devcouncil 0.1.0 → 0.2.0

package/src/devcouncil/verification/diff_coverage.py

@@ -0,0 +1,353 @@
+"""Diff↔coverage intersection — proof that the *changed lines* were exercised.
+
+DevCouncil's headline promise is that a passing test must prove the **new logic
+was exercised**, not merely that *some* suite exited 0. An agent can make a green
+suite pass while the changed code is never imported, never called, or shadowed by
+an unrelated passing test. This module closes that gap: it runs a task's test
+command under coverage instrumentation, then intersects the lines the tests
+actually executed with the lines the diff changed.
+
+Two failure shapes are caught:
+
+1. **Touched-but-not-exercised** — the changed file *is* in the coverage report,
+   but the changed executable lines were never executed (e.g. a passing test that
+   exercises a different branch).
+2. **Never-imported** — the changed source file is *absent* from the coverage
+   report entirely, meaning the tests never loaded it.
+
+False-positive discipline (mirrors :class:`~devcouncil.verification.verifier.Verifier`):
+this analysis only ever produces a *signal* when it has reliable data — a
+parseable diff with real hunks, a detected coverage tool, and changed *executable*
+lines to measure. When any of those is missing it returns
+``DiffCoverageResult(measured=False, ...)`` and the verifier degrades to its prior
+behaviour rather than blocking correct work. Coverage is read from the **target
+repository's** own tooling (coverage.py for Python); DevCouncil never forces its
+own coverage dependency into the project under verification.
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+import re
+from dataclasses import dataclass, field
+from pathlib import Path
+from typing import Dict, List, Optional, Set
+
+# A unified-diff hunk header: ``@@ -<old> +<newStart>[,<newLen>] @@``. We only need
+# the new-file starting line to walk added/context lines into new-file numbers.
+_HUNK_RE = re.compile(r"^@@ -\d+(?:,\d+)? \+(\d+)(?:,\d+)? @@")
+
+# Path fragments that mark a file as test code. Test files are excluded from the
+# "must be exercised" denominator: a test exercising itself is not the new logic
+# whose behaviour an acceptance criterion is about.
+_TEST_MARKERS = (
+    "/tests/",
+    "tests/",
+    "/test_",
+    "test_",
+    "_test.",
+    ".test.",
+    ".spec.",
+    "_spec.",
+    "/spec/",
+)
+
+
+def _strip_diff_prefix(path: str) -> str:
+    """Strip a leading ``a/`` or ``b/`` and normalise to forward slashes."""
+    path = path.strip().strip('"')
+    if path.startswith(("a/", "b/")):
+        path = path[2:]
+    return path.replace("\\", "/")
+
+
+def is_test_path(path: str) -> bool:
+    lowered = path.replace("\\", "/").lower()
+    return any(marker in lowered for marker in _TEST_MARKERS)
+
+
+def is_code_like(line: str) -> bool:
+    """Conservative heuristic: a non-blank line that is not a pure comment.
+
+    Used only for changed files that are *absent* from the coverage report, where
+    no authoritative executable-line set exists. Imports, ``def``/``class``,
+    decorators and statements all count; blank lines and ``#`` comments do not.
+    Kept deliberately conservative so it never inflates the denominator.
+    """
+    stripped = line.strip()
+    return bool(stripped) and not stripped.startswith("#")
+
+
+def parse_changed_lines(diff: str) -> Dict[str, Dict[int, str]]:
+    """Parse a unified diff into ``{file_path: {new_line_number: added_text}}``.
+
+    Only *added* lines (``+`` in the new file) are recorded, keyed by their line
+    number in the post-change file so they can be intersected with coverage data.
+    Deletions and context lines advance the counter but are not themselves
+    "changed lines" we require coverage for. Paths are normalised relative to the
+    repo (``a/``/``b/`` prefixes stripped, forward slashes).
+    """
+    changed: Dict[str, Dict[int, str]] = {}
+    current_file: Optional[str] = None
+    new_line = 0
+    in_hunk = False
+
+    for raw in diff.splitlines():
+        if raw.startswith("diff --git") or raw.startswith("--- "):
+            in_hunk = False
+            continue
+        if raw.startswith("+++ "):
+            target = raw[4:].strip()
+            if target == "/dev/null":
+                current_file = None
+            else:
+                current_file = _strip_diff_prefix(target)
+                changed.setdefault(current_file, {})
+            in_hunk = False
+            continue
+        if raw.startswith("@@"):
+            match = _HUNK_RE.match(raw)
+            if match:
+                new_line = int(match.group(1))
+                in_hunk = True
+            else:
+                # A header we can't number (e.g. a combined-merge ``@@@``). Stay out
+                # of hunk mode rather than mis-attribute added lines to line 0.
+                in_hunk = False
+            continue
+        if not in_hunk or current_file is None:
+            continue
+        if raw.startswith("\\"):  # ""
+            continue
+        if raw.startswith("+"):
+            changed[current_file][new_line] = raw[1:]
+            new_line += 1
+        elif raw.startswith("-"):
+            continue  # old-file only; does not advance the new-file counter
+        else:
+            new_line += 1  # context line
+
+    return {path: lines for path, lines in changed.items() if lines}
+
+
+def parse_coverage_json(data: dict, root: Path) -> "CoverageData":
+    """Extract executed and executable lines per file from ``coverage json`` output.
+
+    ``coverage.py`` reports ``executed_lines`` and ``missing_lines`` per file; their
+    union is the set of statements coverage knows are executable. Paths are
+    normalised to repo-relative POSIX so they intersect with diff paths.
+    """
+    executed: Dict[str, Set[int]] = {}
+    executable: Dict[str, Set[int]] = {}
+    files = data.get("files", {}) if isinstance(data, dict) else {}
+    for raw_path, payload in files.items():
+        if not isinstance(payload, dict):
+            continue
+        rel = _relativize(raw_path, root)
+        if rel is None:
+            continue
+        run = {int(n) for n in payload.get("executed_lines", []) or []}
+        miss = {int(n) for n in payload.get("missing_lines", []) or []}
+        executed[rel] = run
+        executable[rel] = run | miss
+    return CoverageData(executed=executed, executable=executable)
+
+
+def _relativize(raw_path: str, root: Path) -> Optional[str]:
+    candidate = Path(raw_path)
+    try:
+        if candidate.is_absolute():
+            rel = candidate.resolve().relative_to(root.resolve())
+        else:
+            rel = candidate
+    except ValueError:
+        # Outside the repo (site-packages, stdlib) — not a changed-file candidate.
+        return None
+    return rel.as_posix()
+
+
+@dataclass
+class CoverageData:
+    executed: Dict[str, Set[int]] = field(default_factory=dict)
+    executable: Dict[str, Set[int]] = field(default_factory=dict)
+
+
+@dataclass
+class DiffCoverageResult:
+    """Outcome of intersecting changed lines with executed lines.
+
+    ``measured`` is True only when there was a meaningful signal to compute — at
+    least one changed *executable* line. When False, callers must NOT treat the
+    result as evidence of a problem (false-positive discipline).
+    """
+
+    measured: bool
+    tool: str = ""
+    reason: str = ""
+    changed_executable_lines: int = 0
+    covered_changed_lines: int = 0
+    uncovered_by_file: Dict[str, List[int]] = field(default_factory=dict)
+    absent_files: List[str] = field(default_factory=list)
+
+    @property
+    def ratio(self) -> float:
+        if self.changed_executable_lines == 0:
+            return 1.0
+        return self.covered_changed_lines / self.changed_executable_lines
+
+    def summary(self) -> str:
+        if not self.measured:
+            return f"diff coverage not measured ({self.reason})" if self.reason else "diff coverage not measured"
+        pct = round(self.ratio * 100)
+        base = (
+            f"{self.covered_changed_lines}/{self.changed_executable_lines} changed lines exercised "
+            f"({pct}%) via {self.tool or 'coverage'}"
+        )
+        if self.absent_files:
+            base += f"; not imported by tests: {', '.join(self.absent_files)}"
+        return base
+
+
+def intersect(
+    changed: Dict[str, Dict[int, str]],
+    coverage: CoverageData,
+    *,
+    tool: str = "coverage.py",
+) -> DiffCoverageResult:
+    """Intersect changed lines with executed lines to measure diff coverage.
+
+    ``changed`` should already be filtered to measurable source files (e.g. ``.py``
+    non-test files). For each file present in the coverage report we use coverage's
+    authoritative executable-line set; for changed source files *absent* from the
+    report (never imported) we fall back to the conservative ``is_code_like``
+    heuristic and count those added lines as executable-but-uncovered.
+    """
+    total_executable = 0
+    total_covered = 0
+    uncovered_by_file: Dict[str, List[int]] = {}
+    absent_files: List[str] = []
+
+    for path, line_map in changed.items():
+        changed_nums = set(line_map.keys())
+        if path in coverage.executable:
+            file_executable = changed_nums & coverage.executable[path]
+            file_covered = changed_nums & coverage.executed.get(path, set())
+            total_executable += len(file_executable)
+            total_covered += len(file_covered)
+            missing = sorted(file_executable - file_covered)
+            if missing:
+                uncovered_by_file[path] = missing
+        else:
+            # Absent from the coverage report -> the tests never loaded this file.
+            code_like = sorted(num for num, text in line_map.items() if is_code_like(text))
+            if code_like:
+                total_executable += len(code_like)
+                uncovered_by_file[path] = code_like
+                absent_files.append(path)
+
+    if total_executable == 0:
+        return DiffCoverageResult(
+            measured=False,
+            tool=tool,
+            reason="no changed executable lines to measure",
+        )
+
+    return DiffCoverageResult(
+        measured=True,
+        tool=tool,
+        changed_executable_lines=total_executable,
+        covered_changed_lines=total_covered,
+        uncovered_by_file=uncovered_by_file,
+        absent_files=absent_files,
+    )
+
+
+def measurable_python_changes(changed: Dict[str, Dict[int, str]]) -> Dict[str, Dict[int, str]]:
+    """Filter parsed diff lines to Python source files (non-test) coverage.py can measure."""
+    return {
+        path: lines
+        for path, lines in changed.items()
+        if path.endswith(".py") and not is_test_path(path)
+    }
+
+
+def coverage_run_argv(
+    command_argv: List[str],
+    python: str,
+    *,
+    append: bool,
+    data_file: str,
+    source: str = ".",
+) -> Optional[List[str]]:
+    """Transform a test command's argv into a ``coverage run`` invocation.
+
+    Supports the common Python entry points. Returns ``None`` for commands that
+    cannot be instrumented (the caller then leaves diff coverage unmeasured rather
+    than guessing). ``python -c "<code>"`` is handled separately by the caller
+    because it must materialise a temp script first.
+    """
+    if not command_argv:
+        return None
+
+    prefix = [python, "-m", "coverage", "run", f"--source={source}", f"--data-file={data_file}"]
+    if append:
+        prefix.append("-a")
+
+    head = Path(command_argv[0]).name.lower()
+    if head.endswith(".exe"):  # Windows: python.exe / pytest.exe
+        head = head[:-4]
+    rest = command_argv[1:]
+
+    # python -m pytest / python -m unittest -> reuse the same module entry point.
+    if head in {"python", "python3", "py"} and len(rest) >= 2 and rest[0] == "-m":
+        module = rest[1]
+        if module in {"pytest", "unittest"}:
+            return [*prefix, "-m", module, *rest[2:]]
+        return None
+    # bare pytest -> run via the module entry point under coverage.
+    if head in {"pytest", "py.test"}:
+        return [*prefix, "-m", "pytest", *rest]
+    return None
+
+
+def inline_python_code(command_argv: List[str]) -> Optional[str]:
+    """Return the ``CODE`` of a ``python -c "CODE"`` command, else None.
+
+    DevCouncil's acceptance compiler and many planner ``expected_tests`` are inline
+    assertions (``python -c "import m; assert m.f()==1"``). These are exactly the
+    checks whose diff coverage matters, so they are instrumented via a temp script
+    (see :func:`coverage_run_script_argv`) rather than left unmeasured.
+    """
+    if len(command_argv) < 3:
+        return None
+    head = Path(command_argv[0]).name.lower()
+    if head.endswith(".exe"):
+        head = head[:-4]
+    if head in {"python", "python3", "py"} and command_argv[1] == "-c":
+        return command_argv[2]
+    return None
+
+
+def inline_script_content(code: str, root: Path) -> str:
+    """Wrap inline ``-c`` code as a script that imports like ``python -c`` would.
+
+    ``python -c`` puts the current working directory on ``sys.path``; a plain script
+    instead puts the script's own directory there. Since the temp script lives under
+    ``.devcouncil/tmp`` we re-insert the repo root so ``import <module>`` resolves the
+    same way the original inline check did.
+    """
+    return f"import sys\nsys.path.insert(0, {str(Path(root))!r})\n{code}\n"
+
+
+def coverage_run_script_argv(
+    script_path: str,
+    python: str,
+    *,
+    append: bool,
+    data_file: str,
+    source: str = ".",
+) -> List[str]:
+    """A ``coverage run`` invocation for a materialised script (used for inline checks)."""
+    prefix = [python, "-m", "coverage", "run", f"--source={source}", f"--data-file={data_file}"]
+    if append:
+        prefix.append("-a")
+    return [*prefix, script_path]

package/src/devcouncil/verification/implementation_reviewer.py

@@ -1,55 +1,55 @@
-import json
-from typing import List
-from pydantic import BaseModel
-from devcouncil.domain.task import Task
-from devcouncil.domain.requirement import Requirement
-from devcouncil.domain.gap import Gap
-from devcouncil.llm.router import ModelRouter
-from devcouncil.utils.redaction import redact_string
-
-class ReviewOutput(BaseModel):
-    is_satisfactory: bool
-    findings: List[Gap]
-
-class ImplementationReviewer:
-    """Uses LLM to review code changes against task requirements."""
-    
-    def __init__(self, router: ModelRouter):
-        self.router = router
-
-    async def review_changes(
-        self, 
-        task: Task, 
-        requirements: List[Requirement], 
-        diff: str
-    ) -> ReviewOutput:
-        linked_reqs = [r for r in requirements if r.id in task.requirement_ids]
-        if not linked_reqs:
-            linked_reqs = requirements
-        requirements_json = json.dumps([r.model_dump() for r in linked_reqs], indent=2)
-        redacted_diff = redact_string(diff)
-        prompt = f"""
-You are an expert software reviewer. Review the following code changes against the task requirements.
-Task: {task.title}
-Description: {task.description}
-
-Requirements:
-{requirements_json}
-
-Code Diff:
-{redacted_diff}
-
-Your task is to identify if the implementation is complete, correct, and follows best practices.
-- Identify missing edge cases.
-- Identify architectural drift.
-- Identify security risks not caught by static scans.
-
-Return a JSON object with 'is_satisfactory' and a list of 'findings' (as Gap objects).
-"""
-        messages = [{"role": "user", "content": prompt}]
-        
-        return await self.router.complete_structured(
-            role="implementation_reviewer",
-            messages=messages,
-            schema=ReviewOutput
-        )
+import json
+from typing import List
+from pydantic import BaseModel
+from devcouncil.domain.task import Task
+from devcouncil.domain.requirement import Requirement
+from devcouncil.domain.gap import Gap
+from devcouncil.llm.router import ModelRouter
+from devcouncil.utils.redaction import redact_string
+
+class ReviewOutput(BaseModel):
+    is_satisfactory: bool
+    findings: List[Gap]
+
+class ImplementationReviewer:
+    """Uses LLM to review code changes against task requirements."""
+    
+    def __init__(self, router: ModelRouter):
+        self.router = router
+
+    async def review_changes(
+        self, 
+        task: Task, 
+        requirements: List[Requirement], 
+        diff: str
+    ) -> ReviewOutput:
+        linked_reqs = [r for r in requirements if r.id in task.requirement_ids]
+        if not linked_reqs:
+            linked_reqs = requirements
+        requirements_json = json.dumps([r.model_dump() for r in linked_reqs], indent=2)
+        redacted_diff = redact_string(diff)
+        prompt = f"""
+You are an expert software reviewer. Review the following code changes against the task requirements.
+Task: {task.title}
+Description: {task.description}
+
+Requirements:
+{requirements_json}
+
+Code Diff:
+{redacted_diff}
+
+Your task is to identify if the implementation is complete, correct, and follows best practices.
+- Identify missing edge cases.
+- Identify architectural drift.
+- Identify security risks not caught by static scans.
+
+Return a JSON object with 'is_satisfactory' and a list of 'findings' (as Gap objects).
+"""
+        messages = [{"role": "user", "content": prompt}]
+        
+        return await self.router.complete_structured(
+            role="implementation_reviewer",
+            messages=messages,
+            schema=ReviewOutput
+        )

package/src/devcouncil/verification/next_actions.py

@@ -0,0 +1,189 @@
+"""Typed, machine-actionable next actions derived from verification gaps.
+
+A human-readable "here is what's wrong" report is fine for a person, but an agent
+in a closed loop needs a structured contract it can route on without parsing
+prose. ``build_next_actions`` turns the gaps from a verification run into a list of
+:class:`NextAction` records — ``{category, action, file, line, missing_evidence,
+suggested_command}`` — so a coding agent (over MCP) can self-repair and re-verify
+without a human pasting anything.
+
+The mapping is deterministic. Where a gap was created with explicit hints
+(``gap.file``/``gap.line``/``gap.suggested_command``) those are used directly; when
+a gap is reloaded from the database (which does not persist those hint columns) the
+fields are reconstructed best-effort from the gap's evidence and description.
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from typing import List, Optional
+
+from pydantic import BaseModel, Field
+
+from devcouncil.domain.gap import Gap
+
+# Machine-routable buckets an agent can branch on. Kept small and stable so the
+# contract is predictable across releases.
+Category = str
+
+_CATEGORY_BY_GAP_TYPE = {
+    "orphan_diff": "scope",
+    "planned_file_not_changed": "scope",
+    "dependency_risk": "scope",
+    "test_failed": "fix_code",
+    "invalid_verification_command": "fix_verification",
+    "acceptance_criteria_unproven": "add_test",
+    "diff_not_exercised": "add_test",
+    "missing_test": "add_test",
+    "security_risk": "security",
+    "architecture_drift": "review",
+    "assumption_violated": "review",
+    "migration_gap": "fix_code",
+    "requirement_not_planned": "plan",
+    "task_not_implemented": "plan",
+}
+
+
+class NextAction(BaseModel):
+    """One concrete, routable step the agent can take to clear a gap."""
+
+    gap_id: str
+    gap_type: str
+    category: Category
+    severity: str
+    blocking: bool
+    action: str
+    file: Optional[str] = None
+    line: Optional[int] = None
+    acceptance_criterion_id: Optional[str] = None
+    expected_verification_method: Optional[str] = None
+    missing_evidence: Optional[str] = None
+    suggested_command: Optional[str] = None
+    evidence: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)
+    # Paths to the captured stdout/stderr logs for the failing command behind this
+    # gap, so the agent can open the full failure output without re-running. Present
+    # only on a fresh verify run (the gap store does not persist them).
+    stdout_path: Optional[str] = None
+    stderr_path: Optional[str] = None
+
+
+def _looks_like_path(value: str) -> bool:
+    value = value.strip()
+    if not value or " " in value or "\n" in value:
+        return False
+    return "/" in value or "." in value
+
+
+def _derive_file(gap: Gap) -> Optional[str]:
+    if gap.file:
+        return gap.file
+    for item in gap.evidence:
+        if isinstance(item, str) and _looks_like_path(item):
+            return item
+    return None
+
+
+def _action_text(gap: Gap, file: Optional[str]) -> str:
+    target = file or "the affected file"
+    if gap.gap_type == "orphan_diff":
+        return f"Revert changes to {target} or add it to the task's planned files."
+    if gap.gap_type == "planned_file_not_changed":
+        return f"Modify {target} as planned, or remove it from the task's planned files."
+    if gap.gap_type == "dependency_risk":
+        return f"Justify or revert the unplanned dependency/config change in {target}."
+    if gap.gap_type == "test_failed":
+        cmd = gap.suggested_command
+        return f"Fix the failing check, then re-run: {cmd}" if cmd else "Fix the failing verification check, then re-verify."
+    if gap.gap_type == "invalid_verification_command":
+        return "Replace the unrunnable verification command with a single runnable command, then re-verify."
+    if gap.gap_type == "diff_not_exercised":
+        loc = f" ({target}{':' + str(gap.line) if gap.line else ''})" if file else ""
+        return f"Add or extend a test that executes the changed lines{loc}, then re-verify."
+    if gap.gap_type in {"acceptance_criteria_unproven", "missing_test"}:
+        return "Provide a passing verification command that proves this acceptance criterion."
+    if gap.gap_type == "security_risk":
+        return "Remove the detected secret/finding from the diff and rotate any exposed credential."
+    if gap.gap_type == "architecture_drift":
+        return "Address the flagged change or resolve the open critique card, then re-verify."
+    # Fall back to the gap's own recommended fix for anything unmapped.
+    return gap.recommended_fix
+
+
+def _missing_evidence(gap: Gap) -> Optional[str]:
+    """A concrete description of WHAT evidence is missing — not a restatement of the
+    description.
+
+    For an unproven acceptance criterion we name the criterion and the expected
+    verification method (and, where the verifier knew one, the expected check command
+    via ``gap.suggested_command``) so the agent can author the right proof rather than
+    re-reading prose. Falls back to the gap description for the other add-test gap
+    types (diff_not_exercised, missing_test) which already carry concrete locations."""
+    if gap.gap_type == "acceptance_criteria_unproven":
+        parts: List[str] = []
+        ac = gap.acceptance_criterion_id
+        method = gap.expected_verification_method
+        if ac:
+            parts.append(f"No passing evidence for acceptance criterion {ac}")
+        else:
+            parts.append("No passing acceptance evidence")
+        if method:
+            parts.append(f"expected verification method: {method}")
+        if gap.suggested_command:
+            parts.append(f"run/repair check: {gap.suggested_command}")
+        elif gap.file:
+            loc = f"{gap.file}:{gap.line}" if gap.line else gap.file
+            parts.append(f"uncovered: {loc}")
+        return "; ".join(parts)
+    if gap.gap_type in {"diff_not_exercised", "missing_test"}:
+        return gap.description
+    return None
+
+
+def next_action_for(gap: Gap) -> NextAction:
+    file = _derive_file(gap)
+    return NextAction(
+        gap_id=gap.id,
+        gap_type=gap.gap_type,
+        category=_CATEGORY_BY_GAP_TYPE.get(gap.gap_type, "review"),
+        severity=gap.severity,
+        blocking=gap.blocking,
+        action=_action_text(gap, file),
+        file=file,
+        line=gap.line,
+        acceptance_criterion_id=gap.acceptance_criterion_id,
+        expected_verification_method=gap.expected_verification_method,
+        missing_evidence=_missing_evidence(gap),
+        suggested_command=gap.suggested_command,
+        evidence=list(gap.evidence),
+        stdout_path=gap.stdout_path,
+        stderr_path=gap.stderr_path,
+    )
+
+
+def build_next_actions(gaps: List[Gap], *, blocking_only: bool = True) -> List[NextAction]:
+    """Build the next-actions contract from verification gaps.
+
+    By default only *blocking* gaps become next actions — those are what the agent
+    must clear to pass verification. Pass ``blocking_only=False`` to include
+    advisory signals (non-blocking gaps) as well. Blocking actions are ordered
+    first, then by severity.
+    """
+    selected = [g for g in gaps if g.blocking] if blocking_only else list(gaps)
+    severity_rank = {"critical": 0, "high": 1, "medium": 2, "low": 3}
+    selected.sort(key=lambda g: (not g.blocking, severity_rank.get(g.severity, 4)))
+    return [next_action_for(gap) for gap in selected]
+
+
+def split_next_actions(gaps: List[Gap]) -> tuple[List[NextAction], List[NextAction]]:
+    """Return ``(blocking_actions, advisory_actions)``.
+
+    Blocking actions are what the agent MUST clear to pass the gate. Advisory
+    actions are non-blocking signals worth acting on — most importantly the
+    diff↔coverage ``diff_not_exercised`` finding ("tests passed but the new code
+    was never run") and security/add-test hints, which ``build_next_actions``
+    filters out by default. Surfacing them as a distinct array lets an autonomous
+    agent improve quality without confusing them with the pass/fail gate.
+    """
+    all_actions = build_next_actions(gaps, blocking_only=False)
+    blocking = [a for a in all_actions if a.blocking]
+    advisory = [a for a in all_actions if not a.blocking]
+    return blocking, advisory