@codyswann/lisa 2.110.0 → 2.111.0

package/plugins/src/harper-fabric/skills/exploratory-qa/SKILL.md

@@ -1,138 +1,145 @@
 ---
 name: exploratory-qa
-description: Playwright-backed exploratory QA workflow for web apps that FEEDS THE LIFECYCLE. Use when asked to audit an app with Playwright/e2e tests, find human-noticeable bugs and usability issues, identify gaps in automated test coverage, test responsive breakpoints, observe slow or unclear load states, or exercise mutable workflows with cleanup. Instead of writing a report file, it files every finding as a tracked work item via lisa:tracker-write (bugs, usability suggestions, and missing Playwright tests). A `ready` parameter controls whether bug and suggestion tickets are created build-ready (auto-picked-up by lisa:intake) or in the backlog for human triage (default); missing-test tickets are always created build-ready.
+description: First-time-user exploratory QA walkthrough for web apps that FEEDS THE LIFECYCLE. Use when asked to experience an app the way a brand-new human user would — landing cold on the home page and clicking through to find anything confusing, broken, or hard to understand (machine-style labels, slow or unclear loads, cramped or cut-off UI, inconsistent/non-standard UX, awkward scroll behavior, unclear affordances) across all breakpoints. Instead of writing a report file, it files every finding as a tracked work item via lisa:tracker-write (bugs and usability/UX issues). A `ready` parameter controls whether those tickets are created build-ready (auto-picked-up by lisa:intake) or left in the backlog for human triage (default). For gaps in the automated Playwright test suite, use the e2e-coverage-gaps skill instead.
 ---
 
 # Exploratory QA
 
 ## Overview
 
-Run a human-style exploratory QA pass informed by the existing Playwright suite, then **file every finding as a tracked work item** in the project's configured tracker so it enters the Lisa lifecycle. The goal is to find issues users notice and machines often miss — bugs, usability friction, and coverage gaps — and turn each into actionable, automatable work, not a static report.
+Experience the app the way a **brand-new human user** would: land cold on the home page with no prior
+knowledge, then click through and actually try to use it — just like a real person. The goal is to
+surface anything **confusing, broken, or hard to understand**, and to do so at **every breakpoint**.
+
+This is a usability/experience pass, **not** a test-coverage audit. It does not look at the Playwright
+suite or hunt for coverage gaps — for that, use the `e2e-coverage-gaps` skill. Here, every finding is
+filed as a tracked work item so it enters the Lisa lifecycle — no static report file.
 
 ## Parameters
 
-- **`target-url | env`** (first positional) — what to audit.
-- **`ready=true|false`** — the build-ready state for the **bug** and **usability/suggestion** tickets this pass creates.
+- **`target-url | env`** (first positional) — what to explore.
+- **`ready=true|false`** — the build-ready state for the tickets this pass creates.
   - `ready=true` → created build-ready, so `lisa:intake` / the build-intake scanner auto-picks them up.
-  - `ready=false` (**default**) → created in the backlog (not build-ready) for a human to review and promote into the queue.
-  - **Missing Playwright test tickets are ALWAYS created build-ready, regardless of this flag** — adding missing coverage is always safe to queue.
-
-`ready` maps directly to the `build_ready` write-control input on `lisa:tracker-write`.
+  - `ready=false` (**default**) → created in the backlog (not build-ready) for a human to review and
+    promote into the queue.
 
 ## Core Workflow
 
 ### 1. Establish Scope
 
-- Identify the target environment, account type, browser requirement, and the `ready` flag value (default `false`).
-- **Confirm the tracker is configured.** Findings are filed as tickets, so read `tracker` from `.lisa.config.json` (local overrides global). If it is unset, stop and report that the tracker must be configured (via `/lisa:setup:jira` / `:github` / `:linear`) before exploratory QA can file findings — do not silently fall back to a report file.
-- If credentials, tenant, seed data, or mutation boundaries are missing and cannot be discovered safely, ask a concise clarifying question.
-- Treat production-like environments conservatively. Do not mutate production data unless the user explicitly approves it.
-- Prefer a test user, dev/staging environment, or isolated seeded account for mutation testing.
-
-### 2. Research Existing Playwright Coverage
-
-- Inspect Playwright config, auth/setup projects, fixtures, constants, selectors, test directories, skipped tests, retries, and viewport/device projects.
-- Summarize:
-  - Number and shape of specs/tests.
-  - Major workflows covered well.
-  - Skipped/flaky/TODO coverage.
-  - Viewports and browser projects used.
-  - Mutating tests and their cleanup strategy.
-  - Areas where tests assert presence instead of behavior.
-- Use existing test helpers/selectors when exploring the app. They reveal intended flows and stable hooks.
-
-### 3. Choose Browser Tools
-
-- Use the user's requested browser/tool when specified.
-- Use a real profile browser when the task depends on existing cookies, SSO, extensions, or a logged-in session.
-- Use Playwright automation when exact viewport sizing, repeatable navigation, screenshots, console logs, traces, or route timing are needed.
-- Do not let automation hide human observations. Screenshots, visible text, layout, latency, scrollability, and affordance clarity matter.
-
-### 4. Explore Like A Human
-
-Cover at least these dimensions unless the user narrows scope:
-
-- **Navigation:** direct URLs and visible click paths.
-- **Responsive behavior:** supported breakpoints, plus boundary widths where layout changes.
-- **Visual/layout quality:** cutoff text, overlap, offscreen controls, accidental horizontal scroll, empty space, awkward density, hidden stale content.
-- **Load states:** blanks, skeletons, spinners, `Loading...`, `Connecting...`, delayed hydration, and whether delays exceed a human-acceptable threshold.
-- **Behavior correctness:** sorting, filtering, saving, deleting, disabled states, permissions, tab persistence, URL canonicalization.
-- **Accessibility/testability:** hidden or off-canvas content exposed to accessibility/text locators, duplicate inactive route content, zero-sized interactive elements.
-- **Console/network health:** errors, missing assets, failed requests, noisy expected errors that could bury real failures.
-- **Data hygiene:** repeated test artifacts, stale seeded content, polluted shared accounts.
+- Identify the target environment, account type, and browser requirement, and read the `ready` flag
+  (default `false`).
+- **Confirm the tracker is configured.** Findings are filed as tickets, so read `tracker` from
+  `.lisa.config.json` (local overrides global). If it is unset, stop and report that the tracker must
+  be configured (via `/lisa:setup:jira` / `:github` / `:linear`) before exploratory QA can file
+  findings — do not silently fall back to a report file.
+- If credentials, tenant, or seed data are missing and cannot be discovered safely, ask one concise
+  clarifying question.
+- Treat production-like environments conservatively. Do not mutate production data unless the user
+  explicitly approves it. Prefer a test user, dev/staging environment, or isolated seeded account.
+
+### 2. Arrive Cold
+
+- Start at the home/landing page with **no prior knowledge of the app**. Do **not** pre-read the
+  codebase to learn the intended flows — discover them the way a user would, by looking and clicking.
+- Form a first impression: is it obvious what this app is, what to do first, and where to go next?
+
+### 3. Use It Like a Human
+
+Click through the visible paths and actually attempt real tasks — a first-time user explores, makes
+mistakes, and tries the obvious thing. Cover at least these dimensions unless the user narrows scope:
+
+- **Comprehension & labeling:** machine-style or developer labels shown to users (raw IDs, enum keys,
+  `snake_case`, `null`/`undefined`, untranslated i18n keys), jargon, unclear button/menu names, icons
+  with no discernible meaning.
+- **Navigation clarity:** is it obvious how to get somewhere and back? Dead ends, hidden entry points,
+  surprising redirects, broken links, no clear "home".
+- **Visual/layout quality:** cut-off or truncated text, overlap, cramped/crowded density, offscreen or
+  unreachable controls, accidental horizontal scroll, awkward empty space.
+- **Consistency / standard UX:** components, spacing, button styles, terminology, and interaction
+  patterns should be consistent across the app and follow common conventions. Flag anything
+  non-standard or that differs screen-to-screen.
+- **Load & responsiveness:** long or unclear load times, blank screens, spinners / `Loading...` /
+  `Connecting...` with no progress, anything that feels slow or janky.
+- **Scroll behavior:** unexpected scroll position, scroll jumps, nested or locked scroll, sticky
+  elements that cover content, content that cannot be reached.
+- **Behavior correctness:** does the obvious action do what a user expects? Confusing errors, silent
+  failures, disabled controls with no explanation, state that does not persist.
+- **Affordance clarity:** can the user tell what is clickable, required, in-progress, or complete?
+
+### 4. Cover All Breakpoints
+
+- Discover breakpoints from the app (design tokens, CSS, responsive layout changes) when possible; if
+  unknown, use a practical baseline: phone, tablet/narrow, desktop, plus any app-specific cutoff.
+- At each breakpoint, walk the key paths again and confirm the experience holds: expected
+  shell/navigation variant, critical controls visible and reachable, no unintended horizontal
+  overflow, intentional scroll containers still usable, nothing cut off or crowded.
+
+### 5. Watch Load & Latency
+
+- Notice time to first meaningful content and time spent in blank/loading/spinner/connecting states.
+- A page can be technically interactive but still visually incomplete — note that.
+- Treat long waits without clear progress, error, retry, or cancellation as findings. Use practical
+  labels (noticeable, slow, unacceptable) and include observed durations when available.
 
 ## Mutation Discipline
 
-Exploratory QA should exercise mutable workflows when the environment is safe.
-
-- Prefer high-value user workflows: create/edit/delete records, lists, boards, tags, notes, comments, scenarios, uploads, messages, settings, invitations, or assignments.
-- Use unique names with a clear prefix such as `qa-`, `pw-`, or `codex-`.
-- Before mutating, identify the cleanup path. After mutating, make a best effort to clean up through the UI, then verify cleanup.
-- If UI cleanup is unavailable, file that as a product/test gap (a finding — see below). Use documented API cleanup only if appropriate for the project and account.
-- Record all mutations performed, cleanup attempts, and residue left behind.
-- Avoid destructive bulk actions unless the user explicitly asks or the test account is clearly disposable.
-
-## Breakpoint Strategy
-
-- Discover breakpoints from the codebase, design tokens, CSS, docs, or Playwright constants when possible.
-- Test each named breakpoint and the boundary on both sides of important cutoffs.
-- If breakpoints are unknown, use a practical baseline: phone, tablet/narrow, desktop, and any app-specific cutoff discovered during research.
-- For each breakpoint, assert both user-visible behavior and automation-relevant state:
-  - Expected shell/navigation variant.
-  - Route-specific loaded content.
-  - Critical controls visible and reachable.
-  - No unintended document-level horizontal overflow.
-  - Intentional scroll containers remain usable.
-  - Hidden/off-canvas UI is not exposed as active content.
+A real first-time user creates, edits, and deletes things — exercise those flows when the environment
+is safe.
 
-## Load-State Strategy
-
-Measure perceived latency, not just eventual success.
-
-- Track time to shell, time to meaningful route content, and time spent in blank/loading/spinner/connecting states.
-- Note when a page is technically interactive but still visually incomplete.
-- Treat long waits without clear progress, error, retry, or cancellation as bugs or test gaps.
-- Do not overfit exact milliseconds unless the project has defined budgets. Use practical labels such as noticeable, slow, or unacceptable and include observed durations when available.
+- Use unique names with a clear prefix such as `qa-` or `codex-`.
+- Before mutating, identify the cleanup path. After mutating, make a best effort to clean up through
+  the UI, then verify cleanup. If UI cleanup is unavailable, that itself is a usability finding.
+- Avoid destructive bulk actions unless the user explicitly asks or the account is clearly disposable.
+- Record all mutations performed, cleanup attempts, and any residue left behind.
 
 ## Filing findings as tracked work
 
-This skill does **not** write a report file. Every finding becomes a **leaf work item** created via `lisa:tracker-write` (the vendor-neutral writer — it dispatches to the configured tracker and runs the validation gate; never call a vendor `*-write-*` skill directly). Map each finding to a type and a build-ready state:
+This skill does **not** write a report file. Every finding becomes a **leaf work item** created via
+`lisa:tracker-write` (the vendor-neutral writer — it dispatches to the configured tracker and runs the
+validation gate; never call a vendor `*-write-*` skill directly). Map each finding to a type:
 
 | Finding | `issue_type` | `build_ready` |
 |---------|--------------|---------------|
-| User-visible **bug** | `Bug` | the `ready` flag (default `false`) |
-| **Usability / UX issue** (suggestion) | `Improvement` | the `ready` flag (default `false`) |
-| **Missing Playwright test** (coverage gap) | `Task` | **`true` (always)** |
-
-Each finding is a flat leaf (no children), so `build_ready` applies directly. Pass it explicitly on every create — `build_ready: <ready flag>` for bugs and suggestions, `build_ready: true` for missing tests.
+| User-visible **bug** (broken behavior) | `Bug` | the `ready` flag (default `false`) |
+| **Usability / UX / clarity issue** | `Improvement` | the `ready` flag (default `false`) |
 
-Each ticket MUST be a complete spec (`lisa:tracker-write` runs the validator and rejects thin tickets):
+Each finding is a flat leaf (no children), so `build_ready` applies directly — pass it explicitly on
+every create. Each ticket MUST be a complete spec (the validator rejects thin tickets):
 
 - **Three-audience description** (context / business value, technical approach, stakeholder impact).
-- **For a bug:** exact reproduction steps, observed-vs-expected, the env / account / breakpoint it occurred at, and console/network evidence.
-- **For a usability issue:** the observed friction, who it affects, and the proposed improvement.
-- **For a missing test:** the user behavior the test must assert and the stable selector/flow to use — concrete and automatable.
-- **Gherkin acceptance criteria** describing the fixed (bug / usability) or added (test) behavior.
+- **For a bug:** exact reproduction steps, observed-vs-expected, the env / account / breakpoint it
+  occurred at, and console/network evidence.
+- **For a usability issue:** the observed friction (what was confusing, cramped, inconsistent, or hard
+  to understand), who it affects, **where** (route + breakpoint), and the proposed improvement.
+- **Gherkin acceptance criteria** describing the fixed behavior.
 
 ### Idempotency — don't spam duplicates
 
-Re-running a QA pass must not refile the same finding. Before creating a ticket, search the tracker for an **open** ticket carrying a stable marker `[lisa-exploratory-qa] <finding-key>` in its body (the `<finding-key>` is a stable slug of surface + symptom, e.g. `settings-modal/horizontal-overflow@tablet`). If one exists, reference/update it instead of creating a duplicate; only create when none exists. **Match by the marker, never by title** (titles get edited). A *closed* prior ticket does not suppress a new one — a recurrence after a fix is a genuine regression.
+Re-running a pass must not refile the same finding. Before creating a ticket, search the tracker for an
+**open** ticket carrying a stable marker `[lisa-exploratory-qa] <finding-key>` in its body (the
+`<finding-key>` is a stable slug of surface + symptom, e.g. `settings-modal/horizontal-overflow@tablet`).
+If one exists, reference/update it instead of creating a duplicate; only create when none exists.
+**Match by the marker, never by title** (titles get edited). A *closed* prior ticket does not suppress a
+new one — a recurrence after a fix is a genuine regression.
 
 ## Output
 
 No report file. Emit a concise in-session summary:
 
 - **Scope:** target URL/env, browser/tool, account type, build/version if visible, date.
-- **Existing Playwright coverage:** strengths and thin areas observed during research.
-- **Findings filed**, bucketed by type — bugs, usability suggestions, missing tests — each with its **created or referenced ticket ref** and its **build-ready state** (`ready` vs `triage/backlog`).
+- **First impression:** could a new user tell what the app is and what to do first?
+- **Findings filed**, bucketed by type — bugs, usability/clarity issues — each with its **created or
+  referenced ticket ref** and its **build-ready state** (`ready` vs `triage/backlog`).
 - **Observed but not filed:** anything noticed but intentionally not ticketed, with why.
 
 ## Quality Bar
 
-- Be honest about what was and was not tested.
-- Distinguish user-visible bugs from missing automated coverage — they map to different issue types (`Bug` vs `Task`).
-- Prefer concrete, reproducible findings. Every ticket must stand alone for an implementer who was not in the session.
+- Explore as a true first-time user — judge clarity, not whether you (who can read the code) can figure
+  it out.
+- Prefer concrete, reproducible findings. Every ticket must stand alone for an implementer who was not
+  in the session.
 - Do not claim cleanup succeeded unless verified.
-- Do not let broad locators pass against hidden/inactive content.
-- File missing-test tickets build-ready; file bug and usability tickets per the `ready` flag (default: backlog for human triage).
+- File tickets per the `ready` flag (default: backlog for human triage).
+- This skill is about the human experience only — route automated-coverage gaps to `e2e-coverage-gaps`.
 - Preserve unrelated repo changes.

package/plugins/src/rails/commands/e2e-coverage-gaps.md

@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+---
+description: "Explore gaps in the automated Playwright/e2e suite: inventory the app's routes and existing tests, find routes with no coverage or flows tested only on the happy path (missing error, permission, empty, loading, and edge cases), confirm each in the running app, and file one build-ready missing-test ticket per gap via lisa:tracker-write. The optional ready flag (default true) controls build-ready vs backlog. For human usability issues, use exploratory-qa instead."
+allowed-tools: ["Skill"]
+argument-hint: "[target-url | env] [ready=true|false]"
+---
+
+Use the /lisa-rails:e2e-coverage-gaps skill to inventory the app's routes and the existing Playwright suite, find uncovered and happy-path-only paths, confirm each gap in the running app, and file one build-ready missing-test ticket per gap via lisa:tracker-write (build-ready per the ready flag, default true). For human usability/experience findings, use /lisa-rails:exploratory-qa. $ARGUMENTS

package/plugins/src/rails/commands/exploratory-qa.md

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 ---
-description: "Run a Playwright-backed exploratory QA pass: audit the app like a human, find user-noticeable bugs, usability issues, and gaps in automated test coverage, and file each finding as a tracked work item via lisa:tracker-write. The optional ready flag marks bug/suggestion tickets build-ready (auto-picked-up by lisa:intake) or leaves them in the backlog for human triage (default); missing-test tickets are always build-ready."
+description: "Run a first-time-user exploratory QA walkthrough: experience the app like a brand-new human user, clicking through to find anything confusing, broken, or hard to understand (machine-style labels, slow or unclear loads, cramped or cut-off UI, inconsistent UX, awkward scroll behavior) across all breakpoints, and file each finding (bug or usability issue) as a tracked work item via lisa:tracker-write. The optional ready flag marks tickets build-ready (auto-picked-up by lisa:intake) or leaves them in the backlog for human triage (default). For gaps in the automated Playwright suite, use e2e-coverage-gaps instead."
 allowed-tools: ["Skill"]
 argument-hint: "[target-url | env] [ready=true|false]"
 ---
 
-Use the /lisa-rails:exploratory-qa skill to run a human-style exploratory QA pass informed by the existing Playwright suite, then file every finding (bugs, usability issues, missing Playwright tests) as a tracked work item via lisa:tracker-write — bug/suggestion tickets build-ready or in triage per the ready flag (default: triage), missing-test tickets always build-ready. $ARGUMENTS
+Use the /lisa-rails:exploratory-qa skill to experience the app like a brand-new first-time user — landing cold on the home page and clicking through to find anything confusing, broken, or hard to understand across all breakpoints — and file each finding (bugs, usability/clarity issues) as a tracked work item via lisa:tracker-write, build-ready or in triage per the ready flag (default: triage). For automated Playwright coverage gaps, use /lisa-rails:e2e-coverage-gaps. $ARGUMENTS

package/plugins/src/rails/skills/e2e-coverage-gaps/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,105 @@
+---
+name: e2e-coverage-gaps
+description: Playwright/e2e coverage-gap explorer that FEEDS THE LIFECYCLE. Use when asked to find paths the automated end-to-end suite does NOT cover — routes with no test at all, or flows that are only happy-path tested (missing error, validation, permission, empty, loading, and edge states). It inventories the app's routes and the existing Playwright tests, explores the running app to confirm each uncovered or under-covered path is real and reachable, and files one build-ready missing-test ticket per gap via lisa:tracker-write. For human usability/experience issues (confusing, cramped, or broken UI), use the exploratory-qa skill instead.
+---
+
+# E2E Coverage Gaps
+
+## Overview
+
+Find where the automated end-to-end (Playwright) suite is **blind**: routes with no test at all, and
+flows that only assert the **happy path** while ignoring error, permission, empty, loading, and edge
+cases. Inventory the app's routes and the existing tests, explore the running app to confirm each gap
+is real and reachable, then file each gap as a **build-ready missing-test work item** so it enters the
+Lisa lifecycle.
+
+This skill is purely about **automated-coverage gaps**. It does not judge whether the UI is confusing
+or pretty — for human usability findings, use the `exploratory-qa` skill.
+
+## Parameters
+
+- **`target-url | env`** (first positional) — the app to inventory and explore.
+- **`ready=true|false`** — build-ready state for the missing-test tickets (**default `true`**). Adding
+  missing coverage is safe to queue, so these default to build-ready; pass `ready=false` to leave them
+  in the backlog for human triage.
+
+## Core Workflow
+
+### 1. Establish Scope
+
+- Identify the target environment, account type, and browser requirement, and read the `ready` flag
+  (default `true`).
+- **Confirm the tracker is configured.** Gaps are filed as tickets, so read `tracker` from
+  `.lisa.config.json` (local overrides global). If it is unset, stop and report that the tracker must
+  be configured (via `/lisa:setup:jira` / `:github` / `:linear`) before gaps can be filed.
+
+### 2. Inventory App Routes
+
+- Enumerate every route/screen from the project's routing source — filesystem routes, the router
+  config, navigation definitions, or a generated sitemap.
+- For each route capture: its path + params, the auth/role it requires, and the primary user actions
+  reachable from it (forms, mutations, filters, flows).
+
+### 3. Inventory Existing Playwright Coverage
+
+- Inspect the Playwright config, auth/setup projects, fixtures, constants, selectors, spec directories,
+  skipped/TODO/flaky tests, retries, and viewport/device projects.
+- For each spec, record which route(s)/flow(s) it exercises and whether it asserts **behavior** or just
+  **presence**.
+- Use existing test helpers/selectors when exploring — they reveal intended flows and stable hooks.
+
+### 4. Compute the Gap Matrix
+
+Map routes/flows against existing coverage and classify each gap:
+
+- **Uncovered route/flow:** no test touches it at all.
+- **Happy-path-only:** the success case is tested but the non-happy paths are not — missing
+  error/validation, permission/denied, empty/zero-state, loading/slow, and boundary/edge scenarios.
+- **Assertion-thin:** a test exists but asserts presence rather than behavior/outcome.
+- **Skipped/TODO/flaky:** coverage exists but is disabled or unreliable.
+- **Breakpoint gap:** a flow is only tested at a single viewport when behavior changes across
+  breakpoints.
+
+### 5. Explore to Confirm
+
+- Navigate each candidate gap in the running app to confirm it is real, reachable, and worth a test.
+  Discard gaps that aren't actually reachable or are intentionally out of scope.
+
+### 6. File One Ticket Per Gap
+
+Each confirmed gap becomes a leaf **missing-test** work item created via `lisa:tracker-write` (the
+vendor-neutral writer — it dispatches to the configured tracker and runs the validation gate; never
+call a vendor `*-write-*` skill directly), `issue_type: Task`, **build-ready per the `ready` flag
+(default `true`)**. Pass `build_ready` explicitly on every create. Each ticket MUST specify:
+
+- The **route/flow** and the exact **user behavior the test must assert**.
+- **Which scenario is missing** (uncovered vs which non-happy path: error / validation / permission /
+  empty / loading / edge / breakpoint).
+- The **stable selector / fixture / flow** to use — concrete and automatable.
+- **Three-audience description** + **Gherkin acceptance criteria** describing the test to add.
+
+### Idempotency — don't spam duplicates
+
+Before creating a ticket, search the tracker for an **open** ticket carrying a stable marker
+`[lisa-e2e-coverage-gaps] <gap-key>` in its body (the `<gap-key>` is a stable slug of route + missing
+scenario, e.g. `checkout/payment-declined` or `dashboard/empty-state@mobile`). If one exists, reference
+it instead of duplicating. **Match by the marker, never by title.** A *closed* prior ticket does not
+suppress a genuine new gap.
+
+## Output
+
+No report file. Emit a concise in-session summary:
+
+- **Route inventory:** count of routes/screens discovered.
+- **Existing coverage:** strengths and thin areas (skipped/flaky, assertion-thin, single-viewport).
+- **Gap matrix:** uncovered vs happy-path-only vs breakpoint gaps.
+- **Tickets filed:** each gap with its created/referenced ticket ref and build-ready state.
+
+## Quality Bar
+
+- Distinguish **no coverage** from **happy-path-only** — both are gaps, but the ticket must say which.
+- Every ticket must stand alone for an implementer who was not in the session and must be concretely
+  automatable (named route, behavior, and stable hook).
+- Do not refile gaps already covered or already ticketed (marker check).
+- This skill is about automated coverage only — route human usability issues to `exploratory-qa`.
+- Preserve unrelated repo changes.