mirror of
https://github.com/garrytan/gstack.git
synced 2026-05-21 03:40:00 +08:00
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into garrytan/codex-in-ceo-review
# Conflicts: # .agents/skills/gstack-plan-ceo-review/SKILL.md # .agents/skills/gstack-plan-design-review/SKILL.md # .agents/skills/gstack-plan-eng-review/SKILL.md # .agents/skills/gstack-ship/SKILL.md # CHANGELOG.md # VERSION
This commit is contained in:
Garry Tan
283
ship/SKILL.md
283
ship/SKILL.md
@@ -32,6 +32,9 @@ _PROACTIVE=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null
|
||||
_BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
|
||||
echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
|
||||
echo "PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"
|
||||
source <(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
|
||||
REPO_MODE=${REPO_MODE:-unknown}
|
||||
echo "REPO_MODE: $REPO_MODE"
|
||||
_LAKE_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.gstack/.completeness-intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
|
||||
echo "LAKE_INTRO: $_LAKE_SEEN"
|
||||
_TEL=$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-config get telemetry 2>/dev/null || true)
|
||||
@@ -132,6 +135,18 @@ AI-assisted coding makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. When you p
|
||||
- BAD: "Let's defer test coverage to a follow-up PR." (Tests are the cheapest lake to boil.)
|
||||
- BAD: Quoting only human-team effort: "This would take 2 weeks." (Say: "2 weeks human / ~1 hour CC.")
|
||||
|
||||
## Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something
|
||||
|
||||
`REPO_MODE` from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:
|
||||
|
||||
- **`solo`** — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), **investigate and offer to fix proactively**. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
|
||||
- **`collaborative`** — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, **flag them via AskUserQuestion** — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
|
||||
- **`unknown`** — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).
|
||||
|
||||
**See Something, Say Something:** Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.
|
||||
|
||||
Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.
|
||||
|
||||
## Search Before Building
|
||||
|
||||
Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — **search first.** Read `~/.claude/skills/gstack/ETHOS.md` for the full philosophy.
|
||||
@@ -242,6 +257,42 @@ success/error/abort, and `USED_BROWSE` with true/false based on whether `$B` was
|
||||
If you cannot determine the outcome, use "unknown". This runs in the background and
|
||||
never blocks the user.
|
||||
|
||||
## Plan Status Footer
|
||||
|
||||
When you are in plan mode and about to call ExitPlanMode:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Check if the plan file already has a `## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT` section.
|
||||
2. If it DOES — skip (a review skill already wrote a richer report).
|
||||
3. If it does NOT — run this command:
|
||||
|
||||
\`\`\`bash
|
||||
~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-review-read
|
||||
\`\`\`
|
||||
|
||||
Then write a `## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT` section to the end of the plan file:
|
||||
|
||||
- If the output contains review entries (JSONL lines before `---CONFIG---`): format the
|
||||
standard report table with runs/status/findings per skill, same format as the review
|
||||
skills use.
|
||||
- If the output is `NO_REVIEWS` or empty: write this placeholder table:
|
||||
|
||||
\`\`\`markdown
|
||||
## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT
|
||||
|
||||
| Review | Trigger | Why | Runs | Status | Findings |
|
||||
|--------|---------|-----|------|--------|----------|
|
||||
| CEO Review | \`/plan-ceo-review\` | Scope & strategy | 0 | — | — |
|
||||
| Codex Review | \`/codex review\` | Independent 2nd opinion | 0 | — | — |
|
||||
| Eng Review | \`/plan-eng-review\` | Architecture & tests (required) | 0 | — | — |
|
||||
| Design Review | \`/plan-design-review\` | UI/UX gaps | 0 | — | — |
|
||||
|
||||
**VERDICT:** NO REVIEWS YET — run \`/autoplan\` for full review pipeline, or individual reviews above.
|
||||
\`\`\`
|
||||
|
||||
**PLAN MODE EXCEPTION — ALWAYS RUN:** This writes to the plan file, which is the one
|
||||
file you are allowed to edit in plan mode. The plan file review report is part of the
|
||||
plan's living status.
|
||||
|
||||
## Step 0: Detect base branch
|
||||
|
||||
Determine which branch this PR targets. Use the result as "the base branch" in all subsequent steps.
|
||||
@@ -268,7 +319,7 @@ You are running the `/ship` workflow. This is a **non-interactive, fully automat
|
||||
**Only stop for:**
|
||||
- On the base branch (abort)
|
||||
- Merge conflicts that can't be auto-resolved (stop, show conflicts)
|
||||
- Test failures (stop, show failures)
|
||||
- In-branch test failures (pre-existing failures are triaged, not auto-blocking)
|
||||
- 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)
|
||||
@@ -554,7 +605,105 @@ wait
|
||||
|
||||
After both complete, read the output files and check pass/fail.
|
||||
|
||||
**If any test fails:** Show the failures and **STOP**. Do not proceed.
|
||||
**If any test fails:** Do NOT immediately stop. Apply the Test Failure Ownership Triage:
|
||||
|
||||
## Test Failure Ownership Triage
|
||||
|
||||
When tests fail, do NOT immediately stop. First, determine ownership:
|
||||
|
||||
### Step T1: Classify each failure
|
||||
|
||||
For each failing test:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Get the files changed on this branch:**
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
git diff origin/<base>...HEAD --name-only
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Classify the failure:**
|
||||
- **In-branch** if: the failing test file itself was modified on this branch, OR the test output references code that was changed on this branch, OR you can trace the failure to a change in the branch diff.
|
||||
- **Likely pre-existing** if: neither the test file nor the code it tests was modified on this branch, AND the failure is unrelated to any branch change you can identify.
|
||||
- **When ambiguous, default to in-branch.** It is safer to stop the developer than to let a broken test ship. Only classify as pre-existing when you are confident.
|
||||
|
||||
This classification is heuristic — use your judgment reading the diff and the test output. You do not have a programmatic dependency graph.
|
||||
|
||||
### Step T2: Handle in-branch failures
|
||||
|
||||
**STOP.** These are your failures. Show them and do not proceed. The developer must fix their own broken tests before shipping.
|
||||
|
||||
### Step T3: Handle pre-existing failures
|
||||
|
||||
Check `REPO_MODE` from the preamble output.
|
||||
|
||||
**If REPO_MODE is `solo`:**
|
||||
|
||||
Use AskUserQuestion:
|
||||
|
||||
> These test failures appear pre-existing (not caused by your branch changes):
|
||||
>
|
||||
> [list each failure with file:line and brief error description]
|
||||
>
|
||||
> Since this is a solo repo, you're the only one who will fix these.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> RECOMMENDATION: Choose A — fix now while the context is fresh. Completeness: 9/10.
|
||||
> A) Investigate and fix now (human: ~2-4h / CC: ~15min) — Completeness: 10/10
|
||||
> B) Add as P0 TODO — fix after this branch lands — Completeness: 7/10
|
||||
> C) Skip — I know about this, ship anyway — Completeness: 3/10
|
||||
|
||||
**If REPO_MODE is `collaborative` or `unknown`:**
|
||||
|
||||
Use AskUserQuestion:
|
||||
|
||||
> These test failures appear pre-existing (not caused by your branch changes):
|
||||
>
|
||||
> [list each failure with file:line and brief error description]
|
||||
>
|
||||
> This is a collaborative repo — these may be someone else's responsibility.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> RECOMMENDATION: Choose B — assign it to whoever broke it so the right person fixes it. Completeness: 9/10.
|
||||
> A) Investigate and fix now anyway — Completeness: 10/10
|
||||
> B) Blame + assign GitHub issue to the author — Completeness: 9/10
|
||||
> C) Add as P0 TODO — Completeness: 7/10
|
||||
> D) Skip — ship anyway — Completeness: 3/10
|
||||
|
||||
### Step T4: Execute the chosen action
|
||||
|
||||
**If "Investigate and fix now":**
|
||||
- Switch to /investigate mindset: root cause first, then minimal fix.
|
||||
- Fix the pre-existing failure.
|
||||
- Commit the fix separately from the branch's changes: `git commit -m "fix: pre-existing test failure in <test-file>"`
|
||||
- Continue with the workflow.
|
||||
|
||||
**If "Add as P0 TODO":**
|
||||
- If `TODOS.md` exists, add the entry following the format in `review/TODOS-format.md` (or `.claude/skills/review/TODOS-format.md`).
|
||||
- If `TODOS.md` does not exist, create it with the standard header and add the entry.
|
||||
- Entry should include: title, the error output, which branch it was noticed on, and priority P0.
|
||||
- Continue with the workflow — treat the pre-existing failure as non-blocking.
|
||||
|
||||
**If "Blame + assign GitHub issue" (collaborative only):**
|
||||
- Find who likely broke it. Check BOTH the test file AND the production code it tests:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
# Who last touched the failing test?
|
||||
git log --format="%an (%ae)" -1 -- <failing-test-file>
|
||||
# Who last touched the production code the test covers? (often the actual breaker)
|
||||
git log --format="%an (%ae)" -1 -- <source-file-under-test>
|
||||
```
|
||||
If these are different people, prefer the production code author — they likely introduced the regression.
|
||||
- Create a GitHub issue assigned to that person:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
gh issue create \
|
||||
--title "Pre-existing test failure: <test-name>" \
|
||||
--body "Found failing on branch <current-branch>. Failure is pre-existing.\n\n**Error:**\n```\n<first 10 lines>\n```\n\n**Last modified by:** <author>\n**Noticed by:** gstack /ship on <date>" \
|
||||
--assignee "<github-username>"
|
||||
```
|
||||
- If `gh` is not available or `--assignee` fails (user not in org, etc.), create the issue without assignee and note who should look at it in the body.
|
||||
- Continue with the workflow.
|
||||
|
||||
**If "Skip":**
|
||||
- Continue with the workflow.
|
||||
- Note in output: "Pre-existing test failure skipped: <test-name>"
|
||||
|
||||
**After triage:** If any in-branch failures remain unfixed, **STOP**. Do not proceed. If all failures were pre-existing and handled (fixed, TODOed, assigned, or skipped), continue to Step 3.25.
|
||||
|
||||
**If all pass:** Continue silently — just note the counts briefly.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -626,6 +775,27 @@ If multiple suites need to run, run them sequentially (each needs a test lane).
|
||||
|
||||
100% coverage is the goal — every untested path is a path where bugs hide and vibe coding becomes yolo coding. Evaluate what was ACTUALLY coded (from the diff), not what was planned.
|
||||
|
||||
### Test Framework Detection
|
||||
|
||||
Before analyzing coverage, detect the project's test framework:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Read CLAUDE.md** — look for a `## Testing` section with test command and framework name. If found, use that as the authoritative source.
|
||||
2. **If CLAUDE.md has no testing section, auto-detect:**
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
# Detect project runtime
|
||||
[ -f Gemfile ] && echo "RUNTIME:ruby"
|
||||
[ -f package.json ] && echo "RUNTIME:node"
|
||||
[ -f requirements.txt ] || [ -f pyproject.toml ] && echo "RUNTIME:python"
|
||||
[ -f go.mod ] && echo "RUNTIME:go"
|
||||
[ -f Cargo.toml ] && echo "RUNTIME:rust"
|
||||
# Check for existing test infrastructure
|
||||
ls jest.config.* vitest.config.* playwright.config.* cypress.config.* .rspec pytest.ini phpunit.xml 2>/dev/null
|
||||
ls -d test/ tests/ spec/ __tests__/ cypress/ e2e/ 2>/dev/null
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
3. **If no framework detected:** falls through to the Test Framework Bootstrap step (Step 2.5) which handles full setup.
|
||||
|
||||
**0. Before/after test count:**
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
@@ -688,9 +858,41 @@ Quality scoring rubric:
|
||||
- ★★ Tests correct behavior, happy path only
|
||||
- ★ Smoke test / existence check / trivial assertion (e.g., "it renders", "it doesn't throw")
|
||||
|
||||
### E2E Test Decision Matrix
|
||||
|
||||
When checking each branch, also determine whether a unit test or E2E/integration test is the right tool:
|
||||
|
||||
**RECOMMEND E2E (mark as [→E2E] in the diagram):**
|
||||
- Common user flow spanning 3+ components/services (e.g., signup → verify email → first login)
|
||||
- Integration point where mocking hides real failures (e.g., API → queue → worker → DB)
|
||||
- Auth/payment/data-destruction flows — too important to trust unit tests alone
|
||||
|
||||
**RECOMMEND EVAL (mark as [→EVAL] in the diagram):**
|
||||
- Critical LLM call that needs a quality eval (e.g., prompt change → test output still meets quality bar)
|
||||
- Changes to prompt templates, system instructions, or tool definitions
|
||||
|
||||
**STICK WITH UNIT TESTS:**
|
||||
- Pure function with clear inputs/outputs
|
||||
- Internal helper with no side effects
|
||||
- Edge case of a single function (null input, empty array)
|
||||
- Obscure/rare flow that isn't customer-facing
|
||||
|
||||
### REGRESSION RULE (mandatory)
|
||||
|
||||
**IRON RULE:** When the coverage audit identifies a REGRESSION — code that previously worked but the diff broke — a regression test is written immediately. No AskUserQuestion. No skipping. Regressions are the highest-priority test because they prove something broke.
|
||||
|
||||
A regression is when:
|
||||
- The diff modifies existing behavior (not new code)
|
||||
- The existing test suite (if any) doesn't cover the changed path
|
||||
- The change introduces a new failure mode for existing callers
|
||||
|
||||
When uncertain whether a change is a regression, err on the side of writing the test.
|
||||
|
||||
Format: commit as `test: regression test for {what broke}`
|
||||
|
||||
**4. Output ASCII coverage diagram:**
|
||||
|
||||
Include BOTH code paths and user flows in the same diagram:
|
||||
Include BOTH code paths and user flows in the same diagram. Mark E2E-worthy and eval-worthy paths:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
CODE PATH COVERAGE
|
||||
@@ -711,9 +913,9 @@ USER FLOW COVERAGE
|
||||
[+] Payment checkout flow
|
||||
│
|
||||
├── [★★★ TESTED] Complete purchase — checkout.e2e.ts:15
|
||||
├── [GAP] Double-click submit — NO TEST
|
||||
├── [GAP] Navigate away during payment — NO TEST
|
||||
└── [★ TESTED] Form validation errors (checks render only) — checkout.test.ts:40
|
||||
├── [GAP] [→E2E] Double-click submit — needs E2E, not just unit
|
||||
├── [GAP] Navigate away during payment — unit test sufficient
|
||||
└── [★ TESTED] Form validation errors (checks render only) — checkout.test.ts:40
|
||||
|
||||
[+] Error states
|
||||
│
|
||||
@@ -721,12 +923,16 @@ USER FLOW COVERAGE
|
||||
├── [GAP] Network timeout UX (what does user see?) — NO TEST
|
||||
└── [GAP] Empty cart submission — NO TEST
|
||||
|
||||
[+] LLM integration
|
||||
│
|
||||
└── [GAP] [→EVAL] Prompt template change — needs eval test
|
||||
|
||||
─────────────────────────────────
|
||||
COVERAGE: 5/12 paths tested (42%)
|
||||
COVERAGE: 5/13 paths tested (38%)
|
||||
Code paths: 3/5 (60%)
|
||||
User flows: 2/7 (29%)
|
||||
User flows: 2/8 (25%)
|
||||
QUALITY: ★★★: 2 ★★: 2 ★: 1
|
||||
GAPS: 7 paths need tests
|
||||
GAPS: 8 paths need tests (2 need E2E, 1 needs eval)
|
||||
─────────────────────────────────
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -738,6 +944,8 @@ If test framework detected (or bootstrapped in Step 2.5):
|
||||
- Prioritize error handlers and edge cases first (happy paths are more likely already tested)
|
||||
- Read 2-3 existing test files to match conventions exactly
|
||||
- Generate unit tests. Mock all external dependencies (DB, API, Redis).
|
||||
- For paths marked [→E2E]: generate integration/E2E tests using the project's E2E framework (Playwright, Cypress, Capybara, etc.)
|
||||
- For paths marked [→EVAL]: generate eval tests using the project's eval framework, or flag for manual eval if none exists
|
||||
- Write tests that exercise the specific uncovered path with real assertions
|
||||
- Run each test. Passes → commit as `test: coverage for {feature}`
|
||||
- Fails → fix once. Still fails → revert, note gap in diagram.
|
||||
@@ -758,6 +966,37 @@ 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.`
|
||||
|
||||
### Test Plan Artifact
|
||||
|
||||
After producing the coverage diagram, write a test plan artifact so `/qa` and `/qa-only` can consume it:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
source <(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null) && mkdir -p ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG
|
||||
USER=$(whoami)
|
||||
DATETIME=$(date +%Y%m%d-%H%M%S)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Write to `~/.gstack/projects/{slug}/{user}-{branch}-ship-test-plan-{datetime}.md`:
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
# Test Plan
|
||||
Generated by /ship on {date}
|
||||
Branch: {branch}
|
||||
Repo: {owner/repo}
|
||||
|
||||
## Affected Pages/Routes
|
||||
- {URL path} — {what to test and why}
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Interactions to Verify
|
||||
- {interaction description} on {page}
|
||||
|
||||
## Edge Cases
|
||||
- {edge case} on {page}
|
||||
|
||||
## Critical Paths
|
||||
- {end-to-end flow that must work}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Step 3.5: Pre-Landing Review
|
||||
@@ -805,6 +1044,28 @@ source <(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-diff-scope <base> 2>/dev/null)
|
||||
|
||||
Substitute: TIMESTAMP = ISO 8601 datetime, STATUS = "clean" if 0 findings or "issues_found", N = total findings, M = auto-fixed count, COMMIT = output of `git rev-parse --short HEAD`.
|
||||
|
||||
7. **Codex design voice** (optional, automatic if available):
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
which codex 2>/dev/null && echo "CODEX_AVAILABLE" || echo "CODEX_NOT_AVAILABLE"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
If Codex is available, run a lightweight design check on the diff:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
TMPERR_DRL=$(mktemp /tmp/codex-drl-XXXXXXXX)
|
||||
codex exec "Review the git diff on this branch. Run 7 litmus checks (YES/NO each): 1. Brand/product unmistakable in first screen? 2. One strong visual anchor present? 3. Page understandable by scanning headlines only? 4. Each section has one job? 5. Are cards actually necessary? 6. Does motion improve hierarchy or atmosphere? 7. Would design feel premium with all decorative shadows removed? Flag any hard rejections: 1. Generic SaaS card grid as first impression 2. Beautiful image with weak brand 3. Strong headline with no clear action 4. Busy imagery behind text 5. Sections repeating same mood statement 6. Carousel with no narrative purpose 7. App UI made of stacked cards instead of layout 5 most important design findings only. Reference file:line." -s read-only -c 'model_reasoning_effort="high"' --enable web_search_cached 2>"$TMPERR_DRL"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Use a 5-minute timeout (`timeout: 300000`). After the command completes, read stderr:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
cat "$TMPERR_DRL" && rm -f "$TMPERR_DRL"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Error handling:** All errors are non-blocking. On auth failure, timeout, or empty response — skip with a brief note and continue.
|
||||
|
||||
Present Codex output under a `CODEX (design):` header, merged with the checklist findings above.
|
||||
|
||||
Include any design findings alongside the code review findings. They follow the same Fix-First flow below.
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Classify each finding as AUTO-FIX or ASK** per the Fix-First Heuristic in
|
||||
@@ -911,7 +1172,7 @@ TMPERR_ADV=$(mktemp /tmp/codex-adv-XXXXXXXX)
|
||||
codex exec "Review the changes on this branch against the base branch. Run git diff origin/<base> to see the diff. Your job is to find ways this code will fail in production. Think like an attacker and a chaos engineer. Find edge cases, race conditions, security holes, resource leaks, failure modes, and silent data corruption paths. Be adversarial. Be thorough. No compliments — just the problems." -s read-only -c 'model_reasoning_effort="xhigh"' --enable web_search_cached 2>"$TMPERR_ADV"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Use a 5-minute timeout (`timeout: 300000`). After the command completes, read stderr:
|
||||
Set the Bash tool's `timeout` parameter to `300000` (5 minutes). Do NOT use the `timeout` shell command — it doesn't exist on macOS. After the command completes, read stderr:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
cat "$TMPERR_ADV"
|
||||
```
|
||||
@@ -956,7 +1217,7 @@ TMPERR=$(mktemp /tmp/codex-review-XXXXXXXX)
|
||||
codex review --base <base> -c 'model_reasoning_effort="xhigh"' --enable web_search_cached 2>"$TMPERR"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Use a 5-minute timeout. Present output under `CODEX SAYS (code review):` header.
|
||||
Set the Bash tool's `timeout` parameter to `300000` (5 minutes). Do NOT use the `timeout` shell command — it doesn't exist on macOS. Present output under `CODEX SAYS (code review):` header.
|
||||
Check for `[P1]` markers: found → `GATE: FAIL`, not found → `GATE: PASS`.
|
||||
|
||||
If GATE is FAIL, use AskUserQuestion:
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ You are running the `/ship` workflow. This is a **non-interactive, fully automat
|
||||
**Only stop for:**
|
||||
- On the base branch (abort)
|
||||
- Merge conflicts that can't be auto-resolved (stop, show conflicts)
|
||||
- Test failures (stop, show failures)
|
||||
- In-branch test failures (pre-existing failures are triaged, not auto-blocking)
|
||||
- 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)
|
||||
@@ -119,7 +119,11 @@ wait
|
||||
|
||||
After both complete, read the output files and check pass/fail.
|
||||
|
||||
**If any test fails:** Show the failures and **STOP**. Do not proceed.
|
||||
**If any test fails:** Do NOT immediately stop. Apply the Test Failure Ownership Triage:
|
||||
|
||||
{{TEST_FAILURE_TRIAGE}}
|
||||
|
||||
**After triage:** If any in-branch failures remain unfixed, **STOP**. Do not proceed. If all failures were pre-existing and handled (fixed, TODOed, assigned, or skipped), continue to Step 3.25.
|
||||
|
||||
**If all pass:** Continue silently — just note the counts briefly.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -189,139 +193,7 @@ If multiple suites need to run, run them sequentially (each needs a test lane).
|
||||
|
||||
## Step 3.4: Test Coverage Audit
|
||||
|
||||
100% coverage is the goal — every untested path is a path where bugs hide and vibe coding becomes yolo coding. Evaluate what was ACTUALLY coded (from the diff), not what was planned.
|
||||
|
||||
**0. Before/after test count:**
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
# Count test files before any generation
|
||||
find . -name '*.test.*' -o -name '*.spec.*' -o -name '*_test.*' -o -name '*_spec.*' | grep -v node_modules | wc -l
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Store this number for the PR body.
|
||||
|
||||
**1. Trace every codepath changed** using `git diff origin/<base>...HEAD`:
|
||||
|
||||
Read every changed file. For each one, trace how data flows through the code — don't just list functions, actually follow the execution:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Read the diff.** For each changed file, read the full file (not just the diff hunk) to understand context.
|
||||
2. **Trace data flow.** Starting from each entry point (route handler, exported function, event listener, component render), follow the data through every branch:
|
||||
- Where does input come from? (request params, props, database, API call)
|
||||
- What transforms it? (validation, mapping, computation)
|
||||
- Where does it go? (database write, API response, rendered output, side effect)
|
||||
- What can go wrong at each step? (null/undefined, invalid input, network failure, empty collection)
|
||||
3. **Diagram the execution.** For each changed file, draw an ASCII diagram showing:
|
||||
- Every function/method that was added or modified
|
||||
- Every conditional branch (if/else, switch, ternary, guard clause, early return)
|
||||
- Every error path (try/catch, rescue, error boundary, fallback)
|
||||
- Every call to another function (trace into it — does IT have untested branches?)
|
||||
- Every edge: what happens with null input? Empty array? Invalid type?
|
||||
|
||||
This is the critical step — you're building a map of every line of code that can execute differently based on input. Every branch in this diagram needs a test.
|
||||
|
||||
**2. Map user flows, interactions, and error states:**
|
||||
|
||||
Code coverage isn't enough — you need to cover how real users interact with the changed code. For each changed feature, think through:
|
||||
|
||||
- **User flows:** What sequence of actions does a user take that touches this code? Map the full journey (e.g., "user clicks 'Pay' → form validates → API call → success/failure screen"). Each step in the journey needs a test.
|
||||
- **Interaction edge cases:** What happens when the user does something unexpected?
|
||||
- Double-click/rapid resubmit
|
||||
- Navigate away mid-operation (back button, close tab, click another link)
|
||||
- Submit with stale data (page sat open for 30 minutes, session expired)
|
||||
- Slow connection (API takes 10 seconds — what does the user see?)
|
||||
- Concurrent actions (two tabs, same form)
|
||||
- **Error states the user can see:** For every error the code handles, what does the user actually experience?
|
||||
- Is there a clear error message or a silent failure?
|
||||
- Can the user recover (retry, go back, fix input) or are they stuck?
|
||||
- What happens with no network? With a 500 from the API? With invalid data from the server?
|
||||
- **Empty/zero/boundary states:** What does the UI show with zero results? With 10,000 results? With a single character input? With maximum-length input?
|
||||
|
||||
Add these to your diagram alongside the code branches. A user flow with no test is just as much a gap as an untested if/else.
|
||||
|
||||
**3. Check each branch against existing tests:**
|
||||
|
||||
Go through your diagram branch by branch — both code paths AND user flows. For each one, search for a test that exercises it:
|
||||
- Function `processPayment()` → look for `billing.test.ts`, `billing.spec.ts`, `test/billing_test.rb`
|
||||
- An if/else → look for tests covering BOTH the true AND false path
|
||||
- An error handler → look for a test that triggers that specific error condition
|
||||
- A call to `helperFn()` that has its own branches → those branches need tests too
|
||||
- A user flow → look for an integration or E2E test that walks through the journey
|
||||
- An interaction edge case → look for a test that simulates the unexpected action
|
||||
|
||||
Quality scoring rubric:
|
||||
- ★★★ Tests behavior with edge cases AND error paths
|
||||
- ★★ Tests correct behavior, happy path only
|
||||
- ★ Smoke test / existence check / trivial assertion (e.g., "it renders", "it doesn't throw")
|
||||
|
||||
**4. Output ASCII coverage diagram:**
|
||||
|
||||
Include BOTH code paths and user flows in the same diagram:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
CODE PATH COVERAGE
|
||||
===========================
|
||||
[+] src/services/billing.ts
|
||||
│
|
||||
├── processPayment()
|
||||
│ ├── [★★★ TESTED] Happy path + card declined + timeout — billing.test.ts:42
|
||||
│ ├── [GAP] Network timeout — NO TEST
|
||||
│ └── [GAP] Invalid currency — NO TEST
|
||||
│
|
||||
└── refundPayment()
|
||||
├── [★★ TESTED] Full refund — billing.test.ts:89
|
||||
└── [★ TESTED] Partial refund (checks non-throw only) — billing.test.ts:101
|
||||
|
||||
USER FLOW COVERAGE
|
||||
===========================
|
||||
[+] Payment checkout flow
|
||||
│
|
||||
├── [★★★ TESTED] Complete purchase — checkout.e2e.ts:15
|
||||
├── [GAP] Double-click submit — NO TEST
|
||||
├── [GAP] Navigate away during payment — NO TEST
|
||||
└── [★ TESTED] Form validation errors (checks render only) — checkout.test.ts:40
|
||||
|
||||
[+] Error states
|
||||
│
|
||||
├── [★★ TESTED] Card declined message — billing.test.ts:58
|
||||
├── [GAP] Network timeout UX (what does user see?) — NO TEST
|
||||
└── [GAP] Empty cart submission — NO TEST
|
||||
|
||||
─────────────────────────────────
|
||||
COVERAGE: 5/12 paths tested (42%)
|
||||
Code paths: 3/5 (60%)
|
||||
User flows: 2/7 (29%)
|
||||
QUALITY: ★★★: 2 ★★: 2 ★: 1
|
||||
GAPS: 7 paths need tests
|
||||
─────────────────────────────────
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Fast path:** All paths covered → "Step 3.4: All new code paths have test coverage ✓" Continue.
|
||||
|
||||
**5. Generate tests for uncovered paths:**
|
||||
|
||||
If test framework detected (or bootstrapped in Step 2.5):
|
||||
- Prioritize error handlers and edge cases first (happy paths are more likely already tested)
|
||||
- Read 2-3 existing test files to match conventions exactly
|
||||
- Generate unit tests. Mock all external dependencies (DB, API, Redis).
|
||||
- Write tests that exercise the specific uncovered path with real assertions
|
||||
- Run each test. Passes → commit as `test: coverage for {feature}`
|
||||
- Fails → fix once. Still fails → revert, note gap in diagram.
|
||||
|
||||
Caps: 30 code paths max, 20 tests generated max (code + user flow combined), 2-min per-test exploration cap.
|
||||
|
||||
If no test framework AND user declined bootstrap → diagram only, no generation. Note: "Test generation skipped — no test framework configured."
|
||||
|
||||
**Diff is test-only changes:** Skip Step 3.4 entirely: "No new application code paths to audit."
|
||||
|
||||
**6. After-count and coverage summary:**
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
# Count test files after generation
|
||||
find . -name '*.test.*' -o -name '*.spec.*' -o -name '*_test.*' -o -name '*_spec.*' | grep -v node_modules | wc -l
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
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.`
|
||||
{{TEST_COVERAGE_AUDIT_SHIP}}
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user