).toBeGreaterThanOrEqual(4);
expect(result.concreteness).toBeGreaterThanOrEqual(4);
expect(result.avoids_corporate).toBeGreaterThanOrEqual(4);
expect(result.avoids_ai_vocabulary).toBeGreaterThanOrEqual(4);
expect(result.connects_user_outcomes).toBeGreaterThanOrEqual(4);
}, JUDGE_MS);
});
// Module-level afterAll — finalize eval collector after all tests complete
afterAll(() => finalizeEvalCollector(evalCollector));