@pmelab/gtd 51.0.1 → 52.1.0

package/src/workflows/feature/reviewer-walkthrough.feature

@@ -31,6 +31,10 @@ Feature: a reviewer walks the human through the feature's code
       """
       # Requirements
 
+      ## Impact
+
+      - the greeting module
+
       ## Acceptance Criteria
 
       - AC-1: subtract(a, b) returns a - b.
@@ -49,10 +53,6 @@ Feature: a reviewer walks the human through the feature's code
     And step "implement.applying" runs its script
     And step "implement.health.check" changes nothing
     And step "implement.closing" runs its script
-    And judge step "implement.coverage" answers:
-      """
-      [{"id":"AC-1","answer":"yes","p":0.9}]
-      """
     And step "build.quality.correctness.reviewing" writes ".gtd/QUALITY.md" with:
       """
       # Quality
@@ -96,15 +96,9 @@ Feature: a reviewer walks the human through the feature's code
     Then the process rests at "build.review.await-review"
     And ".gtd/REVIEW.md" contains:
       """
-      ## Subtract
-
-      _critical: judge unsure_
-
-      The new export.
-
-      - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#2-2 — subtract(a, b)
+      ## Findings
 
-      ## AC-1 ignores floating point
+      ### AC-1 ignores floating point
 
       _critical: judge unsure_
 
@@ -119,6 +113,14 @@ Feature: a reviewer walks the human through the feature's code
       - [ ] fix as suggested
       - [ ] won't fix
       - [ ] _your answer_
+
+      ## Walkthrough
+
+      ### Subtract
+
+      The new export.
+
+      - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#2-2 — subtract(a, b)
       """
     And no commit body contains "build.review.composing"
     And the commit subjects end with:
@@ -145,6 +147,25 @@ Feature: a reviewer walks the human through the feature's code
       """
     Then driving the process is refused with "Subtract — points at no code"
 
+  Scenario: a review the reviewer sorts into sections itself is refused
+    Given step "build.review.reviewing" writes ".gtd/REVIEW.md" with:
+      """
+      # Review: abc1234
+
+      <!-- base: 0000000 -->
+
+      ## Walkthrough
+
+      ### Subtract
+
+      - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#2-2 — subtract(a, b)
+
+      ### AC-1 ignores floating point
+
+      - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#2-2 — returns the raw difference
+      """
+    Then driving the process is refused with "Walkthrough — gtd sorts the chunks into sections; write `## ` chunks only"
+
   Scenario: a finding the reviewer left out is refused
     Given step "build.review.reviewing" writes ".gtd/REVIEW.md" with:
       """

package/src/workflows/feature/risk-tier.feature

@@ -50,6 +50,10 @@ Feature: the risk tier is proposed at triage and recorded behind GTD_FLAG_RISK_T
 
         low — trivial copy change
 
+        ## Impact
+
+        - the greeting module
+
         ## Acceptance Criteria
 
         - AC-1: the change behaves as described.
@@ -69,6 +73,10 @@ Feature: the risk tier is proposed at triage and recorded behind GTD_FLAG_RISK_T
 
         high — touches payments
 
+        ## Impact
+
+        - the greeting module
+
         ## Acceptance Criteria
 
         - AC-1: the change behaves as described.
@@ -89,6 +97,10 @@ Feature: the risk tier is proposed at triage and recorded behind GTD_FLAG_RISK_T
 
         ### Subtract
 
+        ## Impact
+
+        - the greeting module
+
         ## Acceptance Criteria
 
         - AC-1: the change behaves as described.
@@ -118,6 +130,10 @@ Feature: the risk tier is proposed at triage and recorded behind GTD_FLAG_RISK_T
         - error rate on /subtract stays flat
         - p95 latency
 
+        ## Impact
+
+        - the greeting module
+
         ## Acceptance Criteria
 
         - AC-1: the change behaves as described.
@@ -142,6 +158,10 @@ Feature: the risk tier is proposed at triage and recorded behind GTD_FLAG_RISK_T
 
         low — trivial copy change
 
+        ## Impact
+
+        - the greeting module
+
         ## Acceptance Criteria
 
         - AC-1: the change behaves as described.
@@ -187,6 +207,10 @@ Feature: the risk tier is proposed at triage and recorded behind GTD_FLAG_RISK_T
 
         ### Subtract
 
+        ## Impact
+
+        - the greeting module
+
         ## Acceptance Criteria
 
         - AC-1: the change behaves as described.
@@ -233,6 +257,10 @@ Feature: the risk tier is proposed at triage and recorded behind GTD_FLAG_RISK_T
 
         - error rate stays flat
 
+        ## Impact
+
+        - the greeting module
+
         ## Acceptance Criteria
 
         - AC-1: the change behaves as described.
@@ -258,6 +286,10 @@ Feature: the risk tier is proposed at triage and recorded behind GTD_FLAG_RISK_T
 
         low — trivial
 
+        ## Impact
+
+        - the greeting module
+
         ## Acceptance Criteria
 
         - AC-1: the change behaves as described.

package/src/workflows/feature/seam-rejection.feature

@@ -35,6 +35,10 @@ Feature: rejected naive passes walk one fixed path through the steer gate to the
 
       - `subtract(a, b)` returns `a - b`.
 
+      ## Impact
+
+      - the greeting module
+
       ## Acceptance Criteria
 
       - AC-1: the change behaves as described.
@@ -53,10 +57,6 @@ Feature: rejected naive passes walk one fixed path through the steer gate to the
       """
     And step "implement.health.check" changes nothing
     And step "implement.closing" runs its script
-    And judge step "implement.coverage" answers:
-      """
-      [{"id":"AC-1","answer":"yes","p":0.9}]
-      """
     When the process is driven
     Then the process rests at "seam.judge"
 
@@ -80,6 +80,10 @@ Feature: rejected naive passes walk one fixed path through the steer gate to the
 
       - `subtract(a, b)` returns `a - b`, in the calculator module.
 
+      ## Impact
+
+      - the greeting module
+
       ## Acceptance Criteria
 
       - AC-1: the change behaves as described.
@@ -123,8 +127,7 @@ Feature: rejected naive passes walk one fixed path through the steer gate to the
       gtd(check): seam.check → seam.judge
       gtd(judge): seam.judge → implement.applying
       gtd(check): implement.applying → implement.health.check
-      gtd(check): implement.health.check → implement.coverage
-      gtd(judge): implement.coverage → implement.closing
+      gtd(check): implement.health.check → implement.closing
       gtd(check): implement.closing → build.review.reviewing
       """
     And the commit "gtd(human): idle → unwind" has a body containing "Gtd-Var: flag_risk_tier=0"

package/src/workflows/feature/seam.feature

@@ -45,6 +45,10 @@ Feature: the naive pass and seam judge decide how a feature is built
 
       - `subtract(a, b)` returns `a - b`.
 
+      ## Impact
+
+      - the greeting module
+
       ## Acceptance Criteria
 
       - AC-1: the change behaves as described.
@@ -148,10 +152,6 @@ Feature: the naive pass and seam judge decide how a feature is built
     And step "implement.applying" runs its script
     And step "implement.health.check" changes nothing
     And step "implement.closing" runs its script
-    And judge step "implement.coverage" answers:
-      """
-      [{"id":"AC-1","answer":"yes","p":0.9}]
-      """
     When the process is driven
     Then the process rests at "build.review.reviewing"
     And "src/calc.ts" contains "subtract"
@@ -159,8 +159,7 @@ Feature: the naive pass and seam judge decide how a feature is built
       """
       gtd(judge): seam.judge → implement.applying
       gtd(check): implement.applying → implement.health.check
-      gtd(check): implement.health.check → implement.coverage
-      gtd(judge): implement.coverage → implement.closing
+      gtd(check): implement.health.check → implement.closing
       gtd(check): implement.closing → build.review.reviewing
       """
     And ".gtd/REQUIREMENTS.md" does not exist
@@ -239,6 +238,10 @@ Feature: the naive pass and seam judge decide how a feature is built
 
       - `subtract(a, b)` returns `a - b`, in a new module.
 
+      ## Impact
+
+      - the greeting module
+
       ## Acceptance Criteria
 
       - AC-1: the change behaves as described.

package/src/workflows/feature/seam.test.ts

@@ -109,7 +109,8 @@ describe("naivePass", () => {
 })
 
 describe("naiveAcceptance and requireAcceptance", () => {
-  const requirements = "# R\n\n## Acceptance Criteria\n\n- AC-1: adds.\n- AC-2: subtracts.\n"
+  const requirements =
+    "# R\n\n## Impact\n\n- the module\n\n## Acceptance Criteria\n\n- AC-1: adds.\n- AC-2: subtracts.\n"
   const file = (path: string, before: string | undefined, after: string): Change => ({
     path,
     status: before === undefined ? "added" : "modified",
@@ -170,7 +171,8 @@ describe("naiveAcceptance and requireAcceptance", () => {
 })
 
 describe("acceptanceFault", () => {
-  const requirements = "# R\n\n## Acceptance Criteria\n\n- AC-1: adds.\n- AC-2: subtracts.\n"
+  const requirements =
+    "# R\n\n## Impact\n\n- the module\n\n## Acceptance Criteria\n\n- AC-1: adds.\n- AC-2: subtracts.\n"
   const file = (path: string, status: Change["status"], after: string): Change => ({
     path,
     status,
@@ -500,7 +502,7 @@ describe("implement", () => {
     lastOptions = undefined
     installContext(
       fixtureContext(
-        // The hands-on test after coverage has its own scenarios.
+        // The hands-on test has its own scenarios.
         { vars: { prototypeRounds: "0" } },
         {
           step: (request: StepRequest) => {

package/src/workflows/feature/seam.ts

@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ import {
 } from "../shared/steps.js"
 import * as t from "../shared/text.js"
 import { defaults } from "../shared/vars.js"
-import { green, requireCoverage } from "./coverage.js"
+import { green } from "./green.js"
 import { prototypeTest } from "./prototype.js"
 import {
   criterionIds,
@@ -289,7 +289,7 @@ export interface ImplementOptions {
   readonly rebuild?: t.Rebuild | undefined
   /** The criteria this slice builds, when the change has more than one slice. */
   readonly slice?: CriteriaSlice | undefined
-  /** Where the slice began: the coverage judge reads only the tests changed since. */
+  /** @deprecated Ignored since the coverage judge is gone. */
   readonly base?: string | undefined
   /** Not the last slice: `.gtd/REQUIREMENTS.md` and `.gtd/SLICES.md` stay for the next one. */
   readonly more?: boolean | (() => boolean) | undefined
@@ -385,7 +385,6 @@ export const implementing = (options: ImplementOptions): Promise<readonly string
     const keepsTests =
       built && acceptance !== undefined ? () => requireAcceptanceKept(acceptance) : undefined
     await green(keepsTests)
-    await requireCoverage(options.base, options.slice)
     await prototypeTest(options.slice, keepsTests)
     const ids = criterionIds(read(REQUIREMENTS) ?? "")
     await closing(moreToBuild(options.more))

package/src/workflows/feature/severity-budget.feature

@@ -28,6 +28,10 @@ Feature: the review's ranking is batched to the judge's budget
       """
       # Requirements
 
+      ## Impact
+
+      - the greeting module
+
       ## Acceptance Criteria
 
       - AC-1: subtract(a, b) returns a - b.
@@ -46,10 +50,6 @@ Feature: the review's ranking is batched to the judge's budget
     And step "implement.applying" runs its script
     And step "implement.health.check" changes nothing
     And step "implement.closing" runs its script
-    And judge step "implement.coverage" answers:
-      """
-      [{"id":"AC-1","answer":"yes","p":0.9}]
-      """
     And step "build.quality.correctness.reviewing" writes ".gtd/QUALITY.md" with:
       """
       # Quality
@@ -93,15 +93,19 @@ Feature: the review's ranking is batched to the judge's budget
     Then the process rests at "build.review.await-review"
     And ".gtd/REVIEW.md" contains:
       """
-      ## AC-1 ignores floating point
+      ## Findings
+
+      ### AC-1 ignores floating point
 
       _critical: judge unsure_
       """
     And ".gtd/REVIEW.md" contains:
       """
-      ## Subtract
+      ## Walkthrough
 
-      _could_
+      ### Subtract
+
+      - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#2-2 — subtract(a, b)
       """
     And the commit subjects end with:
       """

package/src/workflows/feature/severity-sorted-review.feature

@@ -1,12 +1,13 @@
 @inmem
-Feature: the final review lists what matters most first
+Feature: the final review lists the findings that matter most first
 
-  Before the review rests, the judge rates every chunk the reviewer wrote — a
-  walkthrough chunk or a carried quality finding — on the same four questions
-  as a human's note (`build.review.ranking`): critical (security, or a one-way
-  door), should (a contract, or a new concept), could. The review lists them
-  in that order, security before one-way doors, each led by its tier and
-  reason. A chunk the judge cannot rate is critical, so it is shown first.
+  Before the review rests, the judge rates every chunk the reviewer wrote on
+  the same four questions as a human's note (`build.review.ranking`): critical
+  (security, or a one-way door), should (a contract, or a new concept), could.
+  The quality findings go under `## Findings` in that order, security before
+  one-way doors, each led by its tier and reason; a finding the judge cannot
+  rate is critical. The walkthrough goes under `## Walkthrough` in the
+  reviewer's order, with no tier.
 
   Background:
     Given the shipped workflows, as gtd install scaffolds them
@@ -30,6 +31,10 @@ Feature: the final review lists what matters most first
       """
       # Requirements
 
+      ## Impact
+
+      - the greeting module
+
       ## Acceptance Criteria
 
       - AC-1: subtract(a, b) returns a - b.
@@ -48,10 +53,6 @@ Feature: the final review lists what matters most first
     And step "implement.applying" runs its script
     And step "implement.health.check" changes nothing
     And step "implement.closing" runs its script
-    And judge step "implement.coverage" answers:
-      """
-      [{"id":"AC-1","answer":"yes","p":0.9}]
-      """
     And step "build.quality.correctness.reviewing" writes ".gtd/QUALITY.md" with:
       """
       # Quality
@@ -59,16 +60,20 @@ Feature: the final review lists what matters most first
       ## AC-1 ignores floating point
 
       Should subtract round? The criterion does not say.
+
+      ## Token in logs
+
+      The caller's token reaches the log.
       """
     And judge step "build.quality.triage" answers:
       """
-      [{"id":"Q1","answer":"design","p":0.9}]
+      [{"id":"Q1","answer":"design","p":0.9},{"id":"Q2","answer":"design","p":0.9}]
       """
     And step "build.quality.sorting" runs its script
     And step "build.quality.closing" runs its script
     And step "build.review.carrying" runs its script
 
-  Scenario: security and one-way doors come first, a carried finding sorted among the rest
+  Scenario: findings are sorted by tier, the walkthrough kept in the reviewer's order
     Given step "build.review.reviewing" writes ".gtd/REVIEW.md" with:
       """
       # Review: abc1234
@@ -81,39 +86,41 @@ Feature: the final review lists what matters most first
 
       - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#2-2 — subtract(a, b)
 
-      ## Session token
-
-      - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#1-1 — reads the caller's token
-
       ## AC-1 ignores floating point
 
       - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#2-2 — returns the raw difference
 
-      ## Saved format
+      ## Session token
+
+      - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#1-1 — reads the caller's token
+
+      ## Token in logs
 
-      - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#1-2 — what callers persist
+      - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#1-1 — where it is logged
       """
     And judge step "build.review.ranking" answers:
       """
-      [{"id":"C1.security","answer":"no","p":0.9},{"id":"C1.reversibility","answer":"two-way","p":0.9},{"id":"C1.blastRadius","answer":"local","p":0.9},{"id":"C1.newConcept","answer":"no","p":0.9},{"id":"C2.security","answer":"yes","p":0.9},{"id":"C2.reversibility","answer":"two-way","p":0.9},{"id":"C2.blastRadius","answer":"module","p":0.9},{"id":"C2.newConcept","answer":"no","p":0.9},{"id":"C3.security","answer":"no","p":0.9},{"id":"C3.reversibility","answer":"two-way","p":0.9},{"id":"C3.blastRadius","answer":"contract","p":0.9},{"id":"C3.newConcept","answer":"no","p":0.9},{"id":"C4.security","answer":"no","p":0.9},{"id":"C4.reversibility","answer":"one-way","p":0.9},{"id":"C4.blastRadius","answer":"contract","p":0.9},{"id":"C4.newConcept","answer":"no","p":0.9}]
+      [{"id":"C1.security","answer":"no","p":0.9},{"id":"C1.reversibility","answer":"two-way","p":0.9},{"id":"C1.blastRadius","answer":"local","p":0.9},{"id":"C1.newConcept","answer":"no","p":0.9},{"id":"C2.security","answer":"no","p":0.9},{"id":"C2.reversibility","answer":"two-way","p":0.9},{"id":"C2.blastRadius","answer":"contract","p":0.9},{"id":"C2.newConcept","answer":"no","p":0.9},{"id":"C3.security","answer":"yes","p":0.9},{"id":"C3.reversibility","answer":"two-way","p":0.9},{"id":"C3.blastRadius","answer":"module","p":0.9},{"id":"C3.newConcept","answer":"no","p":0.9},{"id":"C4.security","answer":"no","p":0.9},{"id":"C4.reversibility","answer":"one-way","p":0.9},{"id":"C4.blastRadius","answer":"contract","p":0.9},{"id":"C4.newConcept","answer":"no","p":0.9}]
       """
     When the process is driven
     Then the process rests at "build.review.await-review"
     And ".gtd/REVIEW.md" contains:
       """
-      ## Session token
+      <!-- base: 0000000 -->
 
-      _critical: security_
+      ## Findings
 
-      - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#1-1 — reads the caller's token
-
-      ## Saved format
+      ### Token in logs
 
       _critical: one-way door_
 
-      - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#1-2 — what callers persist
+      The caller's token reaches the log.
+      """
+    And ".gtd/REVIEW.md" contains:
+      """
+      - [ ] _your answer_
 
-      ## AC-1 ignores floating point
+      ### AC-1 ignores floating point
 
       _should: contract_
 
@@ -123,12 +130,19 @@ Feature: the final review lists what matters most first
       """
       - [ ] _your answer_
 
-      ## Subtract
+      ## Walkthrough
 
-      _could_
+      ### Subtract
 
       The new export.
+
+      - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#2-2 — subtract(a, b)
+
+      ### Session token
+
+      - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#1-1 — reads the caller's token
       """
+    And ".gtd/REVIEW.md" does not contain "_critical: security_"
     And the commit "gtd(judge): build.review.ranking → build.review.carrying" has a body containing "Gtd-Judge:"
     And the commit subjects end with:
       """
@@ -137,7 +151,7 @@ Feature: the final review lists what matters most first
       gtd(check): build.review.carrying → build.review.await-review
       """
 
-  Scenario: a chunk the judge is unsure about is listed as critical
+  Scenario: a finding the judge is unsure about is listed as critical
     Given step "build.review.reviewing" writes ".gtd/REVIEW.md" with:
       """
       # Review: abc1234
@@ -150,49 +164,35 @@ Feature: the final review lists what matters most first
 
       - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#2-2 — subtract(a, b)
 
-      ## Session token
-
-      - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#1-1 — reads the caller's token
-
       ## AC-1 ignores floating point
 
       - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#2-2 — returns the raw difference
 
-      ## Saved format
+      ## Session token
+
+      - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#1-1 — reads the caller's token
 
-      - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#1-2 — what callers persist
+      ## Token in logs
+
+      - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#1-1 — where it is logged
       """
     And judge step "build.review.ranking" answers:
       """
-      [{"id":"C1.security","answer":"no","p":0.9},{"id":"C1.reversibility","answer":"two-way","p":0.9},{"id":"C1.blastRadius","answer":"local","p":0.9},{"id":"C1.newConcept","answer":"no","p":0.9},{"id":"C2.security","answer":"no","p":0.4},{"id":"C2.reversibility","answer":"two-way","p":0.9},{"id":"C2.blastRadius","answer":"local","p":0.9},{"id":"C2.newConcept","answer":"no","p":0.9},{"id":"C3.security","answer":"no","p":0.9},{"id":"C3.reversibility","answer":"two-way","p":0.9},{"id":"C3.blastRadius","answer":"contract","p":0.9},{"id":"C3.newConcept","answer":"no","p":0.9},{"id":"C4.security","answer":"no","p":0.9},{"id":"C4.reversibility","answer":"two-way","p":0.9},{"id":"C4.blastRadius","answer":"local","p":0.9},{"id":"C4.newConcept","answer":"yes","p":0.9}]
+      [{"id":"C1.security","answer":"no","p":0.9},{"id":"C1.reversibility","answer":"two-way","p":0.9},{"id":"C1.blastRadius","answer":"local","p":0.9},{"id":"C1.newConcept","answer":"no","p":0.9},{"id":"C2.security","answer":"no","p":0.4},{"id":"C2.reversibility","answer":"two-way","p":0.9},{"id":"C2.blastRadius","answer":"local","p":0.9},{"id":"C2.newConcept","answer":"no","p":0.9},{"id":"C3.security","answer":"yes","p":0.9},{"id":"C3.reversibility","answer":"two-way","p":0.9},{"id":"C3.blastRadius","answer":"local","p":0.9},{"id":"C3.newConcept","answer":"no","p":0.9},{"id":"C4.security","answer":"no","p":0.9},{"id":"C4.reversibility","answer":"two-way","p":0.9},{"id":"C4.blastRadius","answer":"local","p":0.9},{"id":"C4.newConcept","answer":"yes","p":0.9}]
       """
     When the process is driven
     Then the process rests at "build.review.await-review"
     And ".gtd/REVIEW.md" contains:
       """
-      # Review: abc1234
-
-      <!-- base: 0000000 -->
+      ## Findings
 
-      ## Session token
+      ### AC-1 ignores floating point
 
       _critical: judge unsure_
       """
     And ".gtd/REVIEW.md" contains:
       """
-      ## AC-1 ignores floating point
-
-      _should: contract_
-      """
-    And ".gtd/REVIEW.md" contains:
-      """
-      ## Saved format
+      ### Token in logs
 
       _should: new concept_
       """
-    And ".gtd/REVIEW.md" contains:
-      """
-      ## Subtract
-
-      _could_
-      """

package/src/workflows/feature/slice-findings.feature

@@ -30,6 +30,10 @@ Feature: every slice's quality lap is triaged, and its leftovers wait for the re
       """
       # Requirements
 
+      ## Impact
+
+      - the greeting module
+
       ## Acceptance Criteria
 
       - AC-1: subtract(a, b) returns a - b.
@@ -60,14 +64,6 @@ Feature: every slice's quality lap is triaged, and its leftovers wait for the re
     And step "implement.applying" runs its script
     And step "implement.health.check" changes nothing
     And step "implement.closing" runs its script
-    And judge step "implement.coverage", when its questions contain "AC-1", answers:
-      """
-      [{"id":"AC-1","answer":"yes","p":0.9}]
-      """
-    And judge step "implement.coverage", when its questions contain "AC-2", answers:
-      """
-      [{"id":"AC-2","answer":"yes","p":0.9}]
-      """
     And step "build.quality.sorting" runs its script
     And step "build.quality.closing" runs its script
     And step "build.health.check" changes nothing
@@ -115,7 +111,7 @@ Feature: every slice's quality lap is triaged, and its leftovers wait for the re
     And ".gtd/QUALITY.md" does not exist
     And ".gtd/REVIEW.md" contains:
       """
-      ## AC-1 ignores floating point
+      ### AC-1 ignores floating point
 
       _critical: judge unsure_
 
@@ -125,7 +121,7 @@ Feature: every slice's quality lap is triaged, and its leftovers wait for the re
       """
     And ".gtd/REVIEW.md" contains:
       """
-      ## AC-1 ignores floating point (2)
+      ### AC-1 ignores floating point (2)
 
       _critical: judge unsure_
 
@@ -140,8 +136,7 @@ Feature: every slice's quality lap is triaged, and its leftovers wait for the re
       gtd(agent): seam.naive → seam.check
       gtd(check): seam.check → implement.applying
       gtd(check): implement.applying → implement.health.check
-      gtd(check): implement.health.check → implement.coverage
-      gtd(judge): implement.coverage → implement.closing
+      gtd(check): implement.health.check → implement.closing
       gtd(check): implement.closing → build.quality.correctness.reviewing
       gtd(agent): build.quality.correctness.reviewing → build.quality.triage
       gtd(judge): build.quality.triage → build.quality.sorting
@@ -189,7 +184,7 @@ Feature: every slice's quality lap is triaged, and its leftovers wait for the re
     And no commit body contains "build.health.describe"
     And ".gtd/REVIEW.md" contains:
       """
-      ## subtract has no negative test
+      ### subtract has no negative test
 
       _critical: judge unsure_
 
@@ -210,8 +205,7 @@ Feature: every slice's quality lap is triaged, and its leftovers wait for the re
       gtd(agent): seam.naive → seam.check
       gtd(check): seam.check → implement.applying
       gtd(check): implement.applying → implement.health.check
-      gtd(check): implement.health.check → implement.coverage
-      gtd(judge): implement.coverage → implement.closing
+      gtd(check): implement.health.check → implement.closing
       gtd(check): implement.closing → build.quality.correctness.reviewing
       gtd(agent): build.quality.correctness.reviewing → build.quality.triage
       gtd(judge): build.quality.triage → build.fix.quality.fixing