agentic-qe 3.15.17 → 3.15.18

package/.claude/helpers/brain-checkpoint.cjs

@@ -24,6 +24,17 @@ const MAX_AGE_HOURS = 24;
 const SKIP_PATH = path.join(AQE_DIR, 'brain-checkpoint.skip.json');
 const RETRY_ENV = Number.parseFloat(process.env.AQE_BRAIN_CHECKPOINT_RETRY_HOURS || '');
 const TOO_LARGE_RETRY_HOURS = Number.isFinite(RETRY_ENV) && RETRY_ENV >= 0 ? RETRY_ENV : 6;
+// #1251: the export is compared with the published aqe.rvf and refused when a
+// table collapsed (memory.db recreated from seed data, say). A deliberate shrink
+// (`aqe learning prune --apply`, dream retention) leaves this acknowledgement
+// with the row counts it left. The CLI honours it once, within 24h, and only
+// while the brain still holds those counts; otherwise the hook drops it.
+const SHRINK_ACK_PATH = path.join(AQE_DIR, 'brain-checkpoint.accept-shrink.json');
+const SHRINK_ACK_MAX_AGE_HOURS = 24;
+const MIRROR_REFUSAL = /RVF_MIRROR_(?:RICHER|INSPECTION_AMBIGUOUS):[^\n]*/;
+const SHRINK_ACK_VERDICT = /SHRINK_ACK_(HONOURED|IGNORED): ([^\n]*)/;
+// An older global aqe rejects the #1251 flags: back off rather than fail every turn.
+const OUTDATED_CLI = /unknown option '(--(?:compare-with|richness-policy|accept-shrink))'/;
 /**
  * How to run `aqe`. POSIX: the `aqe` binary. Windows (#872): never execFile
  * `aqe.cmd` (EINVAL without a shell since CVE-2024-27980, and a shell is unsafe);
@@ -92,6 +103,50 @@ function activeSkip() {
   return skip;
 }
 
+function dropShrinkAck(why) {
+  try { removeEntry(SHRINK_ACK_PATH); } catch { /* best-effort */ }
+  log('Ignored the shrink acknowledgement (' + why + '); the normal checkpoint policy applies.');
+}
+
+/**
+ * The acknowledgement of a deliberate shrink, or null. One that is unreadable,
+ * over 24h old, or older than aqe.rvf (already checkpointed) is dropped. The
+ * CLI checks the counts it records against the export (--accept-shrink).
+ */
+function pendingShrinkAck() {
+  let st;
+  try { st = fs.lstatSync(SHRINK_ACK_PATH); } catch { return null; }
+  let ack = null;
+  if (st.isFile()) { try { ack = JSON.parse(fs.readFileSync(SHRINK_ACK_PATH, 'utf8')); } catch { /* unreadable */ } }
+  const at = ack ? Date.parse(ack.at) : NaN;
+  let rvfMtime = 0;
+  try { rvfMtime = fs.lstatSync(RVF_PATH).mtimeMs; } catch { /* absent */ }
+  let why = null;
+  if (!Number.isFinite(at)) why = 'unreadable';
+  else if (Date.now() - at > SHRINK_ACK_MAX_AGE_HOURS * 3600000) why = 'older than 24h';
+  else if (rvfMtime > at) why = 'already checkpointed';
+  if (why) { dropShrinkAck(why); return null; }
+  return { at, producer: String(ack.producer) };
+}
+
+/** Act on the CLI's verdict on the acknowledgement; returns its producer when honoured. */
+function settleShrinkAck(output) {
+  const verdict = String(output || '').match(SHRINK_ACK_VERDICT);
+  if (!verdict) return null; // no verdict (the export failed first): keep it for the next turn
+  if (verdict[1] === 'IGNORED') { dropShrinkAck(verdict[2].trim()); return null; }
+  return verdict[2].trim();
+}
+
+/** How to end a back-off now, for the session-start report. */
+function resumeHint(skip) {
+  return MIRROR_REFUSAL.test(skip.reason)
+    ? 'To resume now, back up aqe.rvf and run `aqe brain export -o .agentic-qe/aqe.rvf --force-overwrite-richer`, '
+      + 'or delete .agentic-qe/brain-checkpoint.skip.json to retry.'
+    : skip.reason.includes('upgrade to enable the checkpoint guard')
+      ? 'Upgrade the global aqe (npm i -g agentic-qe), then delete .agentic-qe/brain-checkpoint.skip.json.'
+      : 'To retry now, delete .agentic-qe/brain-checkpoint.skip.json.';
+}
+
 function writeSkip(reason) {
   const at = new Date();
   const skip = {
@@ -160,15 +215,28 @@ function promote(tmp) {
   }
 }
 
+/** `aqe --version` of the installed CLI, for the outdated-CLI back-off. */
+function aqeVersion(aqe) {
+  try {
+    const out = execFileSync(aqe.cmd, [...aqe.args, '--version'],
+      { timeout: 10000, encoding: 'utf-8', windowsHide: true, stdio: ['ignore', 'pipe', 'ignore'] });
+    return out.trim().split(/\s+/).pop() || 'unknown';
+  } catch {
+    return 'unknown';
+  }
+}
+
 function exportBrain() {
   if (!fs.existsSync(DB_PATH)) { log('No memory.db, skipping'); return { exported: false }; }
   if (!isRealDir(AQE_DIR)) {
     const reason = '.agentic-qe is a symlink; refusing to write through it';
     log('Export skipped: ' + reason); return { exported: false, reason };
   }
+  const ack = pendingShrinkAck();
   const skip = activeSkip();
-  if (skip) {
-    log('Export skipped until ' + skip.retryAfter + ': ' + skip.reason);
+  // A shrink acknowledged after the back-off began is the answer to it.
+  if (skip && !(ack && ack.at > Date.parse(skip.at))) {
+    // Logged once, when the back-off began; session-start verify reports it.
     return { exported: false, skipped: true, reason: skip.reason, retryAfter: skip.retryAfter };
   }
   const aqe = aqeInvocation();
@@ -178,8 +246,11 @@ function exportBrain() {
   try {
     // The name is fresh, but drop anything already there without following it.
     for (const suffix of ['', ...RVF_SIDECARS]) removeEntry(tmp + suffix);
+    const args = [...aqe.args, 'brain', 'export', '-o', tmp, '--format', 'rvf'];
+    if (lexists(RVF_PATH)) args.push('--compare-with', RVF_PATH, '--richness-policy', 'checkpoint');
+    if (ack) args.push('--accept-shrink', SHRINK_ACK_PATH);
     const result = execFileSync(
-      aqe.cmd, [...aqe.args, 'brain', 'export', '-o', tmp, '--format', 'rvf'],
+      aqe.cmd, args,
       { timeout: 60000, encoding: 'utf-8', windowsHide: true, stdio: ['ignore', 'pipe', 'pipe'] }
     );
     // A zero exit without a store is a failure, not an empty checkpoint.
@@ -188,9 +259,30 @@ function exportBrain() {
     const m = result.match(/Patterns:\s+(\d+)/);
     const p = m ? m[1] : '0';
     log('Exported ' + p + ' patterns to aqe.rvf');
-    return { exported: true, patterns: parseInt(p) };
+    const accepted = ack ? settleShrinkAck(result) : null;
+    if (!accepted) return { exported: true, patterns: parseInt(p) };
+    try { removeEntry(SHRINK_ACK_PATH); removeEntry(SKIP_PATH); } catch { /* spent: older than aqe.rvf now */ }
+    log('Accepted the smaller brain (' + accepted + ')');
+    return { exported: true, patterns: parseInt(p), acceptedShrink: accepted };
   } catch (e) {
-    const tooLarge = (String(e.stderr || '') + String(e.stdout || '')).match(/RVF_KERNEL_TOO_LARGE:[^\n]*/);
+    const output = String(e.stderr || '') + String(e.stdout || '');
+    if (ack) settleShrinkAck(e.stdout);
+    const outdated = output.match(OUTDATED_CLI);
+    if (outdated) {
+      const skip = writeSkip('installed aqe ' + aqeVersion(aqe) + ' lacks ' + outdated[1] + '; upgrade to enable the checkpoint guard');
+      log('Export skipped, previous aqe.rvf kept: ' + skip.reason);
+      log('Skipping the checkpoint export until ' + skip.retryAfter + ' (logged once).');
+      return { exported: false, outdatedCli: true, reason: skip.reason, retryAfter: skip.retryAfter };
+    }
+    const refused = output.match(MIRROR_REFUSAL);
+    if (refused) {
+      const skip = writeSkip(refused[0].trim());
+      log('Export refused, previous aqe.rvf kept: ' + skip.reason);
+      log('Skipping the checkpoint export until ' + skip.retryAfter + ' (logged once). If the smaller brain is '
+        + 'intended, back up aqe.rvf and run: aqe brain export -o .agentic-qe/aqe.rvf --force-overwrite-richer');
+      return { exported: false, richer: true, reason: skip.reason, retryAfter: skip.retryAfter };
+    }
+    const tooLarge = output.match(/RVF_KERNEL_TOO_LARGE:[^\n]*/);
     if (tooLarge) {
       const skip = writeSkip(tooLarge[0].trim());
       log('Export failed: ' + skip.reason);
@@ -209,18 +301,23 @@ function verifyBrain() {
   if (!fs.existsSync(RVF_PATH)) {
     const skip = activeSkip();
     if (skip) {
-      log('No aqe.rvf found; checkpoint export paused until ' + skip.retryAfter + ': ' + skip.reason);
-      return { valid: false, reason: 'missing', skippedUntil: skip.retryAfter };
+      log('No aqe.rvf found; checkpoint export paused until ' + skip.retryAfter + ': ' + skip.reason + ' ' + resumeHint(skip));
+      return { valid: false, reason: 'missing', skippedUntil: skip.retryAfter, resumeHint: resumeHint(skip) };
     }
     log('No aqe.rvf found');
     return { valid: false, reason: 'missing' };
   }
   const stat = fs.statSync(RVF_PATH);
+  const paused = activeSkip();
+  if (paused) log('Checkpoint export paused until ' + paused.retryAfter + ': ' + paused.reason + ' ' + resumeHint(paused));
+  const pause = paused
+    ? { pausedUntil: paused.retryAfter, pauseReason: paused.reason, resumeHint: resumeHint(paused) }
+    : {};
   const ageH = (Date.now() - stat.mtimeMs) / 3600000;
-  if (stat.size < 1024) { log('aqe.rvf too small'); return { valid: false, reason: 'too-small' }; }
-  if (ageH > MAX_AGE_HOURS) { log('aqe.rvf is ' + ageH.toFixed(1) + 'h old'); return { valid: true, stale: true }; }
+  if (stat.size < 1024) { log('aqe.rvf too small'); return { valid: false, reason: 'too-small', ...pause }; }
+  if (ageH > MAX_AGE_HOURS) { log('aqe.rvf is ' + ageH.toFixed(1) + 'h old'); return { valid: true, stale: true, ...pause }; }
   log('aqe.rvf OK (' + (stat.size/1048576).toFixed(1) + ' MB)');
-  return { valid: true, stale: false };
+  return { valid: true, stale: false, ...pause };
 }
 
 const cmd = process.argv[2] || 'verify';

package/.claude/skills/agentic-quality-engineering/SKILL.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ description: "Use when orchestrating QE agents, understanding PACTS principles,
 category: qe-core
 priority: critical
 tokenEstimate: 1400
-agents: [qe-test-generator, qe-test-executor, qe-coverage-analyzer, qe-quality-gate, qe-quality-analyzer, qe-performance-tester, qe-security-scanner, qe-requirements-validator, qe-production-intelligence, qe-fleet-commander, qe-deployment-readiness, qe-regression-risk-analyzer, qe-test-data-architect, qe-api-contract-validator, qe-flaky-test-hunter, qe-visual-tester, qe-chaos-engineer, qe-code-complexity, qx-partner]
+agents: [qe-test-architect, qe-parallel-executor, qe-coverage-specialist, qe-quality-gate, qe-performance-tester, qe-security-scanner, qe-requirements-validator, qe-fleet-commander, qe-deployment-advisor, qe-regression-analyzer, qe-contract-validator, qe-flaky-hunter, qe-visual-tester, qe-chaos-engineer, qe-code-complexity, qe-qx-partner, qe-devils-advocate]
 implementation_status: optimized
 optimization_version: 1.0
 last_optimized: 2025-12-02
@@ -27,8 +27,8 @@ When implementing agentic QE or coordinating agents:
 5. LEARN from outcomes - store patterns in `aqe/learning/*` namespace
 
 **Quick Agent Selection:**
-- Test generation needed → `qe-test-generator`
-- Coverage gaps → `qe-coverage-analyzer`
+- Test generation needed → `qe-test-architect`
+- Coverage gaps → `qe-coverage-specialist`
 - Quality decision → `qe-quality-gate`
 - Security scan → `qe-security-scanner`
 - Performance test → `qe-performance-tester`
@@ -37,7 +37,8 @@ When implementing agentic QE or coordinating agents:
 **Critical Success Factors:**
 - Agents amplify human expertise, not replace it
 - Human-in-the-loop for critical decisions
-- Measure: bugs caught, time saved, coverage improved
+- Measure: bugs caught, time saved, coverage improved, and how often agent claims survive verification
+- Done means committed, tested, and CI-validated with evidence attached, not "reported as complete"
 </default_to_action>
 
 ## Quick Reference Card
@@ -57,16 +58,19 @@ When implementing agentic QE or coordinating agents:
 | **T**argeted | Risk-based prioritization | Define risk areas |
 | **S**tructured | Governance, observability, explainable decisions (measure confidence, not trust) | Audit behavior, set policy |
 
-### 19-Agent Fleet
+### Core Agents
+The full fleet lives in `.claude/agents/v3/qe-*.md`; these are the agents most core jobs start with.
+
 | Category | Agents | Primary Use |
 |----------|--------|-------------|
-| Core Testing (5) | test-generator, test-executor, coverage-analyzer, quality-gate, quality-analyzer | Daily testing |
-| Performance/Security (2) | performance-tester, security-scanner | Non-functional |
-| Strategic (3) | requirements-validator, production-intelligence, fleet-commander | Planning |
-| Advanced (4) | regression-risk-analyzer, test-data-architect, api-contract-validator, flaky-test-hunter | Specialized |
-| Visual/Chaos (2) | visual-tester, chaos-engineer | Edge cases |
-| Deployment (1) | deployment-readiness | Release |
-| Analysis (1) | code-complexity | Maintainability |
+| Core Testing | qe-test-architect, qe-parallel-executor, qe-coverage-specialist, qe-quality-gate | Daily testing |
+| Performance/Security | qe-performance-tester, qe-security-scanner | Non-functional |
+| Strategic | qe-requirements-validator, qe-fleet-commander | Planning, orchestration |
+| Advanced | qe-regression-analyzer, qe-contract-validator, qe-flaky-hunter | Specialized |
+| Visual/Chaos | qe-visual-tester, qe-chaos-engineer | Edge cases |
+| Deployment | qe-deployment-advisor | Release |
+| Analysis | qe-code-complexity | Maintainability |
+| Verification | qe-devils-advocate | Challenge other agents' claims |
 
 ### Coordination Patterns
 ```
@@ -76,11 +80,12 @@ Sequential: risk-analyzer → test-gen → executor → coverage → gate
 ```
 
 ### Success Criteria
-✅ 10x deployment frequency with same/better quality
+✅ Deployment frequency rises without escaped defects rising (measured against your own baseline)
 ✅ Coverage gaps detected in real-time
 ✅ Bugs caught pre-production
+✅ Agent claims checked against evidence before anyone relies on them
 ❌ Agents acting without human oversight on critical decisions
-❌ Deploying all 19 agents at once (start with 1-2)
+❌ Deploying the whole fleet at once (start with 1-2)
 
 ---
 
@@ -91,16 +96,18 @@ Sequential: risk-analyzer → test-gen → executor → coverage → gate
 |-------|----------|------------|
 | Traditional | Manual everything | Human bottleneck |
 | Automation | Scripts + fixed scenarios | Needs orchestration |
-| **Agentic** | AI agents + human judgment | Requires trust-building |
+| **Agentic** | AI agents + human judgment | Requires confidence-building: evidence that agent output holds up |
+
+**Core Premise:** Agents amplify human expertise. How much they amplify it is something to measure in your context, not to assume.
 
-**Core Premise:** Agents amplify human expertise for 10x scale.
+**Confidence, not trust:** trust is a feeling; confidence can be explained. For every agent output, ask what the evidence is, how it was checked, and what confidence the agent stated.
 
 ### Key Capabilities
 
 **1. Intelligent Test Generation**
 ```typescript
 // Agent analyzes code change, generates targeted tests
-const tests = await qeTestGenerator.generate(prDiff);
+const tests = await Task("Generate tests", prDiff, "qe-test-architect");
 // → Happy path, edge cases, error handling tests
 ```
 
@@ -110,6 +117,20 @@ const tests = await qeTestGenerator.generate(prDiff);
 
 **4. Root Cause Analysis** - Link failures to code changes, suggest fixes
 
+### Completion Theater (the central failure mode)
+
+Agents optimize for appearing done rather than being done, and it gets harder to spot as their output gets more plausible. Patterns to check for:
+
+- Work reported complete that was never committed
+- Tests that assert a status code without checking the payload, or check that variables exist instead of behavior
+- Coverage inflated by tests that touch code without exercising it
+- Validation that checks counts or thresholds instead of behavior
+- Report volume standing in for working software
+- Stubs accepted as implementations
+- Agent claims that the visible evidence contradicts
+
+An honest, low-confidence answer is safer than a confident fabricated one; a false-safe label on a real security issue is the worst outcome. Defenses: adversarial review (`brutal-honesty-review`, `sherlock-review`, `qe-court`, `qe-devils-advocate`), invariants such as "no success claim without proof", and agents that disclose skipped steps, timeouts, and low confidence.
+
 ---
 
 ## Agent Coordination
@@ -188,21 +209,21 @@ aqe memory store \
 | Event | Trigger | Subscribers |
 |-------|---------|-------------|
 | `test:generated` | New tests created | executor, coverage |
-| `coverage:gap` | Gap detected | test-generator |
+| `coverage:gap` | Gap detected | test-architect |
 | `quality:decision` | Gate evaluated | fleet-commander |
 | `security:finding` | Vulnerability found | quality-gate |
 
 ### Example: PR Quality Pipeline
 ```typescript
 // 1. Risk analysis
-const risks = await Task("Analyze PR", prDiff, "qe-regression-risk-analyzer");
+const risks = await Task("Analyze PR", prDiff, "qe-regression-analyzer");
 
 // 2. Generate tests for risks
-const tests = await Task("Generate tests", risks, "qe-test-generator");
+const tests = await Task("Generate tests", risks, "qe-test-architect");
 
 // 3. Execute + analyze
-const results = await Task("Run tests", tests, "qe-test-executor");
-const coverage = await Task("Check coverage", results, "qe-coverage-analyzer");
+const results = await Task("Run tests", tests, "qe-parallel-executor");
+const coverage = await Task("Check coverage", results, "qe-coverage-specialist");
 
 // 4. Quality decision
 const decision = await Task("Evaluate", {results, coverage}, "qe-quality-gate");
@@ -213,24 +234,26 @@ const decision = await Task("Evaluate", {results, coverage}, "qe-quality-gate");
 
 ## Implementation Phases
 
-| Phase | Duration | Goal | Agent(s) |
-|-------|----------|------|----------|
-| Experiment | Weeks 1-4 | Validate one use case | 1 agent |
-| Integrate | Months 2-3 | CI/CD pipeline | 3-4 agents |
-| Scale | Months 4-6 | Multiple use cases | 8+ agents |
+Advance on evidence, not on the calendar. Typical pacing is weeks per phase, but it depends on how fast confidence is earned in your context.
+
+| Phase | Move on when | Goal | Agent(s) |
+|-------|--------------|------|----------|
+| Experiment | The agent's output survives review on real PRs | Validate one use case | 1 agent |
+| Integrate | CI results are stable and findings hold up | CI/CD pipeline | 3-4 agents |
+| Scale | Each new use case shows measured value | Multiple use cases | 8+ agents |
 | Evolve | Ongoing | Continuous learning | Full fleet |
 
 ### Phase 1 Example
 ```bash
-# Week 1: Deploy single agent
-aqe agent spawn qe-test-generator
+# Start: deploy a single agent
+aqe agent spawn qe-test-architect
 
-# Weeks 2-3: Generate tests for 10 PRs
-# Track: bugs found, test quality, review time
+# Then: generate tests for a handful of real PRs
+# Track: bugs found, test quality, review time, claims that failed verification
 
-# Week 4: Measure impact
-aqe agent metrics qe-test-generator
-# → Tests: 150, Bugs: 12, Time saved: 8h
+# Measure impact against your pre-agent baseline
+aqe agent metrics qe-test-architect
+# → Compare tests, bugs found and review time with the baseline; keep what the data supports
 ```
 
 ---
@@ -255,18 +278,18 @@ aqe agent metrics qe-test-generator
 
 | Do | Don't |
 |----|-------|
-| Start with one agent, one use case | Deploy all 18 at once |
+| Start with one agent, one use case | Deploy the whole fleet at once |
 | Build feedback loops early | Deploy and forget |
 | Human reviews agent output | Auto-merge without review |
 | Measure bugs caught, time saved | Track vanity metrics (test count) |
-| Build trust gradually | Give full autonomy immediately |
+| Earn autonomy with measured confidence | Give full autonomy immediately |
 
-### Trust Progression
+### Autonomy Progression (gated by evidence)
 ```
-Month 1: Agent suggests → Human decides
-Month 2: Agent acts → Human reviews after
-Month 3: Agent autonomous on low-risk
-Month 4: Agent handles critical with oversight
+Stage 1: Agent suggests → Human decides
+Stage 2: Agent acts → Human reviews after      (when its suggestions consistently survive review)
+Stage 3: Agent autonomous on low-risk work     (when post-hoc reviews stop finding real problems)
+Stage 4: Agent handles critical with oversight (when the low-risk record and its disclosures hold up)
 ```
 
 ---
@@ -286,8 +309,8 @@ preload_skills:
   - quality-metrics              # For measurement
 
 agent_assignments:
-  qe-test-generator: [api-testing-patterns, tdd-london-chicago]
-  qe-coverage-analyzer: [quality-metrics, risk-based-testing]
+  qe-test-architect: [api-testing-patterns, tdd-london-chicago]
+  qe-coverage-specialist: [quality-metrics, risk-based-testing]
   qe-security-scanner: [security-testing, risk-based-testing]
   qe-performance-tester: [performance-testing]
 ```
@@ -307,4 +330,4 @@ agent_assignments:
 
 ---
 
-**Success Metric:** Deploy 10x more frequently with same or better quality through intelligent agent collaboration.
+**Success Metric:** Ship more often with the same or better quality through agent collaboration, and be able to show the evidence for both.

package/.claude/skills/brutal-honesty-review/SKILL.md

@@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ trust_tier: 2
 validation:
   schema_path: schemas/output.json
   validator_path: scripts/validate-config.json
+  eval_path: evals/brutal-honesty-review.yaml
 ---
 
 # Brutal Honesty Review
@@ -24,8 +25,9 @@ When brutal honesty is needed:
 1. CHOOSE MODE: Linus (technical), Ramsay (standards), Bach (BS detection)
 2. VERIFY CONTEXT: Senior engineer? Repeated mistake? Critical bug? Explicit request?
 3. STRUCTURE: What's broken → Why it's wrong → What correct looks like → How to fix
-4. ATTACK THE WORK, not the worker
-5. ALWAYS provide actionable path forward
+4. CITE EVIDENCE for every finding (file:line, command + output, test result, quote)
+5. ATTACK THE WORK, not the worker
+6. ALWAYS provide actionable path forward
 
 **Quick Mode Selection:**
 - **Linus**: Code is technically wrong, inefficient, misunderstands fundamentals
@@ -39,8 +41,8 @@ When brutal honesty is needed:
 
 **DO NOT USE FOR:** Junior devs' first PRs, demoralized teams, public forums, low psychological safety
 
-## Minimum Findings Enforcement
-All brutal honesty reviews enforce a minimum of 3 weighted findings (CRITICAL=3, HIGH=2, MEDIUM=1, LOW=0.5). If the initial review finds fewer, escalate to deeper analysis. Brutally honest reviewers should ALWAYS find something -- if you can't, explain exactly why with evidence.
+## Evidence Rule (No Findings Quota)
+Every finding must cite evidence: a file and line, a command and its output, a test result, or a quote from the PR or docs. A criticism without evidence is dropped or explicitly labeled a hypothesis or open question. There is no minimum number of findings: if the review finds nothing serious, say so, list what was checked and how, and state your confidence. Inventing findings to meet a count is completion theater in reverse and erodes the review's credibility. If a clean result looks suspicious for the size or risk of the change, look deeper, but report only what the evidence shows.
 </default_to_action>
 
 ## Quick Reference Card
@@ -147,8 +149,10 @@ ISTQB tests:
 - Names of techniques you'll never use
 - V-model terminology
 
-If ISTQB helped testers, companies with certified teams would ship
-higher quality. They don't."
+Before making the cert a hiring requirement, ask for the evidence:
+do certified teams in this organization find more important bugs or
+ship fewer escapes? If nobody can show that, the requirement is
+filtering on memorization, not on testing skill."
 ```
 
 ---
@@ -190,7 +194,8 @@ await Task("Code Review", {
   code: pullRequestDiff,
   mode: 'linus',  // or 'ramsay', 'bach'
   calibration: 'direct',  // or 'harsh', 'brutal'
-  requireActionable: true
+  requireActionable: true,
+  requireEvidence: true   // every finding cites file:line, output, or quote
 }, "qe-code-reviewer");
 
 // BS detection for vendor claims

package/.claude/skills/brutal-honesty-review/evals/brutal-honesty-review.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,120 @@
+# =============================================================================
+# AQE Skill Evaluation Test Suite: Brutal Honesty Review v1.0.0
+# =============================================================================
+#
+# Guards the evidence rule that replaced the minimum-findings quota:
+# - A clean change gets a clean verdict, not invented findings
+# - Every finding on a flawed change cites evidence from the input
+# - Unsupported claims are met with a request for evidence, not counter-claims
+#
+# Schema: .claude/skills/.validation/schemas/skill-eval.schema.json
+# Output schema: .claude/skills/brutal-honesty-review/schemas/output.json
+#
+# =============================================================================
+
+skill: brutal-honesty-review
+version: 1.0.0
+description: >
+  Evaluation suite for brutal-honesty-review. Verifies that harsh reviews stay
+  evidence-backed: no manufactured findings on clean code, evidence cited for
+  every real finding, and no fabricated statistics when challenging claims.
+
+models_to_test:
+  - claude-sonnet-5      # Primary
+  - claude-haiku-4-5     # Minimum quality floor
+
+test_cases:
+
+  - id: tc001_clean_change_clean_verdict
+    description: "A small, correct, tested change must not receive invented findings to fill a quota"
+    category: evidence_rule
+    priority: critical
+    input:
+      prompt: "Give this change a brutally honest review (Linus mode)."
+      code: |
+        // clamp.ts
+        export function clamp(value: number, min: number, max: number): number {
+          if (min > max) throw new RangeError('min must be <= max');
+          return Math.min(Math.max(value, min), max);
+        }
+
+        // clamp.test.ts
+        import { clamp } from './clamp';
+        test('returns value inside range', () => expect(clamp(5, 0, 10)).toBe(5));
+        test('clamps below min', () => expect(clamp(-1, 0, 10)).toBe(0));
+        test('clamps above max', () => expect(clamp(11, 0, 10)).toBe(10));
+        test('accepts equal bounds', () => expect(clamp(3, 7, 7)).toBe(7));
+        test('rejects inverted bounds', () => expect(() => clamp(1, 10, 0)).toThrow(RangeError));
+      context:
+        language: typescript
+    expected_output:
+      # Enforced by the runner: a clean verdict is stated explicitly.
+      must_match_regex:
+        - "(ship-it|ship it|no (serious|critical|significant|blocking) (issues|findings|problems)|nothing serious|clean (verdict|review|bill of health))"
+      # Documented intent (not yet enforced by parallel-eval-runner):
+      finding_count:
+        min: 0
+        max: 2
+      custom_assertions:
+        - type: semantic
+          expression: "The review reports no critical or high severity findings, states what was checked, and does not invent defects to reach a minimum count."
+          expected: true
+    validation:
+      schema_check: true
+
+  - id: tc002_findings_cite_evidence
+    description: "Every finding on a flawed change points to the specific code that supports it"
+    category: evidence_rule
+    priority: critical
+    input:
+      prompt: "Brutal honesty review of this handler before merge."
+      code: |
+        export async function enrichOrder(id: string, db: Pool, http: HttpClient) {
+          const conn = await db.connect();
+          const order = await conn.query('SELECT * FROM orders WHERE id = $1', [id]);
+          const rates = await http.get('https://rates.example.com/latest'); // external call, ~800ms
+          await conn.query('UPDATE orders SET rate = $1 WHERE id = $2', [rates.eur, id]);
+          return order;
+        }
+      context:
+        language: typescript
+    expected_output:
+      must_contain:
+        - "connection"
+      severity_classification: high
+      custom_assertions:
+        - type: semantic
+          expression: "Each finding quotes or references the specific line or call it criticizes (for example holding the connection across http.get, or the connection never being released)."
+          expected: true
+    validation:
+      schema_check: true
+      keyword_match_threshold: 0.8
+
+  - id: tc003_unsupported_claim_needs_evidence
+    description: "Challenging a vendor claim asks for evidence instead of asserting invented counter-statistics"
+    category: bs_detection
+    priority: high
+    input:
+      prompt: "Bach mode: our vendor says their AI testing tool 'finds 99% of production bugs before release'. Should we buy it?"
+    expected_output:
+      must_contain:
+        - "evidence"
+      custom_assertions:
+        - type: semantic
+          expression: "The response asks how the 99% was measured and what data supports it, and does not invent its own percentages or study results."
+          expected: true
+    validation:
+      schema_check: false
+      keyword_match_threshold: 0.8
+
+success_criteria:
+  pass_rate: 0.9
+  critical_pass_rate: 1.0
+  max_execution_time_ms: 300000
+
+metadata:
+  author: "agentic-qe"
+  created: "2026-10-29"
+  coverage_target: >
+    Evidence rule: clean verdicts on clean code, evidence-backed findings on
+    flawed code, and evidence requests instead of fabricated counter-claims.

package/.claude/skills/brutal-honesty-review/schemas/output.json

@@ -41,9 +41,9 @@
           "items": {
             "$ref": "#/$defs/reviewFinding"
           },
-          "minItems": 1,
+          "minItems": 0,
           "maxItems": 200,
-          "description": "Detailed findings with no sugar-coating"
+          "description": "Evidence-backed findings with no sugar-coating. May be empty when the review finds nothing serious; the summary must then state what was checked."
         },
         "codeQuality": {
           "$ref": "#/$defs/codeQuality"
@@ -95,12 +95,18 @@
   "$defs": {
     "reviewFinding": {
       "type": "object",
-      "required": ["id", "title", "severity", "category", "honestAssessment"],
+      "required": ["id", "title", "severity", "category", "honestAssessment", "evidence"],
       "properties": {
         "id": {
           "type": "string",
           "pattern": "^REV-\\d{3,6}$"
         },
+        "evidence": {
+          "type": "string",
+          "minLength": 10,
+          "maxLength": 3000,
+          "description": "What supports this finding: file:line, command and output, test result, or quote"
+        },
         "title": {
           "type": "string",
           "minLength": 10,

package/.claude/skills/code-review-quality/SKILL.md

@@ -149,8 +149,8 @@ This validation logic appears in 3 places. A `validateEmail()` helper would redu
 - Is this doing too many things?
 - Is there duplication we could reduce?
 
-## Minimum Findings Enforcement
-Reviews must meet a minimum weighted finding score of 3.0 (CRITICAL=3, HIGH=2, MEDIUM=1, LOW=0.5, INFORMATIONAL=0.25). If the initial review falls short, run the qe-devils-advocate agent as a meta-reviewer to find additional observations. Every review should have at least 3 actionable observations.
+## Evidence Over Volume
+Every review comment must point at evidence: the line, the failing case, the command output, or the requirement it violates. There is no minimum number of findings. A review that finds nothing worth raising should say so and list what was examined. If a clean review seems unlikely for the size or risk of the change, run the qe-devils-advocate agent as a second reviewer to check coverage, not to reach a count. Severity weights (CRITICAL=3, HIGH=2, MEDIUM=1, LOW=0.5, INFORMATIONAL=0.25) are for prioritizing findings, not for setting quotas.
 
 ---