garrytan/gstack#1048 comment asked for concrete evaluations covering three
cases: normalized models, justified JSON fields, and minimal-change cases.
The prior commits covered the first two (data-model-bias, legitimate-json,
measured-denorm) but not the third — a plan where keeping a single trivial
field inline (not extracting a new model) is the correct call. This was
independently flagged by the ship-workflow coverage audit as the highest-
severity gap in this branch's test coverage.
Adds plan-eng-review-data-model-minimal-change: a synthetic plan adding one
nullable timestamp field to an existing model, no polymorphism, no JSON, no
independent query pattern or consumer. Asserts the skill does NOT reflexively
recommend extracting a separate model for it — exercising the "unless the
extra job is a single trivial field..." exception added to cognitive pattern
#12 and the SRP checklist item in 5374987c.
Also adds test/helpers/e2e-helpers.test.ts: free, deterministic unit tests
for matchesUnnegated() and setupPlanEngReviewFixture(), which were previously
only exercised indirectly by the paid, EVALS=1-gated E2E tests (also flagged
by the coverage audit — a bug in either could silently flip an eval's
pass/fail verdict and look like ordinary LLM wording variance). Along the
way, found and documented a real limitation: the negation-window check
correctly handles multiple sentences (period-bounded), but a single
comma-spliced sentence containing both a negated and a positive match can
still be absorbed into one greedy match — accepted as a known edge case,
since real review prose reliably separates points with periods/bullets.
bun test test/skill-validation.test.ts test/parity-suite.test.ts
test/touchfiles.test.ts test/skill-e2e-plan.test.ts test/helpers/e2e-helpers.test.ts
test/gen-skill-docs.test.ts — all pass, 0 fail.
a9124bd15b