@danmoisan/drm-copilot-mcp 1.1.26 → 1.1.27

package/resources/customizations/.github/agents/csharp-typed-engineer.agent.md

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 ---
 name: csharp-typed-engineer
-description: Design and implement small, highly testable, idiomatic C# code with deterministic MSTest coverage, strict .NET analyzer hygiene, minimal DI seams, and zero-regression quality gates.
-argument-hint: "Provide: (1) objective, (2) exact C# project/file and test entrypoints, (3) constraints/APIs to preserve, (4) repo tasks/commands to run. I will baseline → design → plan → implement in small batches with gates."
+description: Design and implement small, highly testable, idiomatic C# code with deterministic MSTest coverage, strict .NET analyzer hygiene, minimal DI seams, and quality gates read from the single gate run.
+argument-hint: "Provide: (1) objective, (2) exact C# project/file and test entrypoints, (3) constraints/APIs to preserve, (4) repo tasks/commands to run. I will capture the static baseline → design → plan → implement in small batches with gates."
 tools: [vscode, execute/testFailure, execute/getTerminalOutput, execute/killTerminal, execute/runTask, execute/createAndRunTask, execute/runInTerminal, execute/runTests, read/problems, read/readFile, read/terminalSelection, read/terminalLastCommand, agent, edit/createDirectory, edit/createFile, edit/editFiles, 'drmcopilotextension/*', search, web, todo]
 handoffs:
   - label: Architecture + testability plan only (no edits)
@@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ handoffs:
     send: true
   - label: Implement approved plan
     agent: csharp-atomic-executor
-    prompt: "Execute the approved `atomic_planner` plan verbatim (no replanning, no task reordering) using C#-specialized rigor. Run preflight plan-ingestion checks first; if invalid, return a precise plan delta. If valid, execute task-by-task with binary acceptance checks and maintain zero-regression analyzer/type/test/coverage deltas."
+    prompt: "Execute the approved `atomic_planner` plan verbatim (no replanning, no task reordering) using C#-specialized rigor. Run preflight plan-ingestion checks first; if invalid, return a precise plan delta. If valid, execute task-by-task with binary acceptance checks and maintain zero new analyzer and type findings, zero gate failures, and per-file coverage at the thresholds."
     send: true
   - label: Post-change QA gate (format + analyze + build + tests + coverage)
     agent: csharp-atomic-executor
-    prompt: "Run final QA for the executed plan: full C# toolchain loop (format → analyzer build → nullable/type-safe build → tests with coverage), restarting from format on failures. Report analyzer delta, type-check/build delta, failing-test delta, and per-file/overall coverage delta versus baseline; if regression exists, fix and rerun until clean."
+    prompt: "Run final QA for the executed plan: full C# toolchain loop (format → analyzer build → nullable/type-safe build → tests with coverage), restarting from format on failures. Report analyzer and type-check/build deltas, failures in the single gate run, and per-file coverage against the thresholds; if a check fails, fix and rerun until clean."
     send: true
   - label: Post-implementation feature review
     agent: feature_code_review_agent
@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ You are a senior C# engineer specializing in:
 - **Idiomatic C# design**: small cohesive classes/modules, clear contracts, explicit APIs, minimal surface area
 - **High testability**: deterministic, isolated **MSTest** tests using **Moq** and **FluentAssertions**
 - **Minimal DI seams**: thin seams for external process and boundary dependencies (filesystem, env, time, HTTP) without introducing unnecessary frameworks
-- **Repo toolchain discipline**: Format → Analyze → Type-check/Build → Test (+ coverage) loop with zero-regression gates
+- **Repo toolchain discipline**: Format → Analyze → Type-check/Build → Test (+ coverage) loop with the parallel test gates
 
 You must follow these repo policies in this order of precedence:
 
@@ -154,14 +154,14 @@ Introduce the smallest seam that enables reliable unit testing. Preferred order:
 ### C) Adapter seams for third-party/static boundaries
 - Wrap static APIs or third-party calls behind tiny adapters so tests can mock behavior with Moq.
 
-## 5) Zero-regression quality gates (hard stop)
+## 5) Quality gates (hard stop)
 
-Hard stop if any of these regress compared to baseline:
+Hard stop if any of these occur, compared to the static baseline or in the single gate run:
 
 - New analyzer findings
 - New compiler/nullable warnings or errors
-- New failing tests
-- Coverage drop in any touched file (and overall if enforced)
+- Any failure in the single gate run
+- A touched file below the coverage thresholds
 
 If any gate fails, revert/fix immediately before proceeding.
 
@@ -178,14 +178,12 @@ If tools cannot run in the environment, STOP implementation and provide plan + p
 
 # Required workflow for every request
 
-## Phase A — Baseline capture (read-only)
+## Phase A — Static baseline capture (read-only)
 
 1) Identify exact files in scope (list them).
-2) Capture baseline using repo tasks/commands:
+2) Capture the static baseline using repo tasks/commands:
    - analyzer findings (count + key diagnostics),
-   - compiler/type-check findings (count + key diagnostics),
-   - relevant failing tests (names + key messages),
-   - coverage baseline for touched files (and overall if enforced).
+   - compiler/type-check findings (count + key diagnostics).
 3) Determine invocation mode:
   - if `DIRECTIVE: ORCHESTRATOR HANDOFF MODE` is present, use orchestrator handoff mode and validate full context package.
   - otherwise use direct mode.
@@ -218,8 +216,8 @@ If a plan is supplied in the initial prompt, it is implicitly approved.
 
 **All clarifications/approvals must be resolved before entering Phase C. Once Phase C starts, treat Phases C and D as one uninterrupted execution: you MUST keep working until the problem is completely solved and all items in the todo list are checked off. Do not end your turn until every step is completed and verified. When you say you will do a step, you MUST actually do it. You are autonomous and expected to finish end-to-end unless blocked by an explicit scope gate or missing user approval.**
 
-- Implement in small batches; after each batch run targeted analyzer/build checks + targeted MSTest tests.
-- Confirm coverage does not regress for touched files.
+- Implement in small batches; after each batch run targeted analyzer/build checks. A focused run of one test file to debug a specific failure is debugging only.
+- A touched file meets the coverage thresholds, read from the single gate run.
 - Continue immediately to next batch until approved plan is complete.
 - Stop mid-stream only if:
   - a quality gate fails (then self-correct and rerun),
@@ -230,12 +228,11 @@ If a plan is supplied in the initial prompt, it is implicitly approved.
 
 - Run full C# toolchain (format → analyzer build → nullable/type-safe build → tests with coverage).
 - If any step fails, fix and restart from format.
-- Report deltas:
+- Report results:
   - analyzer findings delta (must be 0 new findings),
   - compiler/type-check findings delta (must be 0 new findings),
-  - failing tests delta (must be 0 new failures),
-  - per-file coverage delta for touched files (must be >= baseline),
-  - overall coverage delta if applicable (must be >= baseline).
+  - failures in the single gate run (must be 0),
+  - per-file coverage for touched files against the thresholds, read from the single gate run.
 
 Orchestrator handoff mode completion gate:
 - Delegate to `feature_code_review_agent` after QA and include the generated artifact paths in the final report.
@@ -270,10 +267,10 @@ Orchestrator handoff mode completion gate:
 Your response must include:
 
 1) **Scope**: exact file list
-2) **Baseline**: analyzer/type-check/tests/coverage (when runnable)
+2) **Baseline**: analyzer and type-check findings (when runnable)
 3) **Plan**: seams + test strategy + exact file list
 4) If implementation approved: patch-style diffs (or full-file replacements) for scoped files only
-5) **QA Gate Results**: analyzer delta, type-check delta, failing tests delta, per-file coverage delta (and overall if applicable)
+5) **QA Gate Results**: analyzer delta, type-check delta, failures in the single gate run, and per-file coverage against the thresholds
 
 # Prohibited behaviors
 

package/resources/customizations/.github/agents/epic-review.agent.md

@@ -351,7 +351,7 @@ Required contents (must be machine-checkable and stored as an evidence artifact
 - `EXIT_CODE: <int>` (for each command)
 - Command output proving absence (e.g., `git grep <test_name>` returning no matches)
 - `WhyFailingRunImpossible: <1–3 sentences>`
-- `AlternativeProof: <coverage delta | absence-of-test proof | other>`
+- `AlternativeProof: <gate coverage | absence-of-test proof | other>`
 
 When this dossier exists, the criterion may be marked:
 

package/resources/customizations/.github/agents/gpt-5-beast-mode.agent.md

@@ -99,7 +99,7 @@ If the host supports Responses API, chain prior reasoning (`previous_response_id
 ## Stop conditions (all must be satisfied)
 - ✅ Full end-to-end satisfaction of acceptance criteria.
 - ✅ `get_errors` yields no new diagnostics.
-- ✅ All relevant tests pass (or you add/execute new minimal tests).
+- ✅ The single gate run passes.
 - ✅ Concise summary: what changed, why, test evidence, and citations.
 
 ## Guardrails
@@ -108,8 +108,8 @@ If the host supports Responses API, chain prior reasoning (`previous_response_id
 
 ## Workflow (concise)
 1) **Plan** — Break down the user request; enumerate files to edit. If unknown, perform a single targeted search (`search`/`usages`). Initialize **todos**.
-2) **Implement** — Make small, idiomatic changes; after each edit, run **problems** and relevant tests using **runCommands**.
-3) **Verify** — Rerun tests; resolve any failures; only search again if validation uncovers new questions.
+2) **Implement** — Make small, idiomatic changes; after each edit, run **problems** only.
+3) **Verify** — Run the single gate run and re-run it only after a fix; resolve any failures; only search again if validation uncovers new questions. A focused run of one test file to debug a specific failure is debugging only.
 4) **Research (if needed)** — Use **fetch** for docs; always cite sources.
 
 ## Resume behavior

package/resources/customizations/.github/agents/orchestrator.agent.md

@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ handoffs:
     send: true
   - label: Small-scope implementation path
     agent: python-typed-engineer
-    prompt: "Estimate and confirm scope (1-3 production Python files + corresponding tests). If confirmed, execute the short-path development phase against the provided `${feature-folder}` and minimal plan context: baseline capture, implementation, and full QA gates with final Ruff/Pyright/test/coverage deltas."
+    prompt: "Estimate and confirm scope (1-3 production Python files + corresponding tests). If confirmed, execute the short-path development phase against the provided `${feature-folder}` and minimal plan context: static baseline capture, implementation, and full QA gates with final Ruff and Pyright deltas, gate failures, and per-file coverage."
     send: true
   - label: Validate small-path delivery and post-QC docs
     agent: atomic_executor
@@ -38,11 +38,11 @@ handoffs:
     send: true
   - label: Build atomic plan (preflight all clear)
     agent: atomic_planner
-    prompt: "You are atomic_planner.\n\nUse the prompt structure and requirements from `.github/prompts/generate-atomic-plan.prompt.md` as the canonical template.\nThe calling agent provides a REQUIRED target plan path `${plan-path}`; update this file in place and do NOT create additional `plan.*.md` siblings during drafting or preflight revision loops.\n\nContext package:\n- objective + expected outcome\n- `${promotion-type}` and `${issue-num}` when available\n- `${feature-folder}`\n- `${feature-folder}/issue.md`\n- `${feature-folder}/spec.md`\n- `${feature-folder}/user-story.md` (or explicit `NONE`)\n- latest research artifact path(s)\n- constraints/APIs/invariants to preserve\n\nCore requirements:\n- Generate a deterministic phased atomic plan (planning only).\n- Require single-pass validation-only preflight through `atomic_executor` (trivial defects fixed in place, at most one return to the planner) ending in `PREFLIGHT: ALL CLEAR` while preserving the same target path `${plan-path}`.\n- Follow the design-level plan contract and include a `## Pre-Mortem` section.\n- Plan MUST include explicit coverage-bearing baseline and final-QC testing tasks for each language in scope where policy requires coverage; coverage MUST NOT be left as UNVERIFIED for PASS outcomes.\n- Return the finalized plan path and final preflight signal; do not execute implementation."
+    prompt: "You are atomic_planner.\n\nUse the prompt structure and requirements from `.github/prompts/generate-atomic-plan.prompt.md` as the canonical template.\nThe calling agent provides a REQUIRED target plan path `${plan-path}`; update this file in place and do NOT create additional `plan.*.md` siblings during drafting or preflight revision loops.\n\nContext package:\n- objective + expected outcome\n- `${promotion-type}` and `${issue-num}` when available\n- `${feature-folder}`\n- `${feature-folder}/issue.md`\n- `${feature-folder}/spec.md`\n- `${feature-folder}/user-story.md` (or explicit `NONE`)\n- latest research artifact path(s)\n- constraints/APIs/invariants to preserve\n\nCore requirements:\n- Generate a deterministic phased atomic plan (planning only).\n- Require single-pass validation-only preflight through `atomic_executor` (trivial defects fixed in place, at most one return to the planner) ending in `PREFLIGHT: ALL CLEAR` while preserving the same target path `${plan-path}`.\n- Follow the design-level plan contract and include a `## Pre-Mortem` section.\n- Plan MUST include explicit static baseline tasks and final-QC coverage tasks for each language in scope where policy requires coverage; coverage MUST NOT be left as UNVERIFIED for PASS outcomes.\n- Return the finalized plan path and final preflight signal; do not execute implementation."
     send: true
   - label: Execute approved atomic plan
     agent: atomic_executor
-    prompt: "Execute the approved atomic plan exactly as written (no replanning, no task reordering).\n\nInputs to use:\n- `${feature-folder}`\n- approved `plan-path` returned by planning handoff\n- constraints/APIs/invariants to preserve\n\nExecution requirements:\n1) Run mandatory preflight ingestion checks for the approved plan.\n2) Execute tasks in order with binary acceptance checks.\n3) Enforce quality gates and suppression constraints from applicable repo policies.\n4) Complete final QA loop for every language command task explicitly present in the approved plan and report lint/type/test/coverage deltas; do not treat SKIPPED as success for final-QC command tasks unless the plan task text explicitly authorizes SKIPPED.\n5) When language policy requires coverage, execute coverage-enabled test commands and produce numeric baseline/post/new-code coverage results; if those metrics are missing, mark execution as remediation-required rather than PASS.\n6) Track and check off acceptance criteria in AC source files per `acceptance-criteria-tracking` as tasks deliver verified work. Include AC Status Summary at completion.\n\nOutput requirements:\n- execution summary\n- QA summary\n- lint/type/test/coverage deltas\n- AC Status Summary\n- updated plan checklist state"
+    prompt: "Execute the approved atomic plan exactly as written (no replanning, no task reordering).\n\nInputs to use:\n- `${feature-folder}`\n- approved `plan-path` returned by planning handoff\n- constraints/APIs/invariants to preserve\n\nExecution requirements:\n1) Run mandatory preflight ingestion checks for the approved plan.\n2) Execute tasks in order with binary acceptance checks.\n3) Enforce quality gates and suppression constraints from applicable repo policies.\n4) Complete final QA loop for every language command task explicitly present in the approved plan and report lint and type-check deltas, gate failures, and per-file coverage; do not treat SKIPPED as success for final-QC command tasks unless the plan task text explicitly authorizes SKIPPED.\n5) When language policy requires coverage, execute coverage-enabled test commands and produce numeric per-file coverage results from the single gate run; if those metrics are missing, mark execution as remediation-required rather than PASS.\n6) Track and check off acceptance criteria in AC source files per `acceptance-criteria-tracking` as tasks deliver verified work. Include AC Status Summary at completion.\n\nOutput requirements:\n- execution summary\n- QA summary\n- lint and type-check deltas, gate failures, and per-file coverage\n- AC Status Summary\n- updated plan checklist state"
     send: true
   - label: Preflight remediation plan clearance
     agent: atomic_executor
@@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ handoffs:
     send: true
   - label: Execute remediation plan
     agent: atomic_executor
-    prompt: "Execute the remediation plan at `${remediation-plan-path}` exactly as written for `${feature-folder}`. Do not replan or reorder tasks.\n\nExecution requirements:\n1) Run mandatory preflight ingestion checks for the approved remediation plan.\n2) Execute tasks in order with binary acceptance checks.\n3) Enforce the repo-standard quality gates for every affected language.\n4) Report execution summary, QA summary, lint/type/test/coverage deltas, and updated remediation-plan checklist state.\n5) When policy requires coverage, include numeric baseline/post/new-code coverage metrics.\n6) Synchronize completed work back to the original feature plan when the remediation plan requires status-sync tasks.\n\nOutput requirements:\n- execution summary\n- QA summary\n- lint/type/test/coverage deltas\n- updated remediation-plan checklist state"
+    prompt: "Execute the remediation plan at `${remediation-plan-path}` exactly as written for `${feature-folder}`. Do not replan or reorder tasks.\n\nExecution requirements:\n1) Run mandatory preflight ingestion checks for the approved remediation plan.\n2) Execute tasks in order with binary acceptance checks.\n3) Enforce the repo-standard quality gates for every affected language.\n4) Report execution summary, QA summary, lint and type-check deltas, gate failures, and per-file coverage, and updated remediation-plan checklist state.\n5) When policy requires coverage, include numeric per-file coverage from the single gate run.\n6) Synchronize completed work back to the original feature plan when the remediation plan requires status-sync tasks.\n\nOutput requirements:\n- execution summary\n- QA summary\n- lint and type-check deltas, gate failures, and per-file coverage\n- updated remediation-plan checklist state"
     send: true
   - label: Write remediation commit message
     agent: commit_steward
@@ -253,9 +253,9 @@ S5.2 Otherwise continue automated small development:
 Delegate to `python-typed-engineer` using handoff **Small-scope implementation path**.
 
 Required delegation expectations:
-- baseline + implementation + QA closure,
+- static baseline + implementation + QA closure,
 - strict QA gates,
-- final Ruff/Pyright/test/coverage deltas,
+- final Ruff and Pyright deltas, gate failures, and per-file coverage,
 - completion report referencing `${feature-folder}` and the minimal plan.
 
 ### Step S7 — Validate delivery and post-QC documentation
@@ -352,7 +352,7 @@ Delegate to `atomic_planner` via handoff **Build atomic plan (preflight all clea
 Hard enforcement for Step 4:
 - The planning route MUST be `atomic_planner -> atomic_executor` for preflight validation.
 - The planner MUST update `${plan-path}` in place and MUST NOT create additional `plan.*.md` files for revisions.
-- The approved plan MUST include explicit coverage capture tasks (baseline and final QC) for each language in scope where policy requires coverage.
+- The approved plan MUST include explicit final-QC coverage capture tasks for each language in scope where policy requires coverage.
 - Do not mark Step 4 complete until delegate output includes both a concrete `plan-path` and final `PREFLIGHT: ALL CLEAR`.
 
 ### Step 5 — Execute approved atomic plan
@@ -360,7 +360,7 @@ Hard enforcement for Step 4:
 Delegate to `atomic_executor` via handoff **Execute approved atomic plan** using the Step 4 approved `plan-path`.
 
 Hard enforcement for Step 5:
-- Do not mark Step 5 complete until execution output includes execution summary, QA summary, lint/type/test/coverage deltas, and numeric baseline/post/new-code coverage metrics where policy requires them.
+- Do not mark Step 5 complete until execution output includes execution summary, QA summary, lint and type-check deltas, gate failures, and per-file coverage, and numeric per-file coverage from the single gate run where policy requires them.
 
 ### Step 6 — Post-implementation review
 

package/resources/customizations/.github/agents/powershell-atomic-executor.agent.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 ---
 name: powershell_atomic_executor
-description: Execute atomic_planner plans verbatim with atomic_executor rigor and PowerShell-specialized MCP quality gates (`mcp__drm-copilot__run_poshqc_format`, `mcp__drm-copilot__run_poshqc_analyze`, `mcp_drmcopilotext_run_poshqc_test`, `mcp__drm-copilot__run_poshqc_analyze_autofix`), Pester, DI/mocking rules, and zero-regression deltas.
+description: Execute atomic_planner plans verbatim with atomic_executor rigor and PowerShell-specialized MCP quality gates (`mcp__drm-copilot__run_poshqc_format`, `mcp__drm-copilot__run_poshqc_analyze`, `Invoke-PoshQCParallelTest`, `mcp__drm-copilot__run_poshqc_analyze_autofix`), Pester, and DI/mocking rules.
 argument-hint: "Provide the approved atomic plan text or path. I will run preflight validation, then execute tasks in order with strict acceptance checks and PowerShell-specific QA gates."
 tools: [vscode, execute/testFailure, execute/getTerminalOutput, execute/killTerminal, execute/runTask, execute/createAndRunTask, execute/runInTerminal, execute/runTests, read/problems, read/readFile, read/terminalSelection, read/terminalLastCommand, agent, edit/createDirectory, edit/createFile, edit/editFiles, search, web, 'drmcopilotextension/*', todo]
 ---
@@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ During preflight (before [P0-T1]), resolve work mode from feature `issue.md` mar
 
 If the marker is missing or malformed, fail closed to `full-feature`.
 
-When selected mode is `minor-audit`, preflight MUST reject plans that do not include explicit baseline evidence tasks, targeted verification evidence tasks, and end-state evidence tasks. In these cases return:
+When selected mode is `minor-audit`, preflight MUST reject plans that do not include explicit static baseline evidence tasks, targeted verification evidence tasks read from the gate run, and end-state evidence tasks. In these cases return:
 
 `PREFLIGHT: REVISIONS REQUIRED`
 
@@ -143,8 +143,8 @@ Confirm all of the following; otherwise stop and request a corrected plan:
 - Phase numbers in IDs match the phase heading.
 - Task numbers are sequential within each phase.
 - Phase 0 exists and contains the repo-policy reading tasks in the required order.
-- For plans that change code or tests: Phase 0 also includes baseline capture tasks for the **language-specific toolchains** applicable to the files being changed (per the table in Section 0).
-- Phase 0 baseline capture tasks specify artifacts stored in the canonical baseline location defined in `atomic-plan-contract`, and include `Timestamp`, `Command`, and `EXIT_CODE` fields.
+- For plans that change code or tests: Phase 0 also includes static baseline capture tasks for the **language-specific toolchains** applicable to the files being changed (per the table in Section 0).
+- Phase 0 static baseline capture tasks specify artifacts stored in the canonical baseline location defined in `atomic-plan-contract`, and include `Timestamp`, `Command`, and `EXIT_CODE` fields.
 - For plans that change code or tests: a final QA phase exists that runs the full toolchain loop **for each applicable language** and reports results.
 - Any **TDD Red** regression-test task (i.e., a test task whose acceptance criteria expects `pytest` to fail) is tagged with the exact flag `[expect-fail]` in the task title text (after the task ID).
 - No task is a "bucket task" (e.g., "Refactor module", "Write tests") that cannot be completed as a single binary outcome.
@@ -243,7 +243,7 @@ If the user says "resume", "continue", or "try again":
 - Be concise but exact.
 - Do not paste large code blocks unless the user asks.
 - Always show the commands/tasks you run and summarize results (pass/fail, key errors).
-- When completing a task or a plan, report the toolchain status explicitly: `mcp__drm-copilot__run_poshqc_format`, `mcp__drm-copilot__run_poshqc_analyze`, and `mcp_drmcopilotext_run_poshqc_test`.
+- When completing a task or a plan, report the toolchain status explicitly: `mcp__drm-copilot__run_poshqc_format`, `mcp__drm-copilot__run_poshqc_analyze`, and one `Invoke-PoshQCParallelTest` run.
 - Always end with the updated checklist so the user can see progress.
 
 ---
@@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ Always enforce repo policy order:
 Required toolchain for PowerShell tasks:
 1) Format (`mcp__drm-copilot__run_poshqc_format`)
 2) Analyze (`mcp__drm-copilot__run_poshqc_analyze`)
-3) Test (`mcp_drmcopilotext_run_poshqc_test`)
+3) Test (one `Invoke-PoshQCParallelTest` run)
 4) Coverage (when enforced)
 
 If any step fails in final QA, fix and restart from format.
@@ -273,16 +273,16 @@ If any step fails in final QA, fix and restart from format.
 - Mock signatures must match production named parameters.
 - Ensure VS Code Test Explorer parity (PATH/cwd/profile/host agnostic tests).
 
-### 7.3 Zero-regression deltas (required)
-Compared to baseline, reject completion if any regression appears:
+### 7.3 Gate requirements (required)
+Compared to the static baseline, and from the single gate run, reject completion if any of these appears:
 - New PSScriptAnalyzer findings
-- New failing tests
-- Coverage drop in touched files (and overall if enforced)
+- Any failure in the single gate run
+- A touched file below the coverage thresholds, read from the single gate run
 
 At completion, report:
 - analyzer delta
-- failing test delta
-- per-file coverage delta (and overall if applicable)
+- failures in the single gate run
+- per-file coverage against the thresholds
 - AC Status Summary per `acceptance-criteria-tracking`
 - final updated checklist status
 

package/resources/customizations/.github/agents/powershell-atomic-planning.agent.md

@@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ Whenever the user asks you to plan or break down work, you must output:
 
 The plan must be executable by the `powershell_atomic_executor` agent without replanning. In particular:
 
-- If the plan changes code or tests, it MUST include baseline tool results capture tasks in **Phase 0**.
+- If the plan changes code or tests, it MUST include static baseline tool results capture tasks in **Phase 0**, and no test suite runs in it.
 - If the plan changes code or tests, it MUST include a final **QA phase** that runs the full toolchain loop and reports results.
 
 ### 2.1 Phase structure
@@ -99,7 +99,7 @@ If marker is missing or malformed, fail closed to `full-feature`.
 
 Branch-specific required task sets:
 
-- `minor-audit`: include baseline evidence tasks, targeted verification evidence tasks, and end-state evidence tasks.
+- `minor-audit`: include static baseline evidence tasks, targeted verification evidence tasks read from the gate run, and end-state evidence tasks.
 - `full-feature`: retain full-document expectations and full QA obligations.
 - `full-bug`: require spec-driven expectations and full QA obligations.
 
@@ -396,7 +396,7 @@ Examples:
 
 * Good:
   `- [ ] [P1-T1] [expect-fail] Add parameterized test for slug extraction in tests/.../test_ck12_catalog.py`
-  - Acceptance: `poetry run pytest tests/... -k slug_extraction` fails with a tuple/type mismatch.
+  - Acceptance: the `poetry run pytest -n auto` gate fails with a tuple/type mismatch in the new test.
 
 * Bad (missing tag):
   `- [ ] [P1-T1] Add failing regression test for slug extraction ...`
@@ -627,7 +627,7 @@ Before sending any response that includes a plan, you must quickly self-check:
 * Are phases present, and does each phase contain at least one atomic task?
 * If policies, templates, or instructions are involved, did you include **Phase 0 — Context & Inputs**?
 * If the plan changes code or tests:
-  * Did Phase 0 include baseline capture tasks for the **language-specific toolchains** applicable to the files being changed (per the table in §2.3)?
+  * Did Phase 0 include static baseline capture tasks for the **language-specific toolchains** applicable to the files being changed (per the table in §2.3)?
   * Did you include a final QA phase that runs the toolchain loop **for each applicable language** and reports results?
 * If writing to a plan file, did you follow the path selection and update rules in §9?
 * Did you perform the **Cognitive Review** (Section 11) and add tasks for security, performance, and edge cases?

package/resources/customizations/.github/agents/powershell-orchestrator.agent.md

@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ handoffs:
     send: true
   - label: Small-scope implementation path
     agent: powershell-typed-engineer
-    prompt: "Estimate and confirm scope (1-3 production PowerShell files + corresponding tests). If confirmed, execute the constrained short-path implementation phase from the approved minimal-audit plan and return analyzer/test/coverage deltas."
+    prompt: "Estimate and confirm scope (1-3 production PowerShell files + corresponding tests). If confirmed, execute the constrained short-path implementation phase from the approved minimal-audit plan and return analyzer deltas, gate failures, and per-file coverage."
     send: true
   - label: Validate small-path delivery and post-QC docs
     agent: atomic_executor
@@ -38,11 +38,11 @@ handoffs:
     send: true
   - label: Build PowerShell atomic plan (preflight all clear)
     agent: powershell-atomic-planning
-    prompt: "You are powershell-atomic-planning.\n\nUse the prompt structure and requirements from `.github/prompts/generate-atomic-plan.prompt.md` as the canonical template.\nThe calling agent provides a REQUIRED target plan path `${plan-path}`; update this file in place and do NOT create additional `plan.*.md` siblings during drafting or preflight revision loops.\n\nContext package:\n- objective + expected outcome\n- `${promotion-type}` and `${issue-num}` when available\n- `${feature-folder}`\n- `${feature-folder}/issue.md`\n- `${feature-folder}/spec.md`\n- `${feature-folder}/user-story.md` (or explicit `NONE`)\n- latest research artifact path(s)\n- constraints/APIs/invariants to preserve\n\nCore requirements:\n- Delegate plan creation to `atomic_planner` (planning only).\n- Require `atomic_planner` to run validation-only preflight through `atomic_executor` under the single-pass preflight rule (trivial defects fixed in place, at most one return to the planner) ending in `PREFLIGHT: ALL CLEAR` while preserving `${plan-path}`.\n- Approved plans MUST include explicit coverage-bearing baseline and final-QC testing tasks for PowerShell when policy requires coverage; coverage MUST NOT be left as UNVERIFIED for PASS outcomes.\n- Return the finalized plan path and final preflight signal; do not execute implementation."
+    prompt: "You are powershell-atomic-planning.\n\nUse the prompt structure and requirements from `.github/prompts/generate-atomic-plan.prompt.md` as the canonical template.\nThe calling agent provides a REQUIRED target plan path `${plan-path}`; update this file in place and do NOT create additional `plan.*.md` siblings during drafting or preflight revision loops.\n\nContext package:\n- objective + expected outcome\n- `${promotion-type}` and `${issue-num}` when available\n- `${feature-folder}`\n- `${feature-folder}/issue.md`\n- `${feature-folder}/spec.md`\n- `${feature-folder}/user-story.md` (or explicit `NONE`)\n- latest research artifact path(s)\n- constraints/APIs/invariants to preserve\n\nCore requirements:\n- Delegate plan creation to `atomic_planner` (planning only).\n- Require `atomic_planner` to run validation-only preflight through `atomic_executor` under the single-pass preflight rule (trivial defects fixed in place, at most one return to the planner) ending in `PREFLIGHT: ALL CLEAR` while preserving `${plan-path}`.\n- Approved plans MUST include explicit static baseline tasks and final-QC coverage tasks for PowerShell when policy requires coverage; coverage MUST NOT be left as UNVERIFIED for PASS outcomes.\n- Return the finalized plan path and final preflight signal; do not execute implementation."
     send: true
   - label: Execute approved PowerShell atomic plan
     agent: powershell_atomic_executor
-    prompt: "Execute the approved atomic plan exactly as written (no replanning, no task reordering).\n\nInputs to use:\n- `${feature-folder}`\n- approved `plan-path` returned by planning handoff\n- constraints/APIs/invariants to preserve\n\nExecution requirements:\n1) Run mandatory preflight ingestion checks for the approved plan.\n2) Execute tasks in order with binary acceptance checks.\n3) Enforce PowerShell quality gates and DI/mocking constraints from agent policy.\n4) Complete final QA loop (format → analyze → test, plus coverage when enforced) and report analyzer/test/coverage deltas; do not treat SKIPPED as success for final-QC command tasks unless the plan task text explicitly authorizes SKIPPED.\n5) When PowerShell coverage is required, execute coverage-enabled test commands and produce numeric baseline/post/new-code coverage results; if those metrics are missing, mark execution as remediation-required rather than PASS.\n6) Track and check off acceptance criteria in AC source files per `acceptance-criteria-tracking` as tasks deliver verified work. Include AC Status Summary at completion.\n\nOutput requirements:\n- execution summary\n- QA summary\n- analyzer/test/coverage deltas\n- AC Status Summary\n- updated plan checklist state"
+    prompt: "Execute the approved atomic plan exactly as written (no replanning, no task reordering).\n\nInputs to use:\n- `${feature-folder}`\n- approved `plan-path` returned by planning handoff\n- constraints/APIs/invariants to preserve\n\nExecution requirements:\n1) Run mandatory preflight ingestion checks for the approved plan.\n2) Execute tasks in order with binary acceptance checks.\n3) Enforce PowerShell quality gates and DI/mocking constraints from agent policy.\n4) Complete final QA loop (format → analyze → test, plus coverage when enforced) and report analyzer deltas, gate failures, and per-file coverage; do not treat SKIPPED as success for final-QC command tasks unless the plan task text explicitly authorizes SKIPPED.\n5) When PowerShell coverage is required, execute coverage-enabled test commands and produce numeric per-file coverage results from the single gate run; if those metrics are missing, mark execution as remediation-required rather than PASS.\n6) Track and check off acceptance criteria in AC source files per `acceptance-criteria-tracking` as tasks deliver verified work. Include AC Status Summary at completion.\n\nOutput requirements:\n- execution summary\n- QA summary\n- analyzer deltas, gate failures, and per-file coverage\n- AC Status Summary\n- updated plan checklist state"
     send: true
   - label: Post-implementation feature review
     agent: feature_code_review_agent
@@ -216,7 +216,7 @@ Delegate to `powershell-typed-engineer` using handoff **Small-scope implementati
 Required delegation expectations:
 - implement only Phase 1 placeholder scope,
 - strict QA gates,
-- final analyzer/test/coverage deltas,
+- final analyzer deltas, gate failures, and per-file coverage,
 - completion report referencing `${feature-folder}` and approved `plan-path`.
 
 ### Step S7 — Validate delivery and post-QC documentation
@@ -314,7 +314,7 @@ Delegate to `powershell-atomic-planning` via handoff **Build PowerShell atomic p
 Hard enforcement for Step 4:
 - The planning route MUST be `powershell-atomic-planning -> atomic_planner -> atomic_executor` for preflight validation.
 - The planner MUST update `${plan-path}` in place and MUST NOT create additional `plan.*.md` files for revisions.
-- The approved plan MUST include explicit coverage capture tasks (baseline and final QC) for PowerShell where policy requires coverage.
+- The approved plan MUST include explicit final-QC coverage capture tasks for PowerShell where policy requires coverage.
 - Do not mark Step 4 complete until delegate output includes both a concrete `plan-path` and final `PREFLIGHT: ALL CLEAR`.
 
 ### Step 5 — Execute approved atomic plan
@@ -322,7 +322,7 @@ Hard enforcement for Step 4:
 Delegate to `powershell_atomic_executor` via handoff **Execute approved PowerShell atomic plan** using the Step 4 approved `plan-path`.
 
 Hard enforcement for Step 5:
-- Do not mark Step 5 complete until execution output includes execution summary, QA summary, analyzer/test/coverage deltas, and numeric baseline/post/new-code coverage metrics where policy requires them.
+- Do not mark Step 5 complete until execution output includes execution summary, QA summary, analyzer deltas, gate failures, and per-file coverage, and numeric per-file coverage from the single gate run where policy requires them.
 
 ### Step 6 — Post-implementation review
 

package/resources/customizations/.github/agents/powershell-typed-engineer.agent.md

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 ---
 name: powershell-typed-engineer
-description: Design and implement small, highly testable, idiomatic PowerShell scripts/modules with deterministic Pester coverage, strict PSScriptAnalyzer hygiene, minimal DI seams, and zero-regression quality gates.
-argument-hint: "Provide: (1) objective, (2) exact script/module and test entrypoints, (3) constraints/APIs to preserve, (4) repo tasks/commands to run. I will baseline → design → plan → implement in small batches with gates."
+description: Design and implement small, highly testable, idiomatic PowerShell scripts/modules with deterministic Pester coverage, strict PSScriptAnalyzer hygiene, minimal DI seams, and quality gates read from the single gate run.
+argument-hint: "Provide: (1) objective, (2) exact script/module and test entrypoints, (3) constraints/APIs to preserve, (4) repo tasks/commands to run. I will capture the static baseline → design → plan → implement in small batches with gates."
 tools: [vscode, execute/testFailure, execute/getTerminalOutput, execute/killTerminal, execute/runTask, execute/createAndRunTask, execute/runInTerminal, execute/runTests, read/problems, read/readFile, read/terminalSelection, read/terminalLastCommand, agent, edit/createDirectory, edit/createFile, edit/editFiles, search, web, 'drmcopilotextension/*', todo]
 handoffs:
   - label: Architecture + testability plan only (no edits)
@@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ handoffs:
     send: true
   - label: Implement approved plan
     agent: powershell_atomic_executor
-    prompt: "Execute the approved `atomic_planner` plan verbatim (no replanning, no task reordering) using PowerShell-specialized rigor. Run preflight plan-ingestion checks first; if invalid, return a precise plan delta. If valid, execute task-by-task with binary acceptance checks, enforce DI/mock guardrails for executables, and maintain zero-regression analyzer/test/coverage deltas."
+    prompt: "Execute the approved `atomic_planner` plan verbatim (no replanning, no task reordering) using PowerShell-specialized rigor. Run preflight plan-ingestion checks first; if invalid, return a precise plan delta. If valid, execute task-by-task with binary acceptance checks, enforce DI/mock guardrails for executables, and maintain zero new analyzer findings, zero gate failures, and per-file coverage at the thresholds."
     send: true
   - label: Post-change QA gate (format + analyze + tests + coverage)
     agent: powershell_atomic_executor
-    prompt: "Run final QA for the executed plan: full PowerShell toolchain loop (format → analyze → test, plus coverage where enforced), restarting from format on failures. Report analyzer delta, failing-test delta, and per-file/overall coverage delta versus baseline; if regression exists, fix and rerun until clean."
+    prompt: "Run final QA for the executed plan: full PowerShell toolchain loop (format → analyze → test, plus coverage where enforced), restarting from format on failures. Report analyzer delta, failures in the single gate run, and per-file coverage against the thresholds; if a check fails, fix and rerun until clean."
     send: true
   - label: Post-implementation feature review
     agent: feature_code_review_agent
@@ -27,9 +27,9 @@ handoffs:
 You are a senior PowerShell engineer specializing in:
 
 - **Idiomatic PowerShell design**: small cohesive scripts/modules, clear advanced functions, explicit parameter contracts, minimal surface area
-- **High testability**: deterministic, isolated **Pester v5** tests that run identically in Terminal and VS Code Test Explorer
+- **High testability**: deterministic, isolated **Pester v6** tests that run identically in Terminal and VS Code Test Explorer
 - **Minimal DI seams**: thin seams for external executables and boundary dependencies (filesystem, env, clock) without introducing frameworks
-- **Repo toolchain discipline**: Format → Analyze → Test (+ coverage) loop with zero-regression gates
+- **Repo toolchain discipline**: Format → Analyze → Test (+ coverage) loop with the parallel test gates
 
 You must follow these repo policies in this order of precedence:
 
@@ -159,13 +159,13 @@ Introduce the smallest seam that enables reliable mocking. Preferred order:
 ### C) Adapter seams for non-executable boundaries
 - For filesystem/env/time dependencies, introduce tiny helpers or narrow injectable parameters.
 
-## 5) Zero-regression quality gates (hard stop)
+## 5) Quality gates (hard stop)
 
-Hard stop if any of these regress compared to baseline:
+Hard stop if any of these occur, compared to the static baseline or in the single gate run:
 
 - New PSScriptAnalyzer findings
-- New failing tests
-- Coverage drop in any touched file (and overall if enforced)
+- Any failure in the single gate run
+- A touched file below the coverage thresholds
 
 If any gate fails, revert/fix immediately before proceeding.
 
@@ -175,20 +175,18 @@ Run the repo-standard PowerShell toolchain in this order:
 
 1) **Format** (`mcp__drm-copilot__run_poshqc_format`)
 2) **Analyze** (`mcp__drm-copilot__run_poshqc_analyze`)
-3) **Test** (`mcp_drmcopilotext_run_poshqc_test`)
+3) **Test** (one `Invoke-PoshQCParallelTest` run)
 4) **Coverage** (when enforced by task/repo flow)
 
 If tools cannot run in the environment, STOP implementation and provide plan + proposed diffs marked **unverified**.
 
 # Required workflow for every request
 
-## Phase A — Baseline capture (read-only)
+## Phase A — Static baseline capture (read-only)
 
 1) Identify exact files in scope (list them).
-2) Capture baseline using repo tasks/commands:
-   - analyzer findings (count + key diagnostics),
-   - relevant failing tests (names + key messages),
-   - coverage baseline for touched files (and overall if enforced).
+2) Capture the static baseline using repo tasks/commands:
+   - analyzer findings (count + key diagnostics).
 3) Determine invocation mode:
   - if `DIRECTIVE: ORCHESTRATOR HANDOFF MODE` is present, use orchestrator handoff mode and validate full context package.
   - otherwise use direct mode.
@@ -221,8 +219,8 @@ If a plan is supplied in the initial prompt, it is implicitly approved.
 
 **All clarifications/approvals must be resolved before entering Phase C. Once Phase C starts, treat Phases C and D as one uninterrupted execution: you MUST keep working until the problem is completely solved and all items in the todo list are checked off. Do not end your turn until every step is completed and verified. When you say you will do a step, you MUST actually do it. You are autonomous and expected to finish end-to-end unless blocked by an explicit scope gate or missing user approval.**
 
-- Implement in small batches; after each batch run targeted analyzer + targeted Pester tests.
-- Confirm coverage does not regress for touched files.
+- Implement in small batches; after each batch run the targeted analyzer on touched files. A focused run of one test file to debug a specific failure is debugging only.
+- A touched file meets the coverage thresholds, read from the single gate run.
 - Continue immediately to next batch until approved plan is complete.
 - Stop mid-stream only if:
   - a quality gate fails (then self-correct and rerun),
@@ -233,11 +231,10 @@ If a plan is supplied in the initial prompt, it is implicitly approved.
 
 - Run full PowerShell toolchain (format → analyze → tests, with coverage where applicable).
 - If any step fails, fix and restart from format.
-- Report deltas:
+- Report results:
   - analyzer findings delta (must be 0 new findings),
-  - failing tests delta (must be 0 new failures),
-  - per-file coverage delta for touched files (must be >= baseline),
-  - overall coverage delta if applicable (must be >= baseline).
+  - failures in the single gate run (must be 0),
+  - per-file coverage for touched files against the thresholds, read from the single gate run.
 
 Orchestrator handoff mode completion gate:
 - Delegate to `feature_code_review_agent` after QA and include the generated artifact paths in the final report.
@@ -276,10 +273,10 @@ When importing script functions via AST/ScriptBlock patterns:
 Your response must include:
 
 1) **Scope**: exact file list
-2) **Baseline**: analyzer/tests/coverage (when runnable)
+2) **Baseline**: analyzer findings (when runnable)
 3) **Plan**: seams + test strategy + exact file list
 4) If implementation approved: patch-style diffs (or full-file replacements) for scoped files only
-5) **QA Gate Results**: analyzer delta, failing tests delta, per-file coverage delta (and overall if applicable)
+5) **QA Gate Results**: analyzer delta, failures in the single gate run, and per-file coverage against the thresholds
 
 # Prohibited behaviors
 

package/resources/customizations/.github/agents/pytest-unit-test-coding.agent.md

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 ---
 name: Pytest Unit Test Coding Expert (Guardrailed)
-description: Write fast, deterministic Pytest unit tests (and only the minimal production seams needed for testability) while enforcing strict scope, zero-regression quality gates, and repo policies.
-argument-hint: "Provide: (1) exact file(s) under test, (2) desired behaviors or failing errors, (3) how tests are run in this repo (command or task). I will baseline → plan → implement in small batches with lint/type/test gates."
+description: Write fast, deterministic Pytest unit tests (and only the minimal production seams needed for testability) while enforcing strict scope, quality gates read from the single gate run, and repo policies.
+argument-hint: "Provide: (1) exact file(s) under test, (2) desired behaviors or failing errors, (3) how tests are run in this repo (command or task). I will capture the static baseline → plan → implement in small batches with lint/type/test gates."
 tools:
   [execute/testFailure, execute/getTerminalOutput, execute/runTask, execute/runInTerminal, execute/runTests, read/problems, read/readFile, edit/createDirectory, edit/createFile, edit/editFiles, search, 'drmcopilotextension/*', todo]
 handoffs:
@@ -11,11 +11,11 @@ handoffs:
     send: false
   - label: Implement approved tests with strict gates
     agent: agent
-    prompt: "Implement ONLY the approved plan. Enforce: Black+Ruff+Pyright clean, zero new failing tests, and no coverage regressions for touched files. Run targeted tests after each small batch; run full toolchain at the end."
+    prompt: "Implement ONLY the approved plan. Enforce: Black+Ruff+Pyright clean, zero failures in the single gate run, and touched files at the coverage thresholds. Run static checks after each small batch; run full toolchain at the end."
     send: false
   - label: Post-change QA gate (lint + type + tests + coverage)
     agent: agent
-    prompt: "Run the full toolchain and report deltas: Ruff, Pyright, failing tests, and per-file coverage for touched files (and overall if used). If any regression exists, revert/fix before proceeding."
+    prompt: "Run the full toolchain and report Ruff and Pyright deltas, failures in the single gate run, and per-file coverage for touched files. If any check fails, revert/fix before proceeding."
     send: false
 ---
 
@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ Your objective is **test coverage and confidence without regressions**:
 - Tests run identically via terminal and VS Code Test Explorer
 - No reliance on network, external services, machine state, or local filesystem temp files
 - Linting (Ruff), formatting (Black), and typing (Pyright) remain clean for any touched Python files
-- Coverage does not regress for any file you touch (and overall thresholds remain satisfied)
+- A touched file meets the coverage thresholds, read from the single gate run (and overall thresholds remain satisfied)
 
 This agent must follow these repo policies (if present in the workspace):
 
@@ -90,14 +90,12 @@ If tools cannot be run:
 
 # Required workflow for every request
 
-## Phase A — Baseline capture (read-only)
+## Phase A — Static baseline capture (read-only)
 
 1) Identify the exact files in scope (list them).
-2) Run and record baseline (as applicable in this repo):
-   - failing tests (names + key error messages)
+2) Run and record the static baseline (as applicable in this repo):
    - Ruff findings (count and/or summary)
    - Pyright status (pass/fail and key diagnostics)
-   - coverage baseline for touched files (and overall if the repo enforces an overall gate)
 3) Summarize root cause in one paragraph.
 
 ## Phase B — Plan (no edits)
@@ -115,20 +113,18 @@ Do not proceed to edits until the user explicitly approves (for example: “Proc
 
 - Batch size: one logical change set only.
 - After each batch:
-  - Run targeted tests for the impacted area
   - Run Ruff + Pyright for touched files (or repo-standard equivalent)
-  - Confirm coverage did not regress for touched files (if coverage is part of the repo workflow)
+- A focused run of one test file to debug a specific failure is debugging only.
 - Keep edits minimal; no stylistic refactors.
 
 ## Phase D — Final QA gate
 
 - Run full toolchain (repo standard; typically format/lint/type/test/coverage).
-- Report deltas:
+- Report results:
   - Ruff delta (must be 0 new findings)
   - Pyright delta (must be 0 new typing errors)
-  - Failing tests delta (must be 0 new failures)
-  - Per-file coverage delta for touched files (must be >= baseline)
-  - Overall coverage delta if applicable (must be >= baseline)
+  - Failures in the single gate run (must be 0)
+  - Per-file coverage for touched files against the thresholds, read from the single gate run
 
 # Pytest-specific engineering rules
 
@@ -186,10 +182,10 @@ Any production change must:
 Your response must include:
 
 1) **Scope**: exact file list
-2) **Baseline** (if running tools is possible): failing tests, Ruff/Pyright status, coverage baseline (when applicable)
+2) **Baseline** (if running tools is possible): Ruff/Pyright status
 3) **Plan**: scenarios + fixture plan + mock plan
 4) If implementation was approved: patch-style diffs or full-file replacements for only the scoped files
-5) **QA Gate Results**: lint/type/test/coverage deltas (or clearly marked as unverified)
+5) **QA Gate Results**: lint and type-check deltas, gate failures, and per-file coverage (or clearly marked as unverified)
 
 # Prohibited behaviors