sequant 2.7.0 → 2.8.0

package/dist/marketplace/external_plugins/sequant/skills/qa/references/quality-gates.md

@@ -10,14 +10,67 @@ Combine agent outputs into a unified quality assessment:
 | Scope/Size Checker | Files changed, LOC, assessment | Medium - warning if very large |
 | Security Scanner | Critical/warning/info counts | High - blocking if criticals > 0 |
 | Semgrep Static Analysis | Critical/warning findings | High - blocking if criticals > 0 |
+| Test Tautology Detector | Tautological test count, percentage | High - blocking if >50% tautological |
 | RLS Checker (conditional) | Violations found | High - blocking if violations |
 
 **Synthesis Rules:**
 - **Any FAIL verdict** → Flag as blocker in manual review
 - **Security criticals (including Semgrep)** → Block merge, require fix before proceeding
+- **Build regression detected** → Block merge, require fix before proceeding
+- **Test tautology >50%** → Block merge, tests provide no regression protection
 - **All PASS** → Proceed with confidence to manual review
 - **WARN verdicts** → Note in review, verify manually
 
+## Build Verification
+
+When `npm run build` fails on the feature branch, QA must verify whether the failure is a regression (new) or pre-existing (already on main).
+
+### Verification Logic
+
+| Feature Build | Main Build | Error Match | Classification |
+|---------------|------------|-------------|----------------|
+| ❌ Fail | ✅ Pass | N/A | **Regression** - failure introduced by PR |
+| ❌ Fail | ❌ Fail | Same error | **Pre-existing** - not blocking |
+| ❌ Fail | ❌ Fail | Different | **Unknown** - requires manual review |
+| ✅ Pass | * | N/A | N/A - no verification needed |
+
+### Verdict Mapping
+
+| Build Verification Result | QA Verdict Impact |
+|---------------------------|-------------------|
+| **Regression detected** | **BLOCKING** - `AC_NOT_MET`, must fix before merge |
+| **Pre-existing failure** | Non-blocking - document and proceed |
+| **Unknown (different errors)** | `AC_MET_BUT_NOT_A_PLUS` - manual review recommended |
+| **Build passes** | No impact |
+
+### Output Format
+
+```markdown
+### Build Verification
+
+| Check | Status |
+|-------|--------|
+| Feature branch build | ❌ Failed |
+| Main branch build | ❌ Failed |
+| Error match | ✅ Same error |
+| Regression | **No** (pre-existing) |
+
+**Note:** Build failure is pre-existing on main branch. Not blocking this PR.
+```
+
+### Implementation
+
+The `quality-checks.sh` script includes:
+- `run_build_with_verification()` - runs build and triggers verification on failure
+- `verify_build_against_main()` - compares build results against main branch
+
+**How it works:**
+1. Run `npm run build` on feature branch
+2. If build fails, capture exit code and error output
+3. Run build on main branch (via main repo directory, not checkout)
+4. Compare exit codes and first error line
+5. Output Build Verification table with classification
+
 ## Semgrep Integration
 
 Semgrep provides static analysis for security vulnerabilities and anti-patterns.
@@ -59,6 +112,71 @@ Semgrep uses stack-specific rulesets for targeted analysis:
 
 Projects can add custom rules in `.sequant/semgrep-rules.yaml`. These are loaded alongside stack rules automatically.
 
+## Test Tautology Detection
+
+Tautological tests are tests that pass but don't call any production code. They provide zero regression protection as they only assert on local values.
+
+### Detection Logic
+
+A test block is flagged as tautological if:
+1. It's an `it()` or `test()` block
+2. It contains zero calls to functions imported from source modules
+3. Source modules are relative imports (`./`, `../`) excluding mocks/fixtures/test libraries
+
+### Verdict Mapping
+
+| Tautology Result | QA Verdict Impact |
+|------------------|-------------------|
+| >50% of test blocks tautological | **BLOCKING** - `AC_NOT_MET` |
+| 1-50% of test blocks tautological | Warning - `AC_MET_BUT_NOT_A_PLUS` |
+| 0% tautological | No impact |
+| No test blocks in diff | No impact (skipped) |
+
+### Output Format
+
+```markdown
+### Test Quality Review
+
+| Category | Status | Notes |
+|----------|--------|-------|
+| Tautology Check | ⚠️ WARN | 2 tautological test blocks found (25%) |
+
+**Tautological Tests Found:**
+- `src/lib/foo.test.ts:45` - `it("should work")` - No production function calls
+- `src/lib/bar.test.ts:12` - `test("validates")` - No production function calls
+```
+
+### Example - Tautological vs Real Test
+
+```typescript
+// TAUTOLOGICAL — flags as warning/blocker
+import { executePhaseWithRetry } from "./run.js";
+it("should retry", () => {
+  const retry = true;
+  expect(retry).toBe(true);  // No production function called!
+});
+
+// REAL — this is fine
+import { executePhaseWithRetry } from "./run.js";
+it("should retry", async () => {
+  const result = await executePhaseWithRetry(123, "exec", config, ...);
+  expect(result.success).toBe(true);  // Calls production function
+});
+```
+
+### Implementation
+
+The `quality-checks.sh` script includes:
+- Tautology detector CLI: `scripts/qa/tautology-detector-cli.ts`
+- Detection library: `src/lib/test-tautology-detector.ts`
+
+**How it works:**
+1. Get test files from `git diff main...HEAD`
+2. For each test file, extract imports and test blocks
+3. Check if any imported production function is called within each test block
+4. Report tautological tests with file:line references
+5. Block if >50% of test blocks are tautological
+
 ## Verdict Criteria
 
 ### `READY_FOR_MERGE`
@@ -73,10 +191,12 @@ Must meet ALL of:
 - ✅ Reversibility Test: Clean revert possible
 - ✅ **Adversarial Test: Failure path tested**
 - ✅ **Edge Case Test: At least 1 edge case per AC tested**
+- ✅ **Execution Evidence: Complete or waived** (see below)
 
 ### `AC_MET_BUT_NOT_A_PLUS`
 
 AC met, but one or more issues:
+
 - ⚠️ Minor scope creep (1-2 extra files)
 - ⚠️ Over-engineering (abstraction not required)
 - ⚠️ Size larger than expected but justified
@@ -99,6 +219,7 @@ All AC items are `MET`, but one or more items have `PENDING` status requiring ex
 ### `AC_NOT_MET`
 
 Any of:
+
 - ❌ One or more AC items `NOT_MET` or `PARTIALLY_MET`
 - ❌ Deleted tests without justification
 - ❌ Major scope creep (many unrelated files)
@@ -139,6 +260,65 @@ Any of:
 
 **Important:** `PARTIALLY_MET` is NOT sufficient for merge. It must be treated as `NOT_MET` for verdict purposes.
 
+## CI Status Impact on Verdict
+
+**Purpose:** CI status directly affects verdict when AC items depend on CI (e.g., "Tests pass in CI").
+
+### CI Status Mapping
+
+| State | Bucket | AC Status | Verdict Impact |
+|-------|--------|-----------|----------------|
+| `SUCCESS` | `pass` | `MET` | No impact |
+| `FAILURE` | `fail` | `NOT_MET` | Blocks merge |
+| `CANCELLED` | `fail` | `NOT_MET` | Blocks merge |
+| `SKIPPED` | `pass` | `N/A` | No impact |
+| `PENDING` | `pending` | `PENDING` | → `NEEDS_VERIFICATION` |
+| `QUEUED` | `pending` | `PENDING` | → `NEEDS_VERIFICATION` |
+| `IN_PROGRESS` | `pending` | `PENDING` | → `NEEDS_VERIFICATION` |
+| (no checks) | - | `N/A` | No CI configured |
+
+### CI-Related AC Detection
+
+Identify AC items that depend on CI by matching patterns:
+- "Tests pass in CI"
+- "CI passes"
+- "Build succeeds in CI"
+- "GitHub Actions pass"
+- "Pipeline passes"
+- "Workflow passes"
+- "Checks pass"
+- "Actions succeed"
+- "CI/CD passes"
+
+### Error Handling
+
+If `gh pr checks` fails:
+- **`gh` not installed** → Skip CI section: "CI status unavailable (gh CLI not found)"
+- **`gh` not authenticated** → Skip CI section: "CI status unavailable (gh auth required)"
+- **Network/auth error** → Treat as N/A: "CI status unavailable"
+- **No PR exists** → Skip CI check entirely
+- **Empty response** → No CI configured (not an error)
+
+**Portability:** CI detection requires GitHub (`gh` CLI). GitLab, Bitbucket, Azure DevOps not supported.
+
+### CI Verdict Rules
+
+1. **CI failure → AC_NOT_MET:** Any failed CI check that maps to an AC item means that AC is NOT_MET
+2. **CI pending → NEEDS_VERIFICATION:** If CI is still running for a CI-related AC, verdict is NEEDS_VERIFICATION
+3. **No CI configured → N/A:** Mark CI-related AC items as N/A, don't block on missing CI
+4. **CI success → MET:** CI-related AC items are MET when all relevant checks pass
+
+**Example Scenario:**
+
+```markdown
+AC-1: "Feature implemented" → MET (code review)
+AC-2: "Tests pass locally" → MET (npm test passed)
+AC-3: "Tests pass in CI" → PENDING (CI in progress)
+AC-4: "Docs updated" → MET (README updated)
+
+Verdict: NEEDS_VERIFICATION (due to AC-3 PENDING)
+```
+
 ## Code Review Decision Framework
 
 ### 1. Purpose Test
@@ -177,3 +357,110 @@ Any of:
 - **Unintegrated exports**: ⚠️ Warning only
 - **Security criticals** > 0: ❌ Blocker
 - **Security warnings** > 0: ⚠️ Review each case
+
+---
+
+## Execution Evidence Requirements
+
+### Purpose
+
+QA must actually execute code for scripts/CLI changes, not just review it. Analysis of 34 run logs shows zero `/loop` phases triggered - QA passes every time without catching runtime issues.
+
+### Change Type Detection
+
+Determine execution requirement based on what files were changed:
+
+```bash
+# Detect change type
+scripts_changed=$(git diff main...HEAD --name-only | grep -E "^scripts/" | wc -l | xargs)
+cli_changed=$(git diff main...HEAD --name-only | grep -E "(cli|commands?)" | wc -l | xargs)
+ui_changed=$(git diff main...HEAD --name-only | grep -E "^(app|components|pages)/" | wc -l | xargs)
+types_only=$(git diff main...HEAD --name-only | grep -E "\.d\.ts$|^types/" | wc -l | xargs)
+tests_only=$(git diff main...HEAD --name-only | grep -E "\.test\.|\.spec\.|__tests__" | wc -l | xargs)
+```
+
+### Execution Matrix
+
+| Change Type | QA Must Execute | Example Command |
+|-------------|-----------------|-----------------|
+| `scripts/` files | ✅ Required | `npx tsx scripts/foo.ts --help` |
+| CLI commands | ✅ Required | `npx sequant <cmd> --help` or dry-run |
+| UI components | ⚠️ Via `/test` | Browser testing required |
+| Types/config only | ❌ Waiver OK | Note: "Types-only change, execution waived" |
+| Tests only | ✅ Run tests | `npm test -- --grep "feature"` |
+
+### Evidence Collection
+
+For each executable change, QA must:
+
+1. **Identify a safe smoke command:**
+   - Prefer `--help`, `--dry-run`, or `--version` flags
+   - For scripts: pass minimal safe arguments
+   - Never execute destructive operations
+
+2. **Execute and capture:**
+   ```bash
+   # Example for a script
+   npx tsx scripts/analytics.ts --help 2>&1
+   echo "Exit code: $?"
+   ```
+
+3. **Record in output:**
+   ```markdown
+   ### Execution Evidence
+
+   | Test Type | Command | Exit Code | Result |
+   |-----------|---------|-----------|--------|
+   | Smoke test | `npx tsx scripts/analytics.ts --help` | 0 | Usage info displayed ✓ |
+   | Dry run | `npx tsx scripts/migrate.ts --dry-run` | 0 | Plan shown, no changes ✓ |
+
+   **Evidence status:** Complete
+   ```
+
+### Evidence Status Definitions
+
+| Status | Definition | Verdict Eligibility |
+|--------|------------|---------------------|
+| **Complete** | All required commands executed successfully | `READY_FOR_MERGE` eligible |
+| **Incomplete** | Some commands not run or failed | `AC_MET_BUT_NOT_A_PLUS` max |
+| **Waived** | Explicit reason documented | `READY_FOR_MERGE` eligible |
+| **Not Required** | No executable changes | `READY_FOR_MERGE` eligible |
+
+### Waiver Criteria
+
+Execution can be waived with documented reason:
+
+| Waiver Reason | Example |
+|---------------|---------|
+| Types-only change | "Only `.d.ts` files modified" |
+| Config-only change | "Only `tsconfig.json` or `.eslintrc` modified" |
+| Documentation-only | "Only `.md` files modified" |
+| Test-only change | "Only test files modified, tests run via `npm test`" |
+
+**Waiver format:**
+```markdown
+### Execution Evidence
+
+**Status:** Waived
+**Reason:** Types-only change - only `.d.ts` files modified
+```
+
+### Verdict Gating
+
+| Verdict | Evidence Requirement |
+|---------|---------------------|
+| `READY_FOR_MERGE` | Evidence: Complete OR Waived (with reason) OR Not Required |
+| `AC_MET_BUT_NOT_A_PLUS` | Evidence: Incomplete + note explaining gap |
+| `AC_NOT_MET` | N/A (AC issues take precedence) |
+
+### Integration with /verify
+
+For complex CLI features, `/verify` provides more comprehensive execution testing:
+
+1. QA detects `scripts/` changes
+2. Basic smoke test in QA (--help, --dry-run)
+3. For full verification: recommend `/verify <issue> --command "..."`
+4. `/verify` posts evidence to issue
+5. Re-run QA to see verification evidence
+
+See [/verify skill](../../verify/SKILL.md) for detailed execution verification.

package/dist/marketplace/external_plugins/sequant/skills/qa/references/test-quality-checklist.md

@@ -0,0 +1,272 @@
+# Test Quality Checklist
+
+## Purpose
+
+This checklist helps QA evaluate the quality of tests added or modified during implementation. Tests that pass but don't actually validate behavior create false confidence.
+
+## When to Apply
+
+Apply this checklist when:
+- New test files are added
+- Existing test files are modified
+- AC items specifically mention testing requirements
+
+**Skip if:** No test files were added or modified.
+
+## Checklist Sections
+
+### 1. Behavior vs Implementation
+
+Tests should assert on **observable outputs**, not internal state.
+
+| Check | Pass | Fail |
+|-------|------|------|
+| Tests assert on return values, rendered output, or API responses | ✅ | ❌ Asserts on private variables or internal state |
+| Refactoring internals wouldn't require test changes | ✅ | ❌ Tests break when implementation changes but behavior doesn't |
+| Tests describe "what" not "how" | ✅ | ❌ Test names describe implementation details |
+
+**Example - Good:**
+```typescript
+it('returns user profile when authenticated', async () => {
+  const result = await getProfile(validToken);
+  expect(result.name).toBe('John');
+});
+```
+
+**Example - Bad:**
+```typescript
+it('calls internal _fetchUser method', async () => {
+  const spy = jest.spyOn(service, '_fetchUser');
+  await getProfile(validToken);
+  expect(spy).toHaveBeenCalled(); // Testing implementation, not behavior
+});
+```
+
+### 2. Coverage Depth
+
+Tests should cover more than the happy path.
+
+| Check | Pass | Fail |
+|-------|------|------|
+| Error paths tested (what happens when things fail?) | ✅ | ❌ Only success scenarios |
+| Boundary conditions tested (empty, null, max values) | ✅ | ❌ Only typical inputs |
+| Edge cases identified and tested | ✅ | ❌ Assumes inputs are always valid |
+
+**Required error path tests:**
+- [ ] Empty input handling
+- [ ] Null/undefined handling
+- [ ] Invalid format handling
+- [ ] Network/API failure handling (if applicable)
+- [ ] Permission denied handling (if applicable)
+
+### 3. Mock Hygiene
+
+Mocks should be minimal and purposeful.
+
+| Check | Pass | Fail |
+|-------|------|------|
+| Only external dependencies mocked (APIs, DB, file system) | ✅ | ❌ Internal modules mocked |
+| Not mocking the thing being tested | ✅ | ❌ Subject under test is partially mocked |
+| Mock return values match real API contracts | ✅ | ❌ Mocks return impossible data |
+| Mocks cleaned up after tests | ✅ | ❌ Mocks leak between tests |
+
+**Over-mocking indicators:**
+- More than 3 modules mocked in a single test file
+- Mock setup is longer than the test itself
+- Tests pass but feature doesn't work in production
+
+**Example - Over-mocked (bad):**
+```typescript
+jest.mock('../utils');
+jest.mock('../helpers');
+jest.mock('../validators');
+jest.mock('../formatters');
+// 4 mocks for a simple unit test = over-mocking
+```
+
+### 4. Test Reliability
+
+Tests should be deterministic and independent.
+
+| Check | Pass | Fail |
+|-------|------|------|
+| No timing-dependent assertions | ✅ | ❌ Uses setTimeout, expects specific timing |
+| Tests are deterministic (same result every run) | ✅ | ❌ Flaky tests that sometimes fail |
+| Tests are independent (order doesn't matter) | ✅ | ❌ Tests depend on previous test state |
+| Async operations properly awaited | ✅ | ❌ Fire-and-forget async calls |
+
+**Flaky test indicators:**
+- Tests that pass locally but fail in CI
+- Tests that fail intermittently
+- Tests with `setTimeout` or `sleep` calls
+- Tests that depend on system time
+
+**Use instead:**
+```typescript
+// Bad: setTimeout
+await new Promise(resolve => setTimeout(resolve, 1000));
+
+// Good: waitFor
+await waitFor(() => expect(element).toBeVisible());
+```
+
+## Common Anti-Patterns
+
+### 1. Snapshot Abuse
+
+**Problem:** Snapshots used for complex objects instead of specific assertions.
+
+**Detection:**
+Use the Glob tool to count snapshot and test files:
+```
+# Count snapshot files
+Glob(pattern="**/*.snap")  # Count results
+
+# Count test files
+Glob(pattern="**/*.test.*")  # Count results
+
+# Ratio > 0.5 may indicate overuse
+```
+
+**Flag if:**
+- Snapshots contain >50 lines
+- Snapshot changes are approved without review
+- Tests only use `toMatchSnapshot()` with no other assertions
+
+### 2. Test Data Coupling
+
+**Problem:** Tests share mutable state or depend on database seeding order.
+
+**Detection:**
+- Look for `beforeAll` that sets up shared state
+- Tests that fail when run in isolation (`it.only`)
+
+### 3. Implementation Mirroring
+
+**Problem:** Tests that duplicate the implementation logic.
+
+**Example - Bad:**
+```typescript
+it('calculates total', () => {
+  const items = [{price: 10}, {price: 20}];
+  // This mirrors the implementation exactly
+  const expected = items.reduce((sum, i) => sum + i.price, 0);
+  expect(calculateTotal(items)).toBe(expected);
+});
+```
+
+**Better:**
+```typescript
+it('calculates total', () => {
+  const items = [{price: 10}, {price: 20}];
+  expect(calculateTotal(items)).toBe(30); // Known correct value
+});
+```
+
+### 4. Tautological Tests (Automated Detection)
+
+**Problem:** Tests that pass but don't call any production code. These tests provide zero regression protection.
+
+**Detection:** Automated via `tautology-detector-cli.ts` — runs during QA quality checks.
+
+**Example - Tautological (BAD):**
+```typescript
+import { processData } from './processor';
+
+it('should process correctly', () => {
+  const result = true;  // Never calls processData!
+  expect(result).toBe(true);
+});
+```
+
+**Example - Real Test (GOOD):**
+```typescript
+import { processData } from './processor';
+
+it('should process correctly', () => {
+  const result = processData({ value: 42 });  // Actually calls production code
+  expect(result.success).toBe(true);
+});
+```
+
+**Detection Heuristic:**
+1. Extract imports from source modules (relative paths like `./`, `../`)
+2. Exclude test libraries (`vitest`, `jest`, `@testing-library`, etc.)
+3. Exclude mock/fixture imports (paths containing `mock`, `fixture`, `stub`, etc.)
+4. For each `it()` / `test()` block, check if any imported function is called
+5. Flag blocks where zero production functions are invoked
+
+**Blocking Threshold:** If >50% of test blocks in the diff are tautological, merge is blocked.
+
+## Output Format
+
+Include this section in QA output when test files are modified:
+
+```markdown
+### Test Quality Review
+
+| Category | Status | Notes |
+|----------|--------|-------|
+| Tautology Check | ✅ OK | All tests call production code |
+| Behavior vs Implementation | ✅ OK | Tests assert on outputs |
+| Coverage Depth | ⚠️ WARN | Missing error path tests |
+| Mock Hygiene | ✅ OK | Minimal mocking |
+| Test Reliability | ✅ OK | No timing dependencies |
+
+**Issues Found:**
+- `auth.test.ts:45` - Missing error path for invalid token
+- `utils.test.ts` - 4 modules mocked (over-mocking)
+
+**Suggestions:**
+1. Add test for invalid token scenario
+2. Reduce mocks in utils.test.ts to external dependencies only
+```
+
+### Tautology Check Output (Automated)
+
+When tautological tests are detected:
+
+```markdown
+### Test Quality Review
+
+| Category | Status | Notes |
+|----------|--------|-------|
+| Tautology Check | ⚠️ WARN | 2 tautological test blocks found (25%) |
+
+**Tautological Tests Found:**
+- `src/lib/foo.test.ts:45` - `it("should work")` - No production function calls
+- `src/lib/bar.test.ts:12` - `test("validates input")` - No production function calls
+
+**Verdict Impact:** 25% tautological — warning only, review tests before merge
+```
+
+When >50% are tautological (blocking):
+
+```markdown
+### Test Quality Review
+
+| Category | Status | Notes |
+|----------|--------|-------|
+| Tautology Check | ❌ FAIL | 3 tautological test blocks found (75%) |
+
+**Tautological Tests Found:**
+- `src/lib/foo.test.ts:45` - `it("should work")` - No production function calls
+- `src/lib/foo.test.ts:52` - `it("should handle input")` - No production function calls
+- `src/lib/bar.test.ts:12` - `test("validates")` - No production function calls
+
+**Verdict Impact:** >50% tautological — blocks `READY_FOR_MERGE`
+```
+
+## Verdict Impact
+
+| Test Quality | Verdict Impact |
+|--------------|----------------|
+| All checks pass | No impact |
+| 1-2 warnings | Note in QA, no verdict change |
+| Over-mocking (4+ mocks) | `AC_MET_BUT_NOT_A_PLUS` |
+| No error path tests | `AC_MET_BUT_NOT_A_PLUS` |
+| Tests mirror implementation | `AC_MET_BUT_NOT_A_PLUS` |
+| Tautological tests (1-50%) | `AC_MET_BUT_NOT_A_PLUS` |
+| **Tautological tests (>50%)** | `AC_NOT_MET` (blocker) |
+| Flaky tests introduced | `AC_NOT_MET` (blocker) |
+| Tests deleted without justification | `AC_NOT_MET` (blocker) |

package/dist/marketplace/external_plugins/sequant/skills/qa/references/testing-requirements.md

@@ -1,5 +1,45 @@
 # Testing Requirements
 
+## Test Quality Guidelines
+
+**The goal is NOT test quantity — it's transparency about what's actually being tested.**
+
+### A Quality Test:
+- **Tests behavior, not implementation details** - Assert on outputs, not internal state
+- **Covers primary use case + at least 1 failure path** - Happy path alone is insufficient
+- **Fails when the feature breaks, passes when it works** - Actually validates the feature
+- **Uses realistic inputs** - Not contrived data that never occurs in production
+
+### Avoid:
+- ❌ Tests that mock everything (tests the mocks, not the code)
+- ❌ Tests that only cover happy path (miss real failures)
+- ❌ Tests written just to hit coverage numbers (low value)
+- ❌ Snapshot tests over 50 lines (too brittle, hard to review)
+- ❌ Tests that mirror implementation (break with any refactor)
+
+### Test Value Hierarchy
+
+| Test Type | Value | When to Use |
+|-----------|-------|-------------|
+| **Integration tests** | High | Critical paths, user flows |
+| **Unit tests (behavior)** | Medium-High | Business logic, utilities |
+| **Unit tests (implementation)** | Low | Avoid - too brittle |
+| **Snapshot tests** | Low | UI components only, small snapshots |
+
+### Test-to-Code Ratio Guidelines
+
+Don't chase coverage percentages. Instead:
+
+| Change Type | Recommended Approach |
+|-------------|---------------------|
+| **Critical path** (auth, payments) | Test thoroughly - multiple scenarios |
+| **Business logic** | Test primary behavior + 1-2 edge cases |
+| **Simple utilities** | Single test covering main use case |
+| **UI tweaks** | Manual verification often sufficient |
+| **Types/config** | No tests needed |
+
+---
+
 ## Adversarial Thinking Checklist
 
 **STOP and ask these questions before any READY_FOR_MERGE verdict:**