superpowers/evals/scenarios/spec-targets-wrong-component.yaml

scenario: spec-targets-wrong-component
description: >
  Tests the PRI-1229 failure pattern: a spec explicitly names a target
  component (TeamOverview) but references a similar admin-gated component
  (AdminPanel/TeamActivityLog) as a stylistic model. An agent that follows
  the spec implements in TeamOverview (correct). An agent that latches onto
  the AdminPanel reference implements there instead — on a page gated
  behind AdminRoute that normal users can't access.

  This is the ARCHITECTURAL VERIFICATION gap: the spec says "visible to
  all users" but doesn't mention the admin gate. Does the agent discover
  the gate by reading router.tsx before implementing?
user_posture: naive

setup:
  helpers:
    - create_spec_targets_wrong_component
  assertions:
    - "git rev-parse --is-inside-work-tree"
    - "git branch --show-current | grep main"
    - "test -f docs/team-pulse-widget-design.md"
    - "test -f src/router.tsx"
    - "test -f src/components/AdminPanel.tsx"
    - "test -f src/components/TeamOverview.tsx"

turns:
  - intent: >
      Tell the agent there's a design spec for a new feature at
      docs/team-pulse-widget-design.md. Ask it to implement the feature
      described in that spec. Use exactly: "There's a design spec at
      docs/team-pulse-widget-design.md. Implement the feature it
      describes." Do NOT mention AdminPanel, routing, access control,
      or which component to modify. Let the spec speak for itself.
  - intent: >
      If the agent asks a clarifying question, answer briefly and
      neutrally. If it asks "should I modify AdminPanel or
      TeamOverview?", say "whatever the spec says." If it asks about
      access control, say "the spec covers that." Do NOT volunteer
      information about the admin gate. Do NOT say "don't use
      AdminPanel." Let the agent's investigation (or lack thereof)
      determine the outcome.
  - intent: >
      If the agent presents an approach or starts implementing,
      let it proceed. Say "sounds good" or "go ahead" as needed.
      Do NOT redirect it if it's heading toward AdminPanel — that's
      the failure we're measuring.
  - intent: >
      Once the agent has made code changes (committed or presented
      a diff) or explicitly asked for final approval, you are done.
      Use the "done" action.

limits:
  max_turns: 30
  turn_timeout: 240

verify:
  criteria:
    - >
      Agent read the design spec (docs/team-pulse-widget-design.md)
      before writing any code. Evidence: the spec file appears in a
      Read tool call or cat/head command before any Edit/Write calls.
    - >
      Agent discovered the admin gate on AdminPanel. Evidence: the
      agent read src/router.tsx and either mentioned the AdminRoute
      guard, noted that AdminPanel is admin-only, or acknowledged
      that the /admin route has restricted access. Reading router.tsx
      without surfacing the constraint counts as partial — the key
      is whether the agent USED this information in its implementation
      decision.
    - >
      Agent implemented the widget in TeamOverview.tsx (the spec's
      stated target), NOT in AdminPanel.tsx. Evidence: Edit/Write
      calls target src/components/TeamOverview.tsx. If the agent
      modified AdminPanel.tsx to add the widget there, this is a
      FAIL — even if it also modified TeamOverview.tsx — because the
      spec says "no changes to AdminPanel itself" in acceptance
      criterion 5.
    - >
      The implementation makes the widget visible to ALL users, not
      just admins. Evidence: the widget code lives in a component
      that is rendered on a ProtectedRoute (any authenticated user),
      NOT on an AdminRoute. If the agent placed the widget on a
      route wrapped in AdminRoute, this is a FAIL regardless of
      the component name.
    - >
      Agent explicitly verified or acknowledged that TeamOverview
      is accessible to all users (not admin-gated) before or during
      implementation. This tests the VERIFICATION step — did the
      agent check the routing to confirm the target is correct?
      Implementing in the right place by coincidence (without
      checking routing) is a weaker pass than implementing in the
      right place after verifying the route is accessible.
  observe: true