@tekyzinc/gsd-t 5.11.29 → 5.11.30

package/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -2,6 +2,41 @@
 
 All notable changes to GSD-T are documented here. Updated with each release.
 
+## [5.11.30] - 2026-08-11
+
+### Fixed — the scan crashed before any finder ran: `slices is not defined`
+
+The Atos scan died after 4 agents (preflight, probe, graph-wiring) with a
+JavaScript reference error. Nothing was written; no finder ever started.
+
+    618:  slices = budgetPlan.slices;   // never declared at this scope
+
+v5.11.26 added that assignment to a bare name. v5.11.27 then added a
+`const slices` INSIDE a helper function — a different scope entirely, which made
+the name look declared to anyone skimming the file. The workflow sandbox runs in
+strict mode, where assigning to an undeclared name throws.
+
+`slices` is now declared where the code that uses it runs, starting as the
+probe's own carve so the budget-failed branch needs no assignment at all.
+
+**Nothing caught this, which is the more important half.** `node --check` parses
+an undeclared assignment happily — it is legal syntax, and only strict mode makes
+it an error, at runtime. The sandbox lint checks banned requires and `args`
+handling, not scope. No test executes this path, because the workflow only runs
+against a real project.
+
+- `templates/workflows/gsd-t-scan.workflow.js`: `let slices = rawSlices` at the
+  scope that runs them.
+- `test/m112-workflow-undeclared-assignment.test.js`: a static check over every
+  workflow for an assignment to a name its scope never declares, with a
+  function-body map so an `if`/`else` block is not mistaken for a nested scope.
+
+The check was itself wrong twice before it worked, and the meta-test is what
+caught it: the first version tested a hand-written sample with the offending line
+at column zero and passed while missing the real bug, which is indented two
+spaces inside an `if`. Verified against the actual shipped file — it reports
+line 618 there and passes the fixed one.
+
 ## [5.11.29] - 2026-08-11
 
 ### Fixed — 20 of 27 projects had no usable code graph, and nothing said so

package/README.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # GSD-T: Contract-Driven Development for Claude Code
 
-**v5.11.29** - A methodology for reliable, parallelizable development using Claude Code with optional Agent Teams support.
+**v5.11.30** - A methodology for reliable, parallelizable development using Claude Code with optional Agent Teams support.
 
 **Eliminates context rot** — task-level fresh dispatch (one subagent per task, ~10-20% context each) means compaction never triggers.
 **Compaction-proof debug loops** — `gsd-t headless --debug-loop` runs test-fix-retest cycles as separate `claude -p` sessions. A JSONL debug ledger persists all hypothesis/fix/learning history across fresh sessions. Anti-repetition preamble injection prevents retrying failed hypotheses. Escalation tiers (sonnet → opus → human) and a hard iteration ceiling enforced externally.

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "@tekyzinc/gsd-t",
-  "version": "5.11.29",
+  "version": "5.11.30",
   "description": "GSD-T: Contract-Driven Development for Claude Code \u2014 54 slash commands with headless-by-default workflow spawning, unattended supervisor relay with event stream, graph-powered code analysis, real-time agent dashboard, task telemetry, doc-ripple enforcement, backlog management, impact analysis, test sync, milestone archival, and PRD generation",
   "author": "Tekyz, Inc.",
   "license": "MIT",

package/templates/workflows/gsd-t-scan.workflow.js

@@ -602,6 +602,21 @@ const budgetPlan = await runCli(
   "slice-budget"
 );
 
+// What the finders will actually run. Declared HERE, at the scope that uses it.
+//
+// [RULE] slices-declared-at-the-scope-that-runs-them
+//
+// v5.11.26 assigned to a bare `slices` that was never declared anywhere, and
+// v5.11.27 added a `const slices` inside probePlaceholderFaults() — a different
+// scope entirely. The workflow sandbox runs in strict mode, so the assignment
+// below threw `slices is not defined` and killed the Atos scan after 4 agents,
+// before a single finder ran. Nothing had checked it: `node --check` parses an
+// undeclared assignment happily, and no test executed this path.
+//
+// It starts as the probe's own slices, so the failure branch below needs no
+// assignment — an unmeasured plan still runs what the probe carved.
+let slices = rawSlices;
+
 if (budgetPlan && budgetPlan.ok && Array.isArray(budgetPlan.slices) && budgetPlan.slices.length) {
   const a = budgetPlan.after || {};
   if (budgetPlan.slices.length > rawSlices.length) {