feat: test coverage gate + plan completion audit + auto-verification

Three new gates in /ship and /review:
1. Test coverage gate: configurable thresholds (60%/80% default), hard stop
   below minimum with user override
2. Plan completion audit: discovers plan file, extracts actionable items,
   cross-references against diff, gates on NOT DONE items
3. Auto-verification: invokes /qa-only inline with plan's verification
   section, conditional on localhost reachability

Also: coverage warning in /review, plan completion data in /retro,
shared plan file discovery helper (DRY), ship metrics logging.
This commit is contained in:
Garry Tan 2026-03-23 22:58:57 -07:00
parent f4bbfaa5bd
commit 0112476a5d
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: C1F69E85C74EFE1D
6 changed files with 533 additions and 8 deletions

View File

@ -459,6 +459,28 @@ Narrative covering:
- If prior retro exists and has `test_health`: show delta "Test count: {last} → {now} (+{delta})"
- If test ratio < 20%: flag as growth area — "100% test coverage is the goal. Tests make vibe coding safe."
### Plan Completion
Check review JSONL logs for plan completion data from /ship runs this period:
```bash
eval "$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null)"
cat ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/*-reviews.jsonl 2>/dev/null | grep '"skill":"ship"' | grep '"plan_items_total"' || echo "NO_PLAN_DATA"
```
If plan completion data exists within the retro time window:
- Count branches shipped with plans (entries that have `plan_items_total` > 0)
- Compute average completion: sum of `plan_items_done` / sum of `plan_items_total`
- Identify most-skipped item category if data supports it
Output:
```
Plan Completion This Period:
{N} branches shipped with plans
Average completion: {X}% ({done}/{total} items)
```
If no plan data exists, skip this section silently.
### Focus & Highlights
(from Step 8)
- Focus score with interpretation

View File

@ -45,7 +45,10 @@ Before reviewing code quality, check: **did they build what was requested — no
**If no PR exists:** rely on commit messages and TODOS.md for stated intent — this is the common case since /review runs before /ship creates the PR.
2. Identify the **stated intent** — what was this branch supposed to accomplish?
3. Run `git diff origin/<base> --stat` and compare the files changed against the stated intent.
4. Evaluate with skepticism:
{{PLAN_COMPLETION_AUDIT_REVIEW}}
4. Evaluate with skepticism (incorporating plan completion results if available):
**SCOPE CREEP detection:**
- Files changed that are unrelated to the stated intent

View File

@ -1359,9 +1359,9 @@ After displaying the Review Readiness Dashboard in conversation output, also upd
### Detect the plan file
1. Check if there is an active plan file in this conversation (the host provides plan file
paths in system messages look for plan file references in the conversation context).
2. If not found, skip this section silently not every review runs in plan mode.
${generatePlanFileDiscovery()}
If no plan file is found after both checks, skip this section silently not every review runs in plan mode.
### Generate the report
@ -1874,7 +1874,40 @@ find . -name '*.test.*' -o -name '*.spec.*' -o -name '*_test.*' -o -name '*_spec
\`\`\`
For PR body: \`Tests: {before} → {after} (+{delta} new)\`
Coverage line: \`Test Coverage Audit: N new code paths. M covered (X%). K tests generated, J committed.\``);
Coverage line: \`Test Coverage Audit: N new code paths. M covered (X%). K tests generated, J committed.\`
**7. Coverage gate:**
Before proceeding, check CLAUDE.md for a \`## Test Coverage\` section with \`Minimum:\` and \`Target:\` fields. If found, use those percentages. Otherwise use defaults: Minimum = 60%, Target = 80%.
Using the coverage percentage from the diagram in substep 4 (the \`COVERAGE: X/Y (Z%)\` line):
- **>= target:** Pass. "Coverage gate: PASS ({X}%)." Continue.
- **>= minimum, < target:** Use AskUserQuestion:
- "AI-assessed coverage is {X}%. {N} code paths are untested. Target is {target}%."
- RECOMMENDATION: Choose A because untested code paths are where production bugs hide.
- Options:
A) Generate more tests for remaining gaps (recommended)
B) Ship anyway I accept the coverage risk
C) These paths don't need tests mark as intentionally uncovered
- If A: Loop back to substep 5 (generate tests) targeting the remaining gaps. After second pass, if still below target, present AskUserQuestion again with updated numbers. Maximum 2 generation passes total.
- If B: Continue. Include in PR body: "Coverage gate: {X}% — user accepted risk."
- If C: Continue. Include in PR body: "Coverage gate: {X}% — {N} paths intentionally uncovered."
- **< minimum:** Use AskUserQuestion:
- "AI-assessed coverage is critically low ({X}%). {N} of {M} code paths have no tests. Minimum threshold is {minimum}%."
- RECOMMENDATION: Choose A because less than {minimum}% means more code is untested than tested.
- Options:
A) Generate tests for remaining gaps (recommended)
B) Override ship with low coverage (I understand the risk)
- If A: Loop back to substep 5. Maximum 2 passes. If still below minimum after 2 passes, present the override choice again.
- If B: Continue. Include in PR body: "Coverage gate: OVERRIDDEN at {X}%."
**Coverage percentage undetermined:** If the coverage diagram doesn't produce a clear numeric percentage (ambiguous output, parse error), **skip the gate** with: "Coverage gate: could not determine percentage — skipping." Do not default to 0% or block.
**Test-only diffs:** Skip the gate (same as the existing fast-path).
**100% coverage:** "Coverage gate: PASS (100%)." Continue.`);
// ── Test plan artifact (ship mode) ──
sections.push(`
@ -1924,7 +1957,22 @@ If test framework is detected and gaps were identified:
If no test framework detected include gaps as INFORMATIONAL findings only, no generation.
**Diff is test-only changes:** Skip Step 4.75 entirely: "No new application code paths to audit."`);
**Diff is test-only changes:** Skip Step 4.75 entirely: "No new application code paths to audit."
### Coverage Warning
After producing the coverage diagram, check the coverage percentage. Read CLAUDE.md for a \`## Test Coverage\` section with a \`Minimum:\` field. If not found, use default: 60%.
If coverage is below the minimum threshold, output a prominent warning **before** the regular review findings:
\`\`\`
COVERAGE WARNING: AI-assessed coverage is {X}%. {N} code paths untested.
Consider writing tests before running /ship.
\`\`\`
This is INFORMATIONAL does not block /review. But it makes low coverage visible early so the developer can address it before reaching the /ship coverage gate.
If coverage percentage cannot be determined, skip the warning silently.`);
}
return sections.join('\n');
@ -1942,6 +1990,239 @@ function generateTestCoverageAuditReview(_ctx: TemplateContext): string {
return generateTestCoverageAuditInner('review');
}
// ─── Plan File Discovery (shared helper) ──────────────────────────────
function generatePlanFileDiscovery(): string {
return `### Plan File Discovery
1. **Conversation context (primary):** Check if there is an active plan file in this conversation Claude Code system messages include plan file paths when in plan mode. Look for references like \`~/.claude/plans/*.md\` in system messages. If found, use it directly — this is the most reliable signal.
2. **Content-based search (fallback):** If no plan file is referenced in conversation context, search by content:
\`\`\`bash
BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null | tr '/' '-')
REPO=$(basename "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null)")
# Try branch name match first (most specific)
PLAN=$(ls -t ~/.claude/plans/*.md 2>/dev/null | xargs grep -l "$BRANCH" 2>/dev/null | head -1)
# Fall back to repo name match
[ -z "$PLAN" ] && PLAN=$(ls -t ~/.claude/plans/*.md 2>/dev/null | xargs grep -l "$REPO" 2>/dev/null | head -1)
# Last resort: most recent plan modified in the last 24 hours
[ -z "$PLAN" ] && PLAN=$(find ~/.claude/plans -name '*.md' -mmin -1440 -maxdepth 1 2>/dev/null | xargs ls -t 2>/dev/null | head -1)
[ -n "$PLAN" ] && echo "PLAN_FILE: $PLAN" || echo "NO_PLAN_FILE"
\`\`\`
3. **Validation:** If a plan file was found via content-based search (not conversation context), read the first 20 lines and verify it is relevant to the current branch's work. If it appears to be from a different project or feature, treat as "no plan file found."
**Error handling:**
- No plan file found skip with "No plan file detected — skipping."
- Plan file found but unreadable (permissions, encoding) skip with "Plan file found but unreadable — skipping."`;
}
// ─── Plan Completion Audit ────────────────────────────────────────────
type PlanCompletionMode = 'ship' | 'review';
function generatePlanCompletionAuditInner(mode: PlanCompletionMode): string {
const sections: string[] = [];
// ── Plan file discovery (shared) ──
sections.push(generatePlanFileDiscovery());
// ── Item extraction ──
sections.push(`
### Actionable Item Extraction
Read the plan file. Extract every actionable item anything that describes work to be done. Look for:
- **Checkbox items:** \`- [ ] ...\` or \`- [x] ...\`
- **Numbered steps** under implementation headings: "1. Create ...", "2. Add ...", "3. Modify ..."
- **Imperative statements:** "Add X to Y", "Create a Z service", "Modify the W controller"
- **File-level specifications:** "New file: path/to/file.ts", "Modify path/to/existing.rb"
- **Test requirements:** "Test that X", "Add test for Y", "Verify Z"
- **Data model changes:** "Add column X to table Y", "Create migration for Z"
**Ignore:**
- Context/Background sections (\`## Context\`, \`## Background\`, \`## Problem\`)
- Questions and open items (marked with ?, "TBD", "TODO: decide")
- Review report sections (\`## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT\`)
- Explicitly deferred items ("Future:", "Out of scope:", "NOT in scope:", "P2:", "P3:", "P4:")
- CEO Review Decisions sections (these record choices, not work items)
**Cap:** Extract at most 50 items. If the plan has more, note: "Showing top 50 of N plan items — full list in plan file."
**No items found:** If the plan contains no extractable actionable items, skip with: "Plan file contains no actionable items — skipping completion audit."
For each item, note:
- The item text (verbatim or concise summary)
- Its category: CODE | TEST | MIGRATION | CONFIG | DOCS`);
// ── Cross-reference against diff ──
sections.push(`
### Cross-Reference Against Diff
Run \`git diff origin/<base>...HEAD\` and \`git log origin/<base>..HEAD --oneline\` to understand what was implemented.
For each extracted plan item, check the diff and classify:
- **DONE** Clear evidence in the diff that this item was implemented. Cite the specific file(s) changed.
- **PARTIAL** Some work toward this item exists in the diff but it's incomplete (e.g., model created but controller missing, function exists but edge cases not handled).
- **NOT DONE** No evidence in the diff that this item was addressed.
- **CHANGED** The item was implemented using a different approach than the plan described, but the same goal is achieved. Note the difference.
**Be conservative with DONE** require clear evidence in the diff. A file being touched is not enough; the specific functionality described must be present.
**Be generous with CHANGED** if the goal is met by different means, that counts as addressed.`);
// ── Output format ──
sections.push(`
### Output Format
\`\`\`
PLAN COMPLETION AUDIT
Plan: {plan file path}
## Implementation Items
[DONE] Create UserService src/services/user_service.rb (+142 lines)
[PARTIAL] Add validation model validates but missing controller checks
[NOT DONE] Add caching layer no cache-related changes in diff
[CHANGED] "Redis queue" implemented with Sidekiq instead
## Test Items
[DONE] Unit tests for UserService test/services/user_service_test.rb
[NOT DONE] E2E test for signup flow
## Migration Items
[DONE] Create users table db/migrate/20240315_create_users.rb
COMPLETION: 4/7 DONE, 1 PARTIAL, 1 NOT DONE, 1 CHANGED
\`\`\``);
// ── Gate logic (mode-specific) ──
if (mode === 'ship') {
sections.push(`
### Gate Logic
After producing the completion checklist:
- **All DONE or CHANGED:** Pass. "Plan completion: PASS — all items addressed." Continue.
- **Only PARTIAL items (no NOT DONE):** Continue with a note in the PR body. Not blocking.
- **Any NOT DONE items:** Use AskUserQuestion:
- Show the completion checklist above
- "{N} items from the plan are NOT DONE. These were part of the original plan but are missing from the implementation."
- RECOMMENDATION: depends on item count and severity. If 1-2 minor items (docs, config), recommend B. If core functionality is missing, recommend A.
- Options:
A) Stop implement the missing items before shipping
B) Ship anyway defer these to a follow-up (will create P1 TODOs in Step 5.5)
C) These items were intentionally dropped remove from scope
- If A: STOP. List the missing items for the user to implement.
- If B: Continue. For each NOT DONE item, create a P1 TODO in Step 5.5 with "Deferred from plan: {plan file path}".
- If C: Continue. Note in PR body: "Plan items intentionally dropped: {list}."
**No plan file found:** Skip entirely. "No plan file detected — skipping plan completion audit."
**Include in PR body (Step 8):** Add a \`## Plan Completion\` section with the checklist summary.`);
} else {
// review mode
sections.push(`
### Integration with Scope Drift Detection
The plan completion results augment the existing Scope Drift Detection. If a plan file is found:
- **NOT DONE items** become additional evidence for **MISSING REQUIREMENTS** in the scope drift report.
- **Items in the diff that don't match any plan item** become evidence for **SCOPE CREEP** detection.
This is **INFORMATIONAL** does not block the review (consistent with existing scope drift behavior).
Update the scope drift output to include plan file context:
\`\`\`
Scope Check: [CLEAN / DRIFT DETECTED / REQUIREMENTS MISSING]
Intent: <from plan file 1-line summary>
Plan: <plan file path>
Delivered: <1-line summary of what the diff actually does>
Plan items: N DONE, M PARTIAL, K NOT DONE
[If NOT DONE: list each missing item]
[If scope creep: list each out-of-scope change not in the plan]
\`\`\`
**No plan file found:** Fall back to existing scope drift behavior (check TODOS.md and PR description only).`);
}
return sections.join('\n');
}
function generatePlanCompletionAuditShip(_ctx: TemplateContext): string {
return generatePlanCompletionAuditInner('ship');
}
function generatePlanCompletionAuditReview(_ctx: TemplateContext): string {
return generatePlanCompletionAuditInner('review');
}
// ─── Plan Verification Execution ──────────────────────────────────────
function generatePlanVerificationExec(_ctx: TemplateContext): string {
return `## Step 3.47: Plan Verification
Automatically verify the plan's testing/verification steps using the \`/qa-only\` skill.
### 1. Check for verification section
Using the plan file already discovered in Step 3.45, look for a verification section. Match any of these headings: \`## Verification\`, \`## Test plan\`, \`## Testing\`, \`## How to test\`, \`## Manual testing\`, or any section with verification-flavored items (URLs to visit, things to check visually, interactions to test).
**If no verification section found:** Skip with "No verification steps found in plan — skipping auto-verification."
**If no plan file was found in Step 3.45:** Skip (already handled).
### 2. Check for running dev server
Before invoking browse-based verification, check if a dev server is reachable:
\`\`\`bash
curl -s -o /dev/null -w '%{http_code}' http://localhost:3000 2>/dev/null || \\
curl -s -o /dev/null -w '%{http_code}' http://localhost:8080 2>/dev/null || \\
curl -s -o /dev/null -w '%{http_code}' http://localhost:5173 2>/dev/null || \\
curl -s -o /dev/null -w '%{http_code}' http://localhost:4000 2>/dev/null || echo "NO_SERVER"
\`\`\`
**If NO_SERVER:** Skip with "No dev server detected — skipping plan verification. Run /qa separately after deploying."
### 3. Invoke /qa-only inline
Read the \`/qa-only\` skill from disk:
\`\`\`bash
cat \${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../qa-only/SKILL.md
\`\`\`
**If unreadable:** Skip with "Could not load /qa-only — skipping plan verification."
Follow the /qa-only workflow with these modifications:
- **Skip the preamble** (already handled by /ship)
- **Use the plan's verification section as the primary test input** treat each verification item as a test case
- **Use the detected dev server URL** as the base URL
- **Skip the fix loop** this is report-only verification during /ship
- **Cap at the verification items from the plan** do not expand into general site QA
### 4. Gate logic
- **All verification items PASS:** Continue silently. "Plan verification: PASS."
- **Any FAIL:** Use AskUserQuestion:
- Show the failures with screenshot evidence
- RECOMMENDATION: Choose A if failures indicate broken functionality. Choose B if cosmetic only.
- Options:
A) Fix the failures before shipping (recommended for functional issues)
B) Ship anyway known issues (acceptable for cosmetic issues)
- **No verification section / no server / unreadable skill:** Skip (non-blocking).
### 5. Include in PR body
Add a \`## Verification Results\` section to the PR body (Step 8):
- If verification ran: summary of results (N PASS, M FAIL, K SKIPPED)
- If skipped: reason for skipping (no plan, no server, no verification section)`;
}
function generateSpecReviewLoop(_ctx: TemplateContext): string {
return `## Spec Review Loop
@ -2825,6 +3106,9 @@ const RESOLVERS: Record<string, (ctx: TemplateContext) => string> = {
ADVERSARIAL_STEP: generateAdversarialStep,
DEPLOY_BOOTSTRAP: generateDeployBootstrap,
CODEX_PLAN_REVIEW: generateCodexPlanReview,
PLAN_COMPLETION_AUDIT_SHIP: generatePlanCompletionAuditShip,
PLAN_COMPLETION_AUDIT_REVIEW: generatePlanCompletionAuditReview,
PLAN_VERIFICATION_EXEC: generatePlanVerificationExec,
};
// ─── Codex Helpers ───────────────────────────────────────────

View File

@ -31,6 +31,9 @@ You are running the `/ship` workflow. This is a **non-interactive, fully automat
- Pre-landing review finds ASK items that need user judgment
- MINOR or MAJOR version bump needed (ask — see Step 4)
- Greptile review comments that need user decision (complex fixes, false positives)
- AI-assessed coverage below minimum threshold (hard gate with user override — see Step 3.4)
- Plan items NOT DONE with no user override (see Step 3.45)
- Plan verification failures (see Step 3.47)
- TODOS.md missing and user wants to create one (ask — see Step 5.5)
- TODOS.md disorganized and user wants to reorganize (ask — see Step 5.5)
@ -42,7 +45,7 @@ You are running the `/ship` workflow. This is a **non-interactive, fully automat
- Multi-file changesets (auto-split into bisectable commits)
- TODOS.md completed-item detection (auto-mark)
- Auto-fixable review findings (dead code, N+1, stale comments — fixed automatically)
- Test coverage gaps (auto-generate and commit, or flag in PR body)
- Test coverage gaps within target threshold (auto-generate and commit, or flag in PR body)
---
@ -197,6 +200,16 @@ If multiple suites need to run, run them sequentially (each needs a test lane).
---
## Step 3.45: Plan Completion Audit
{{PLAN_COMPLETION_AUDIT_SHIP}}
---
{{PLAN_VERIFICATION_EXEC}}
---
## Step 3.5: Pre-Landing Review
Review the diff for structural issues that tests don't catch.
@ -472,6 +485,16 @@ gh pr create --base <base> --title "<type>: <summary>" --body "$(cat <<'EOF'
<If no Greptile comments found: "No Greptile comments.">
<If no PR existed during Step 3.75: omit this section entirely>
## Plan Completion
<If plan file found: completion checklist summary from Step 3.45>
<If no plan file: "No plan file detected.">
<If plan items deferred: list deferred items>
## Verification Results
<If verification ran: summary from Step 3.47 (N PASS, M FAIL, K SKIPPED)>
<If skipped: reason (no plan, no server, no verification section)>
<If not applicable: omit this section>
## TODOS
<If items marked complete: bullet list of completed items with version>
<If no items completed: "No TODO items completed in this PR.">
@ -512,6 +535,32 @@ doc updates — the user runs `/ship` and documentation stays current without a
---
## Step 8.75: Persist ship metrics
Log coverage and plan completion data so `/retro` can track trends:
```bash
eval "$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null)" && mkdir -p ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG
```
Append to `~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/$BRANCH-reviews.jsonl`:
```bash
echo '{"skill":"ship","timestamp":"'"$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)"'","coverage_pct":COVERAGE_PCT,"plan_items_total":PLAN_TOTAL,"plan_items_done":PLAN_DONE,"verification_result":"VERIFY_RESULT","version":"VERSION","branch":"BRANCH"}' >> ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/$BRANCH-reviews.jsonl
```
Substitute from earlier steps:
- **COVERAGE_PCT**: coverage percentage from Step 3.4 diagram (integer, or -1 if undetermined)
- **PLAN_TOTAL**: total plan items extracted in Step 3.45 (0 if no plan file)
- **PLAN_DONE**: count of DONE + CHANGED items from Step 3.45 (0 if no plan file)
- **VERIFY_RESULT**: "pass", "fail", or "skipped" from Step 3.47
- **VERSION**: from the VERSION file
- **BRANCH**: current branch name
This step is automatic — never skip it, never ask for confirmation.
---
## Important Rules
- **Never skip tests.** If tests fail, stop.

View File

@ -669,6 +669,168 @@ describe('PLAN_FILE_REVIEW_REPORT resolver', () => {
});
});
// --- {{PLAN_COMPLETION_AUDIT}} resolver tests ---
describe('PLAN_COMPLETION_AUDIT placeholders', () => {
const shipSkill = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'ship', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
const reviewSkill = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'review', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
test('ship SKILL.md contains plan completion audit step', () => {
expect(shipSkill).toContain('Plan Completion Audit');
expect(shipSkill).toContain('Step 3.45');
});
test('review SKILL.md contains plan completion in scope drift', () => {
expect(reviewSkill).toContain('Plan File Discovery');
expect(reviewSkill).toContain('Actionable Item Extraction');
expect(reviewSkill).toContain('Integration with Scope Drift Detection');
});
test('both modes share plan file discovery methodology', () => {
expect(shipSkill).toContain('Plan File Discovery');
expect(reviewSkill).toContain('Plan File Discovery');
// Both should have conversation context first
expect(shipSkill).toContain('Conversation context (primary)');
expect(reviewSkill).toContain('Conversation context (primary)');
// Both should have grep fallback
expect(shipSkill).toContain('Content-based search (fallback)');
expect(reviewSkill).toContain('Content-based search (fallback)');
});
test('ship mode has gate logic for NOT DONE items', () => {
expect(shipSkill).toContain('NOT DONE');
expect(shipSkill).toContain('Stop — implement the missing items');
expect(shipSkill).toContain('Ship anyway — defer');
expect(shipSkill).toContain('intentionally dropped');
});
test('review mode is INFORMATIONAL only', () => {
expect(reviewSkill).toContain('INFORMATIONAL');
expect(reviewSkill).toContain('MISSING REQUIREMENTS');
expect(reviewSkill).toContain('SCOPE CREEP');
});
test('item extraction has 50-item cap', () => {
expect(shipSkill).toContain('at most 50 items');
});
test('uses file-level traceability (not commit-level)', () => {
expect(shipSkill).toContain('Cite the specific file');
expect(shipSkill).not.toContain('commit-level traceability');
});
});
// --- {{PLAN_VERIFICATION_EXEC}} resolver tests ---
describe('PLAN_VERIFICATION_EXEC placeholder', () => {
const shipSkill = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'ship', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
test('ship SKILL.md contains plan verification step', () => {
expect(shipSkill).toContain('Step 3.47');
expect(shipSkill).toContain('Plan Verification');
});
test('references /qa-only invocation', () => {
expect(shipSkill).toContain('qa-only/SKILL.md');
expect(shipSkill).toContain('qa-only');
});
test('contains localhost reachability check', () => {
expect(shipSkill).toContain('localhost:3000');
expect(shipSkill).toContain('NO_SERVER');
});
test('skips gracefully when no verification section', () => {
expect(shipSkill).toContain('No verification steps found in plan');
});
test('skips gracefully when no dev server', () => {
expect(shipSkill).toContain('No dev server detected');
});
});
// --- Coverage gate tests ---
describe('Coverage gate in ship', () => {
const shipSkill = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'ship', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
const reviewSkill = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'review', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
test('ship SKILL.md contains coverage gate with thresholds', () => {
expect(shipSkill).toContain('Coverage gate');
expect(shipSkill).toContain('>= target');
expect(shipSkill).toContain('< minimum');
});
test('ship SKILL.md supports configurable thresholds via CLAUDE.md', () => {
expect(shipSkill).toContain('## Test Coverage');
expect(shipSkill).toContain('Minimum:');
expect(shipSkill).toContain('Target:');
});
test('coverage gate skips on parse failure (not block)', () => {
expect(shipSkill).toContain('could not determine percentage — skipping');
});
test('review SKILL.md contains coverage WARNING', () => {
expect(reviewSkill).toContain('COVERAGE WARNING');
expect(reviewSkill).toContain('Consider writing tests before running /ship');
});
test('review coverage warning is INFORMATIONAL', () => {
expect(reviewSkill).toContain('INFORMATIONAL');
});
});
// --- Ship metrics logging ---
describe('Ship metrics logging', () => {
const shipSkill = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'ship', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
test('ship SKILL.md contains metrics persistence step', () => {
expect(shipSkill).toContain('Step 8.75');
expect(shipSkill).toContain('coverage_pct');
expect(shipSkill).toContain('plan_items_total');
expect(shipSkill).toContain('plan_items_done');
expect(shipSkill).toContain('verification_result');
});
});
// --- Plan file discovery shared helper ---
describe('Plan file discovery shared helper', () => {
// The shared helper should appear in plan-ceo-review (via PLAN_FILE_REVIEW_REPORT)
// and in ship (via PLAN_COMPLETION_AUDIT_SHIP)
const ceoSkill = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'plan-ceo-review', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
const shipSkill = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'ship', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
test('plan file discovery appears in both plan-ceo-review and ship', () => {
expect(ceoSkill).toContain('Plan File Discovery');
expect(shipSkill).toContain('Plan File Discovery');
});
test('both include conversation context first', () => {
expect(ceoSkill).toContain('Conversation context (primary)');
expect(shipSkill).toContain('Conversation context (primary)');
});
test('both include content-based fallback', () => {
expect(ceoSkill).toContain('Content-based search (fallback)');
expect(shipSkill).toContain('Content-based search (fallback)');
});
});
// --- Retro plan completion ---
describe('Retro plan completion section', () => {
const retroSkill = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'retro', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
test('retro SKILL.md contains plan completion section', () => {
expect(retroSkill).toContain('### Plan Completion');
expect(retroSkill).toContain('plan_items_total');
expect(retroSkill).toContain('Plan Completion This Period');
});
});
// --- Plan status footer in preamble ---
describe('Plan status footer in preamble', () => {

View File

@ -103,12 +103,17 @@ export const E2E_TOUCHFILES: Record<string, string[]> = {
'gemini-review-findings': ['review/**', '.agents/skills/gstack-review/**', 'test/helpers/gemini-session-runner.ts'],
// Coverage audit (shared fixture) + triage
// Coverage audit (shared fixture) + triage + gates
'ship-coverage-audit': ['ship/**', 'test/fixtures/coverage-audit-fixture.ts', 'bin/gstack-repo-mode'],
'review-coverage-audit': ['review/**', 'test/fixtures/coverage-audit-fixture.ts'],
'plan-eng-coverage-audit': ['plan-eng-review/**', 'test/fixtures/coverage-audit-fixture.ts'],
'ship-triage': ['ship/**', 'bin/gstack-repo-mode'],
// Plan completion audit + verification
'ship-plan-completion': ['ship/**', 'scripts/gen-skill-docs.ts'],
'ship-plan-verification': ['ship/**', 'qa-only/**', 'scripts/gen-skill-docs.ts'],
'review-plan-completion': ['review/**', 'scripts/gen-skill-docs.ts'],
// Design
'design-consultation-core': ['design-consultation/**', 'scripts/gen-skill-docs.ts'],
'design-consultation-existing': ['design-consultation/**', 'scripts/gen-skill-docs.ts'],