@pmelab/gtd 55.0.0 → 56.0.0

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

@@ -3,16 +3,15 @@ Feature: a reviewer walks the human through the feature's code
 
   The feature's final review is written by a reviewer turn
   (`build.review.reviewing`): chunks grouped by concern, each pointing at its
-  code, so the phone shows it. Every finding the quality laps left gets a chunk
-  of its own, headed exactly as the prompt gives it, holding the pointers to the
-  code it cites; gtd then adds the finding's text and the answer boxes
-  (`build.review.carrying`). A chunk pointing at no code, or a finding left out,
-  is refused.
+  code, so the phone shows it. The quality lap's findings were decided at the
+  finding gate: the reviewer is told nothing of them, and gtd only appends
+  the lap's summary (`build.review.carrying`). A chunk pointing at no code is
+  refused.
 
   Background:
     Given the shipped workflows, as gtd install scaffolds them
     And an environment variable "GTD_PROTOTYPEROUNDS" set to "0"
-    And an environment variable "GTD_QUALITYREVIEWS" set to "correctness"
+    And an environment variable "GTD_QUALITYREVIEWS" set to ""
     And an environment variable "GTD_FLAGMODE" set to "false"
     And a file "src/calc.ts" with:
       """
@@ -53,30 +52,9 @@ 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 step "build.quality.correctness.reviewing" writes ".gtd/QUALITY.md" with:
-      """
-      # Quality
-
-      ## AC-1 ignores floating point
-
-      Should subtract round? The criterion does not say.
-      """
-    And judge step "build.quality.triage" answers:
-      """
-      [{"id":"Q1","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
-    And judge step "build.review.ranking" answers:
-      """
-      []
-      """
 
-  Scenario: the finding gets its text and answer boxes under the reviewer's pointers
-    Given step "build.review.reviewing" is prompted with "- `## AC-1 ignores floating point`:"
-    And step "build.review.reviewing" is prompted with "> Should subtract round? The criterion does not say."
-    And step "build.review.reviewing" writes ".gtd/REVIEW.md" with:
+  Scenario: the review is the reviewer's walkthrough, as it wrote it
+    Given step "build.review.reviewing" writes ".gtd/REVIEW.md" with:
       """
       # Review: abc1234
 
@@ -87,47 +65,24 @@ Feature: a reviewer walks the human through the feature's code
       The new export.
 
       - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#2-2 — subtract(a, b)
-
-      ## AC-1 ignores floating point
-
-      - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#2-2 — returns the raw difference
       """
     When the process is driven
     Then the process rests at "build.review.await-review"
+    And the resting step's content does not contain "Tick exactly one"
     And ".gtd/REVIEW.md" contains:
       """
-      ## Findings
-
-      ### AC-1 ignores floating point
-
-      _critical: judge unsure_
-
-      Should subtract round? The criterion does not say.
-
-      In the code:
-
-      - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#2-2 — returns the raw difference
-
-      Tick exactly one:
-
-      - [ ] fix as suggested
-      - [ ] won't fix
-      - [ ] _your answer_
-
-      ## Walkthrough
+      <!-- base: 0000000 -->
 
-      ### Subtract
+      ## 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:
       """
-      gtd(agent): build.review.reviewing → build.review.ranking
-      gtd(judge): build.review.ranking → build.review.carrying
-      gtd(check): build.review.carrying → build.review.await-review
+      gtd(check): implement.closing → build.review.reviewing
+      gtd(agent): build.review.reviewing → build.review.await-review
       """
 
   Scenario: a chunk pointing at no code is refused
@@ -140,10 +95,6 @@ Feature: a reviewer walks the human through the feature's code
       ## Subtract
 
       The new export, with no pointer.
-
-      ## AC-1 ignores floating point
-
-      - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#2-2 — returns the raw difference
       """
     Then driving the process is refused with "Subtract — points at no code"
 
@@ -158,26 +109,9 @@ Feature: a reviewer walks the human through the feature's code
 
       ### 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:
-      """
-      # Review: abc1234
-
-      <!-- base: 0000000 -->
-
-      ## Subtract
-
       - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#2-2 — subtract(a, b)
       """
-    Then driving the process is refused with "AC-1 ignores floating point — no chunk of its own"
+    Then driving the process is refused with "Walkthrough — write `## ` chunks only"
 
   Scenario: a standard conflict the reviewer writes itself is refused
     Given step "build.review.reviewing" writes ".gtd/REVIEW.md" with:
@@ -189,31 +123,10 @@ Feature: a reviewer walks the human through the feature's code
       ## Standard conflict 0123abcd
 
       - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#2-2 — copied over
-
-      ## AC-1 ignores floating point
-
-      - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#2-2 — returns the raw difference
       """
     Then driving the process is refused with "Standard conflict 0123abcd — gtd writes conflicts"
 
   Scenario: two chunks with one title are refused
-    Given step "build.review.reviewing" writes ".gtd/REVIEW.md" with:
-      """
-      # Review: abc1234
-
-      <!-- base: 0000000 -->
-
-      ## AC-1 ignores floating point
-
-      - [ ] ./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 "AC-1 ignores floating point — a second chunk with this title"
-
-  Scenario: a risk marked in a finding's chunk is refused, never fixed
     Given step "build.review.reviewing" writes ".gtd/REVIEW.md" with:
       """
       # Review: abc1234
@@ -224,8 +137,8 @@ Feature: a reviewer walks the human through the feature's code
 
       - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#2-2 — subtract(a, b)
 
-      ## AC-1 ignores floating point
+      ## Subtract
 
-      - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#2-2 — Risk: no rounding
+      - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#2-2 — returns the raw difference
       """
-    Then driving the process is refused with "no `Risk:` in a quality finding's chunk"
+    Then driving the process is refused with "Subtract — a second chunk with this title"

package/src/workflows/feature/standards.feature

@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
 @inmem
 Feature: the review learns standards from the human's answers
 
-  A won't-fix tick or an own answer at the review gate is a candidate
-  standard. A judge asks whether it is reusable; above `standardMinP` it is
+  A won't-fix tick or an own answer at the review gate — on a note the human
+  added with its own answer boxes — is a candidate standard. A judge asks whether it is reusable; above `standardMinP` it is
   kept in `.gtd/STANDARDS.md` with no further question, and every later agent
   turn — lenses and coder alike — is told to follow it. One that contradicts
   a standard already kept becomes a note in `.gtd/REVIEW.md` the review cannot
@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ Feature: the review learns standards from the human's answers
   Background:
     Given the shipped workflows, as gtd install scaffolds them
     And an environment variable "GTD_PROTOTYPEROUNDS" set to "0"
-    And an environment variable "GTD_QUALITYREVIEWS" set to "correctness"
+    And an environment variable "GTD_QUALITYREVIEWS" set to ""
     And an environment variable "GTD_FLAGMODE" set to "false"
     And a file "src/calc.ts" with:
       """
@@ -59,15 +59,6 @@ Feature: the review learns standards from the human's answers
     And step "implement.applying" runs its script
     And step "implement.health.check" changes nothing
     And step "implement.closing" runs its script
-    And step "build.quality.correctness.reviewing" writes ".gtd/QUALITY.md" with:
-      """
-      # Quality
-
-      ## subtract has no class
-
-      Calculators read better as classes.
-      """
-    And step "build.quality.sorting" runs its script
     And step "build.review.reviewing" writes ".gtd/REVIEW.md" with:
       """
       # Review: abc1234
@@ -78,29 +69,7 @@ Feature: the review learns standards from the human's answers
 
       - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#2-2 — subtract(a, b)
       """
-    And step "build.review.reviewing", when prompted with "- `## subtract has no class`", writes ".gtd/REVIEW.md" with:
-      """
-      # Review: abc1234
-
-      <!-- base: 0000000 -->
-
-      ## Subtract
-
-      - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#2-2 — subtract(a, b)
-
-      ## subtract has no class
-
-      - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#2-2 — a plain function
-      """
     And step "build.review.carrying" runs its script
-    And judge step "build.review.ranking" answers:
-      """
-      []
-      """
-    And judge step "build.quality.triage" answers:
-      """
-      [{"id":"Q1","answer":"design","p":0.9}]
-      """
     And step "build.review.closing" runs its script
     And step "build.review.standards.recording" runs its script
     And step "build.review.standards.raising" runs its script
@@ -111,6 +80,18 @@ Feature: the review learns standards from the human's answers
       [{"id":"standard-1","answer":"yes","p":0.9}]
       """
     When the process is driven
+    And ".gtd/REVIEW.md" gets appended:
+      """
+      ## subtract has no class
+
+      Calculators read better as classes.
+
+      Tick exactly one:
+
+      - [ ] fix as suggested
+      - [ ] won't fix
+      - [ ] _your answer_
+      """
     And the text "- [ ] won't fix" in ".gtd/REVIEW.md" is replaced with "- [x] won't fix"
     And gtd lands
     And the process is driven
@@ -143,6 +124,18 @@ Feature: the review learns standards from the human's answers
       """
     And step "build.health.check" changes nothing
     When the process is driven
+    And ".gtd/REVIEW.md" gets appended:
+      """
+      ## subtract has no class
+
+      Calculators read better as classes.
+
+      Tick exactly one:
+
+      - [ ] fix as suggested
+      - [ ] won't fix
+      - [ ] _your answer_
+      """
     And the text "- [ ] _your answer_" in ".gtd/REVIEW.md" is replaced with "- [x] Calculators are plain functions."
     And gtd lands
     And the process is driven
@@ -162,6 +155,18 @@ Feature: the review learns standards from the human's answers
       [{"id":"standard-1","answer":"yes","p":0.6}]
       """
     When the process is driven
+    And ".gtd/REVIEW.md" gets appended:
+      """
+      ## subtract has no class
+
+      Calculators read better as classes.
+
+      Tick exactly one:
+
+      - [ ] fix as suggested
+      - [ ] won't fix
+      - [ ] _your answer_
+      """
     And the text "- [ ] won't fix" in ".gtd/REVIEW.md" is replaced with "- [x] won't fix"
     And gtd lands
     And the process is driven
@@ -210,6 +215,18 @@ Feature: the review learns standards from the human's answers
       [{"id":"answer-1","answer":"praise","p":0.9}]
       """
     When the process is driven
+    And ".gtd/REVIEW.md" gets appended:
+      """
+      ## subtract has no class
+
+      Calculators read better as classes.
+
+      Tick exactly one:
+
+      - [ ] fix as suggested
+      - [ ] won't fix
+      - [ ] _your answer_
+      """
     And the text "- [ ] _your answer_" in ".gtd/REVIEW.md" is replaced with "- [x] Calculators are plain functions."
     And gtd lands
     And the process is driven
@@ -267,6 +284,18 @@ Feature: the review learns standards from the human's answers
       [{"id":"standard-1","answer":"yes","p":0.9},{"id":"standard-1.contradicts-1","answer":"yes","p":0.8}]
       """
     When the process is driven
+    And ".gtd/REVIEW.md" gets appended:
+      """
+      ## subtract has no class
+
+      Calculators read better as classes.
+
+      Tick exactly one:
+
+      - [ ] fix as suggested
+      - [ ] won't fix
+      - [ ] _your answer_
+      """
     And the text "- [ ] won't fix" in ".gtd/REVIEW.md" is replaced with "- [x] won't fix"
     And gtd lands
     And the process is driven
@@ -303,6 +332,18 @@ Feature: the review learns standards from the human's answers
       [{"id":"standard-1","answer":"yes","p":0.9},{"id":"standard-1.contradicts-1","answer":"yes","p":0.8}]
       """
     When the process is driven
+    And ".gtd/REVIEW.md" gets appended:
+      """
+      ## subtract has no class
+
+      Calculators read better as classes.
+
+      Tick exactly one:
+
+      - [ ] fix as suggested
+      - [ ] won't fix
+      - [ ] _your answer_
+      """
     And the text "- [ ] won't fix" in ".gtd/REVIEW.md" is replaced with "- [x] won't fix"
     And gtd lands
     And the process is driven

package/src/workflows/fix/fix-lens-origin.feature

@@ -1,9 +1,8 @@
 @inmem
-Feature: each finding the reviewer is handed names the lens that wrote it
+Feature: each finding at the finding gate names the lens that wrote it
 
   Lenses append to `.gtd/QUALITY.md` in turn, so a finding belongs to the lens
-  whose turn added it — even when two lenses give findings the same title,
-  which the review then tells apart by a numbered suffix.
+  whose turn added it — even when two lenses give findings the same title.
 
   Background:
     Given the shipped workflows, as gtd install scaffolds them
@@ -62,7 +61,7 @@ Feature: each finding the reviewer is handed names the lens that wrote it
 
       From tests.
       """
-    And step "build.quality.sorting" runs its script
+    And step "build.quality.gating" runs its script
     And step "build.quality.closing" runs its script
     And step "build.review.reviewing" writes ".gtd/REVIEW.md" with:
       """
@@ -84,8 +83,8 @@ Feature: each finding the reviewer is handed names the lens that wrote it
       """
     When gtd opens door "fix"
     And the process is driven
-    Then the process rests at "build.review.await-review"
-    And ".gtd/REVIEW.md" contains:
+    Then the process rests at "build.quality.gate"
+    And ".gtd/QUALITY.md" contains:
       """
       ## sum is untested
 
@@ -93,9 +92,23 @@ Feature: each finding the reviewer is handed names the lens that wrote it
 
       From correctness.
 
-      ## sum is untested (2)
+      - [ ] fix
+
+      ## sum is untested
 
       _From lens tests._
 
       From tests.
+
+      - [ ] fix
+      """
+    When gtd lands
+    And the process is driven
+    Then the process rests at "build.review.await-review"
+    And ".gtd/REVIEW.md" contains:
+      """
+      Dropped at the finding gate:
+
+      - sum is untested (lens correctness)
+      - sum is untested (lens tests)
       """

package/src/workflows/fix/fix-quality.feature

@@ -1,11 +1,12 @@
 @inmem
-Feature: fix's quality lap is triaged, and its leftovers go to the hand-off review
+Feature: fix's quality lap is triaged, and its leftovers are decided at the finding gate
 
   A judge sorts the lap's findings: mechanical ones are fixed for up to three
-  turns, noise is dropped, and design ones — with whatever the fix turns left —
-  are added to the reviewer's `.gtd/REVIEW.md` by gtd, never to a person's
-  gate before the review. With no requirements to check against, the
-  `criteria-coverage` lens runs no turn.
+  turns, and the design ones — with whatever the fix turns left, and the
+  noise — wait at the finding gate, never at an escalation. A ticked one is
+  fixed on the spot; the hand-off review lists what became of each in its
+  summary and carries no finding on to the next `fix`. With no requirements
+  to check against, the `criteria-coverage` lens runs no turn.
 
   Background:
     Given the shipped workflows, as gtd install scaffolds them
@@ -57,6 +58,8 @@ Feature: fix's quality lap is triaged, and its leftovers go to the hand-off revi
       The glossary says plus.
       """
     And step "build.quality.sorting" runs its script
+    And step "build.quality.gating" runs its script
+    And step "build.quality.picking" runs its script
     And step "build.quality.closing" runs its script
     And step "build.review.reviewing" writes ".gtd/REVIEW.md" with:
       """
@@ -71,7 +74,7 @@ Feature: fix's quality lap is triaged, and its leftovers go to the hand-off revi
       """
     And step "build.review.carrying" runs its script
 
-  Scenario: a design finding and one the fix cap left reach the reviewer, never an escalation
+  Scenario: a design finding and one the fix cap left reach the finding gate, and a ticked one is fixed there
     Given judge step "build.quality.triage" answers:
       """
       [{"id":"Q1","answer":"mechanical","p":0.9},{"id":"Q2","answer":"design","p":0.9}]
@@ -79,36 +82,72 @@ Feature: fix's quality lap is triaged, and its leftovers go to the hand-off revi
     And step "build.fix.quality.fixing" changes nothing
     When gtd opens door "fix"
     And the process is driven
-    Then the process rests at "build.review.await-review"
-    And ".gtd/QUALITY.md" does not exist
+    Then the process rests at "build.quality.gate"
     And no commit body contains "build.health.describe"
     And no commit body contains "build.quality.criteria-coverage"
-    And ".gtd/REVIEW.md" contains:
+    And ".gtd/QUALITY.md" contains:
       """
-      ## sum has no negative test
+      ## sum should be named plus
 
       _From lens correctness._
 
-      _The fixer left this unresolved._
+      The glossary says plus.
+
+      - [ ] fix
+
+      ## sum has no negative test
+
+      _From lens correctness. The fixer left it unresolved._
+
+      Add a test summing negative numbers.
+
+      - [ ] fix
       """
-    And ".gtd/REVIEW.md" contains:
+    Given a file ".gtd/QUALITY.md" with:
       """
-      ## sum should be named plus
+      # Quality
 
-      _From lens correctness._
+      ## sum should be named plus
 
       The glossary says plus.
+
+      - [x] fix
+
+      ## sum has no negative test
+
+      Add a test summing negative numbers.
+
+      - [ ] fix
+      """
+    And step "build.fix.quality.fixing" is no longer scripted
+    And step "build.fix.quality.fixing" writes "src/calc.ts" with:
+      """
+      export const plus = (a: number, b: number) => a + b
+      """
+    And step "build.fix.quality.fixing" deletes ".gtd/QUALITY.md"
+    When gtd lands
+    And the process is driven
+    Then the process rests at "build.review.await-review"
+    And ".gtd/QUALITY.md" does not exist
+    And ".gtd/REVIEW.md" contains:
       """
+      Fixed at the finding gate:
+
+      - sum should be named plus (
+      """
+    And ".gtd/REVIEW.md" contains:
+      """
+      Dropped at the finding gate:
+
+      - sum has no negative test (lens correctness)
+      """
+    And ".gtd/REVIEW.md" does not contain "Tick exactly one:"
     And the commit subjects end with:
       """
-      gtd(agent): build.quality.correctness.reviewing → build.quality.triage
-      gtd(judge): build.quality.triage → build.quality.sorting
-      gtd(check): build.quality.sorting → build.fix.quality.fixing
-      gtd(agent): build.fix.quality.fixing
-      gtd(agent): build.fix.quality.fixing
+      gtd(human): build.quality.gate → build.quality.picking
+      gtd(check): build.quality.picking → build.fix.quality.fixing
       gtd(agent): build.fix.quality.fixing → build.health.check
-      gtd(check): build.health.check → build.quality.closing
-      gtd(check): build.quality.closing → build.review.reviewing
+      gtd(check): build.health.check → build.review.reviewing
       gtd(agent): build.review.reviewing → build.review.carrying
       gtd(check): build.review.carrying → build.review.await-review
       """
@@ -123,11 +162,51 @@ Feature: fix's quality lap is triaged, and its leftovers go to the hand-off revi
       it("sums negative numbers", () => {})
       """
     And step "build.fix.quality.fixing" deletes ".gtd/QUALITY.md"
+    And step "build.quality.gate" changes nothing
     When gtd opens door "fix"
     And the process is driven
     Then the process rests at "build.review.await-review"
-    And no commit body contains "build.quality.closing"
-    And ".gtd/REVIEW.md" contains "## Fixed automatically"
+    And ".gtd/REVIEW.md" contains "Fixed automatically:"
     And ".gtd/REVIEW.md" contains "- sum has no negative test ("
     And ".gtd/REVIEW.md" contains the short hash of the commit "gtd(agent): build.fix.quality.fixing → build.health.check"
     And ".gtd/REVIEW.md" contains "- sum should be named plus (p=0.9, lens correctness)"
+
+  Scenario: a risk the hand-off reviewer marks is fixed and re-reviewed in its own draft, the summary added once
+    Given judge step "build.quality.triage" answers:
+      """
+      [{"id":"Q1","answer":"mechanical","p":0.9},{"id":"Q2","answer":"noise","p":0.9}]
+      """
+    And step "build.fix.quality.fixing" deletes ".gtd/QUALITY.md"
+    And step "build.quality.gate" changes nothing
+    And step "build.review.reviewing" is no longer scripted
+    And step "build.review.reviewing" writes ".gtd/REVIEW.md" with:
+      """
+      # Review: abc1234
+
+      <!-- base: 0000000 -->
+
+      ## calc
+
+      - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#1-1 — Risk: overflows on large numbers
+      """
+    When gtd opens door "fix"
+    And the process is driven
+    Then the process rests at "build.review.fix.risks.fixing"
+    And ".gtd/REVIEW.md" does not contain "## Quality lap"
+    Given step "build.review.reviewing" is no longer scripted
+    And step "build.review.reviewing" replaces the text "Risk: overflows on large numbers" in ".gtd/REVIEW.md" with "sum, now guarded"
+    And step "build.review.fix.risks.fixing" changes nothing
+    When the process is driven
+    Then the process rests at "build.review.await-review"
+    And ".gtd/REVIEW.md" contains "sum, now guarded"
+    And ".gtd/REVIEW.md" contains "## Quality lap" exactly once
+    And ".gtd/REVIEW.md" contains "## calc" exactly once
+    And the commit subjects end with:
+      """
+      gtd(check): build.quality.closing → build.review.reviewing
+      gtd(agent): build.review.reviewing → build.review.fix.risks.fixing
+      gtd(agent): build.review.fix.risks.fixing → build.health.check
+      gtd(check): build.health.check → build.review.reviewing
+      gtd(agent): build.review.reviewing → build.review.carrying
+      gtd(check): build.review.carrying → build.review.await-review
+      """