testaro 60.6.0 → 60.7.0

package/UPGRADES.md

@@ -1,15 +1,16 @@
 # Major decisions for JavaScript to TypeScript conversion
+
 _Exported on 9/24/2025 at 20:24:42 PDT from Cursor (1.6.45)_
 
 ---
 
-**User**
+## User
 
 What are the major decisions that will be required if this entire repository is converted from JavaScript to TypeScript?
 
 ---
 
-**Cursor**
+## Cursor
 
 I'll scan key files to understand the current setup (module system, scripts, dependencies) so I can tailor the TypeScript migration decisions to this repo’s specifics.
 
@@ -357,13 +358,11 @@ I'll quickly scan for module patterns and JSON imports across the repo to tailor
 
 - **Long-term benefits**
   - Decide which parts gain the most from rich typing first (job/act schema, rule registry, Playwright helpers).
-
-
-- Converted the repo’s needs into concrete decision points covering module format, build/run, tsconfig, domain typing, dynamic loading, child-process pathing, 3rd‑party types, and CI/publishing impacts.
+  - Converted the repo’s needs into concrete decision points covering module format, build/run, tsconfig, domain typing, dynamic loading, child-process pathing, 3rd‑party types, and CI/publishing impacts.
 
 ---
 
-**User**
+## User prompt about ES
 
 Another conversion that I want to consider for this project is a conversion from commonJS to ES modules. I have two questions about this:
 (1) What are the major decisions that will be required if the project is to undergo that conversion?
@@ -371,101 +370,113 @@ Another conversion that I want to consider for this project is a conversion from
 
 ---
 
-**Cursor**
+## Cursor response about ES
 
 I'll analyze the current codebase to understand the CommonJS patterns and then address both your questions about ES module conversion and the efficiency of combining it with TypeScript conversion.
 
-
 Now let me examine some more files to understand the module patterns better:
 
-
 Now let me check some dynamic require patterns and child process usage:
 
-
 Based on my analysis of the codebase, I can now provide comprehensive answers to both questions about CommonJS to ES modules conversion and the efficiency of combining it with TypeScript conversion.
 
 ## (1) Major decisions for CommonJS to ES modules conversion
 
-### **Module system and package.json changes**
+### Module system and package.json changes
+
 - **`package.json` `"type"` field**: Set to `"module"` to enable ES modules by default, or use `.mjs` extensions
 - **Entry point updates**: Update `"main"` field and potentially add `"exports"` map for dual CJS/ESM support
 - **Script execution**: All `package.json` scripts will need to handle ES modules (may need `--loader` flags or different execution)
 
-### **Import/export syntax conversion**
+### Import/export syntax conversion
+
 - **134 `require()` calls** need conversion to `import` statements
 - **91 `exports.` assignments** need conversion to `export` statements
 - **2 `module.exports`** need conversion to `export default`
 - **Dynamic requires**: The codebase has dynamic `require()` calls like `require(\`../tests/${which}\`)` that need special handling
 
-### **Child process and dynamic loading**
+### Child process and dynamic loading
+
 - **`child_process.fork` paths**: Currently forks `${__dirname}/procs/doTestAct` - need to handle ES module paths
 - **Dynamic module loading**: `tests/testaro.js` dynamically loads rule modules by filename - requires `import()` or registry pattern
 - **Circular dependencies**: Current `require()` patterns may have circular deps that need restructuring
 
-### **Node.js built-in modules**
+### Node.js built-in modules
+
 - **`fs/promises`**: Already using modern Node.js APIs, should work with ES modules
 - **`child_process`**: Fork paths need adjustment for ES module execution
 - **`os`, `path`**: Standard Node.js modules, should work fine
 
-### **Third-party dependencies**
+### Third-party dependencies
+
 - **Playwright ecosystem**: Need to verify all dependencies support ES modules
 - **QualWeb, Alfa, etc.**: Check if these packages have ES module exports
 - **`dotenv`**: May need different import syntax or configuration
 
-### **File extensions and resolution**
+### File extensions and resolution
+
 - **`.js` to `.mjs`**: Decide whether to rename files or use `"type": "module"`
 - **JSON imports**: Currently using `fs.readFile()` for JSON - could use `import` with `resolveJsonModule`
 - **Relative imports**: All relative paths need explicit `.js` extensions in ES modules
 
-### **Runtime behavior changes**
+### Runtime behavior changes
+
 - **`__dirname` and `__filename`**: Not available in ES modules, need `import.meta.url` equivalents
 - **Top-level await**: ES modules support top-level await, could simplify some async patterns
 - **Strict mode**: ES modules are always in strict mode
 
-### **Backward compatibility**
+### Backward compatibility
+
 - **Dual package support**: Consider supporting both CJS and ESM for external consumers
 - **Migration strategy**: Gradual vs. all-at-once conversion
 - **External API**: How this affects consumers of the library
 
 ## (2) Efficiencies of combining TypeScript and ES modules conversion
 
-### **Significant synergies exist:**
+### Significant synergies exist
+
+#### Single migration effort
 
-#### **Single migration effort**
 - **One codebase transformation** instead of two separate major changes
 - **Unified tooling setup**: TypeScript compiler can handle both syntax conversion and type checking
 - **Single testing cycle**: Validate both module system and type safety together
 
-#### **TypeScript ES module advantages**
+#### TypeScript ES module advantages
+
 - **Better ES module support**: TypeScript has excellent ES module tooling
 - **`moduleResolution: "nodenext"`**: TypeScript's modern module resolution works well with ES modules
 - **Import/export typing**: TypeScript can type ES module imports more precisely than CommonJS
 
-#### **Reduced complexity**
+#### Reduced complexity
+
 - **No intermediate state**: Avoid having to maintain both CommonJS and TypeScript simultaneously
 - **Single build pipeline**: One compilation step handles both transformations
 - **Unified tooling**: ESLint, Prettier, etc. can be configured once for both
 
-#### **Modern development experience**
+#### Modern development experience
+
 - **Native ES module support**: TypeScript + ES modules is the modern standard
 - **Better tree shaking**: ES modules enable better dead code elimination
 - **Future-proof**: Aligns with JavaScript ecosystem direction
 
-### **Potential challenges of combined approach:**
+### Potential challenges of combined approach
+
+#### Complexity management
 
-#### **Complexity management**
 - **Two major changes at once**: Higher risk of introducing bugs
 - **Debugging difficulty**: Harder to isolate whether issues are from module conversion or type conversion
 - **Learning curve**: Team needs to understand both changes simultaneously
 
-#### **Migration strategy**
+#### Migration strategy
+
 - **All-or-nothing**: Harder to do incremental migration
 - **Testing complexity**: Need to validate both module loading and type correctness
 - **Rollback difficulty**: Harder to rollback one change without the other
 
-### **Recommended approach:**
+### Recommended approach
+
+#### Sequential with overlap (Most efficient)
 
-#### **Sequential with overlap** (Most efficient)
 1. **Phase 1**: Convert to TypeScript while keeping CommonJS
    - Add TypeScript tooling and types
    - Convert syntax to TypeScript
@@ -476,41 +487,48 @@ Based on my analysis of the codebase, I can now provide comprehensive answers to
    - Convert `require`/`exports` to `import`/`export`
    - Handle dynamic loading with typed `import()`
 
-#### **Benefits of this approach:**
+#### Benefits of this approach
+
 - **Incremental validation**: Can test TypeScript conversion before module conversion
 - **Type safety during module conversion**: TypeScript will catch module-related errors
 - **Familiar tooling**: TypeScript tooling handles ES module conversion well
 - **Reduced risk**: Smaller, manageable changes
 
-#### **Tooling advantages:**
+#### Tooling advantages
+
 - **TypeScript compiler**: Can transpile ES modules to CommonJS if needed during transition
 - **Better error messages**: TypeScript provides clearer errors for module issues
 - **IDE support**: Better autocomplete and refactoring for ES modules in TypeScript
 
-### **Specific efficiencies for this codebase:**
+### Specific efficiencies for this codebase
+
+#### Dynamic loading patterns
 
-#### **Dynamic loading patterns**
 - **Current**: `require(\`../tests/${which}\`)`
 - **TypeScript + ESM**: `const module = await import(\`../tests/${which}.js\`)` with proper typing
 
-#### **Child process handling**
+#### Child process handling
+
 - **Current**: `fork(\`${__dirname}/procs/doTestAct\`)`
 - **TypeScript + ESM**: Use `import.meta.url` and proper ES module paths
 
-#### **JSON handling**
+#### JSON handling
+
 - **Current**: `fs.readFile()` + `JSON.parse()`
 - **TypeScript + ESM**: `import data from './config.json' assert { type: 'json' }` with typed interfaces
 
-### **Conclusion:**
+### Conclusion
+
 **Yes, there are significant efficiencies in performing both conversions together**, especially using the sequential approach. The TypeScript tooling provides excellent support for ES module conversion, and doing both changes in a coordinated manner reduces overall migration effort while providing better type safety throughout the process.
 
 ---
 
-**User**
+## User prompt about upgrades
 
 I would like advice on an upgrade strategy. I want to consider both of the upgrades on which you have commented above.
 
 I also want to consider other modernizations, which may include:
+
 1. changing package manager from npm to pnpm
 2. joining Testaro, its closely related package Testilo, and possibly also a new closely related package creating a UI for these two pagkages into a single monorepo
 3. adding type checking
@@ -529,34 +547,38 @@ Does this strategy seem appropriate in this situation, or does a different strat
 
 ---
 
-**Cursor**
+## Cursor response about upgrades
 
 Your strategy is **excellent** and highly appropriate for this situation. You've correctly identified that attempting all upgrades simultaneously on the entire codebase would be risky and inefficient. Let me analyze why your approach is sound and suggest some refinements.
 
 ## Why your strategy is optimal
 
-### **Risk management**
+### Risk management
+
 - **Incremental validation**: Each step can be thoroughly tested before proceeding
 - **Early failure detection**: Problems surface quickly rather than after massive changes
 - **Rollback safety**: Easy to revert individual changes if issues arise
 - **Learning curve**: Team can master new patterns incrementally
 
-### **Architecture validation**
+### Architecture validation
+
 - **Design verification**: The minimal package proves the architecture works
 - **Pattern establishment**: Creates templates for subsequent additions
 - **Compatibility testing**: Ensures the chosen tool (oldest) works with all planned upgrades
 
-### **Development efficiency**
+### Development efficiency
+
 - **Parallel work**: Once patterns are established, multiple tools can be added simultaneously
 - **Reduced debugging**: Smaller scope makes issues easier to isolate and fix
 - **Continuous delivery**: Each increment can be deployed and validated
 
 ## Recommended implementation strategy
 
-### **Phase 1: Minimal Foundation (2-4 weeks)**
+### Phase 1: Minimal Foundation (2-4 weeks)
+
 Create a new monorepo with:
 
-```
+```text
 testaro-monorepo/
 ├── packages/
 │   ├── core/           # Shared utilities, types
@@ -569,24 +591,29 @@ testaro-monorepo/
 ```
 
 **Minimal testaro package should include:**
+
 - **One testing tool**: Choose the most "antiquated" one (likely `nuVal` or `htmlcs` based on your codebase)
 - **Core architecture**: Module system, typing, containerization, Playwright Test
 - **Essential features**: Job processing, report generation, basic CLI
 
-### **Phase 2: Architecture Validation (1-2 weeks)**
+### Phase 2: Architecture Validation (1-2 weeks)
+
 - **All upgrades applied**: TypeScript, ES modules, pnpm, Biome, Playwright Test, containerization
 - **Full testing**: Unit tests, integration tests, container tests
 - **Performance validation**: Ensure the architecture scales
 - **Documentation**: Establish patterns and guidelines
 
-### **Phase 3: Incremental Tool Addition (2-3 weeks per tool)**
+### Phase 3: Incremental Tool Addition (2-3 weeks per tool)
+
 Add tools in order of complexity:
+
 1. **Simple tools first**: `nuVal`, `htmlcs`, `wave`
 2. **Medium complexity**: `axe`, `ed11y`, `ibm`
 3. **Complex tools**: `alfa`, `qualWeb`, `aslint`
 4. **Testaro rules**: Add the custom accessibility rules
 
-### **Phase 4: Integration & Polish (2-4 weeks)**
+### Phase 4: Integration & Polish (2-4 weeks)
+
 - **Testilo integration**: Add Testilo package
 - **UI development**: Create the UI package
 - **Custom rules framework**: Implement the extensible rules system
@@ -594,13 +621,15 @@ Add tools in order of complexity:
 
 ## Specific recommendations for your upgrades
 
-### **1. Package manager: npm → pnpm**
+### 1. Package manager: npm → pnpm
+
 - **Start with pnpm**: Set up the monorepo with pnpm from the beginning
 - **Benefits**: Better monorepo support, faster installs, disk efficiency
 - **Migration**: Use `pnpm import` to convert existing `package-lock.json`
 
-### **2. Monorepo structure**
-```
+### 2. Monorepo structure
+
+```text
 testaro-monorepo/
 ├── pnpm-workspace.yaml
 ├── packages/
@@ -615,28 +644,33 @@ testaro-monorepo/
     └── rule-builder/            # Custom rule creation tool
 ```
 
-### **3. TypeScript + ES modules**
+### 3. TypeScript + ES modules
+
 - **Start with strict TypeScript**: `strict: true`, `noImplicitAny: true`
 - **ES modules from day one**: Use `"type": "module"` in package.json
 - **Modern tooling**: Vite or esbuild for fast builds
 
-### **4. Biome for linting**
+### 4. Biome for linting
+
 - **Replace ESLint**: Biome is faster and more modern
 - **Configuration**: Start with default rules, customize incrementally
 - **Pre-commit hooks**: Ensure code quality
 
-### **5. Playwright Test**
+### 5. Playwright Test
+
 - **Replace custom test orchestration**: Use Playwright Test's built-in features
 - **Parallel execution**: Better performance than current sequential approach
 - **Better reporting**: Built-in HTML reports and screenshots
 
-### **6. Containerization**
+### 6. Containerization
+
 - **Multi-stage Dockerfile**: Separate build and runtime stages
 - **Health checks**: Ensure container starts properly
 - **Resource limits**: Prevent crashes from memory issues
 - **Volume mounts**: For persistent data
 
-### **7. Custom rules framework**
+### 7. Custom rules framework
+
 - **Plugin architecture**: Allow external rule definitions
 - **TypeScript interfaces**: Strongly typed rule contracts
 - **Validation**: Ensure custom rules follow patterns
@@ -644,17 +678,20 @@ testaro-monorepo/
 
 ## Alternative strategies to consider
 
-### **Option A: Your proposed strategy (Recommended)**
+### Option A: Your proposed strategy (Recommended)
+
 - **Pros**: Low risk, learnable, scalable
 - **Cons**: Longer timeline, more phases
 - **Best for**: Complex codebase, team learning, production stability
 
-### **Option B: Big bang approach**
+### Option B: Big bang approach
+
 - **Pros**: Faster completion, single migration effort
 - **Cons**: High risk, difficult debugging, potential for major issues
 - **Best for**: Simple codebase, experienced team, non-production use
 
-### **Option C: Hybrid approach**
+### Option C: Hybrid approach
+
 - **Phase 1**: Create new architecture with minimal features
 - **Phase 2**: Migrate existing codebase to new architecture
 - **Phase 3**: Add remaining features
@@ -673,26 +710,29 @@ Based on your codebase analysis, I recommend starting with **`nuVal`** as your m
 
 ## Success metrics for each phase
 
-### **Phase 1 success criteria:**
+### Phase 1 success criteria
+
 - [ ] Minimal package runs without errors
 - [ ] All upgrades (TypeScript, ES modules, etc.) work
 - [ ] Container runs successfully
 - [ ] Basic CLI works
 - [ ] Report generation works
 
-### **Phase 2 success criteria:**
+### Phase 2 success criteria
+
 - [ ] Performance meets requirements
 - [ ] Memory usage is stable
 - [ ] Error handling is robust
 - [ ] Documentation is complete
 
-### **Phase 3 success criteria:**
+### Phase 3 success criteria
+
 - [ ] Each tool addition takes < 1 week
 - [ ] No regression in existing functionality
 - [ ] New patterns are established
 - [ ] Team is comfortable with process
 
-## Conclusion
+## Conclusion about upgrades
 
 Your strategy is **highly appropriate** and shows excellent engineering judgment. The incremental approach will:
 
@@ -733,11 +773,11 @@ testaro-monorepo/
 
 ---
 
-**User**
+## User comments on upgrades
 
 Comments on the above suggestions:
 
-The `nuVal` tool is one of three (also `wave` and `wax`) that operate as APIs, with the substantial disadvantage that they can test only publicly reachable pages. The `nuVal` tool could be brought into the package (see How to to run your own copy of the Nu Html Checker at @https://validator.w3.org/nu/about.html). Until then, it seems to me that it avoids presenting incompatibility problems, so I believe another tool would be better to start with. But that decision could await the start of the upgrade project.
+The `nuVal` tool is one of three (also `wave` and `wax`) that operate as APIs, with the substantial disadvantage that they can test only publicly reachable pages. The `nuVal` tool could be brought into the package (see How to to run your own copy of the [Nu Html Checker](@https://validator.w3.org/nu/about.html)). Until then, it seems to me that it avoids presenting incompatibility problems, so I believe another tool would be better to start with. But that decision could await the start of the upgrade project.
 
 I forgot to mention the modernization of validation. I am using that term in place of unit, integration, and end-to-end testing, because the entire project is a testing project and it gets confusing when the word “test” can refer both to the primary functionality of the project and the verification that the project works correctly. Currently validation is limited to the Testaro tool’s 55 or so tests. The idea behind that is that this project treats the 10 external tools like oracles that make claims, but these claims are inherently suspect, so for any tool there are 10 others that may perform their own version of any test. When tools disagree, Testaro does not try to decide which is correct. Instead, it uses Testilo to find similar tests of other tools and collect the results together so users can experience the disagreements and decide for themselves which tools are correct. Such user judgments can be collected by the UI and lead to deprecations by Testilo so that dubious tests are disregarded. Validation of the Testaro tests is currently exposed in a nonstandard way, and I want to consider converting it to a widely accepted interface.
 
@@ -745,7 +785,7 @@ I also wonder whether Turborepo should be used if the project becomes a monorepo
 
 ---
 
-**Cursor**
+## Cursor comments on upgrades
 
 Excellent clarifications! Your insights about `nuVal` and the validation approach significantly refine the strategy. Let me address your points and provide updated recommendations.
 
@@ -753,13 +793,15 @@ Excellent clarifications! Your insights about `nuVal` and the validation approac
 
 You're absolutely right about `nuVal`'s limitations. Since it requires publicly reachable pages and operates as an API, it's not ideal for the minimal package. Better alternatives for the initial tool:
 
-### **Recommended alternatives:**
+### Recommended alternatives
+
 1. **`htmlcs`** - Pure JavaScript, no external dependencies, works on any HTML
 2. **`wave`** - Also API-based, so same limitations as `nuVal`
 3. **`wax`** - API-based as well
 4. **`axe`** - Self-contained, works on any page, excellent for establishing patterns
 
 **I recommend starting with `axe`** because:
+
 - **Self-contained**: No external API dependencies
 - **Mature ecosystem**: Well-established patterns for TypeScript, ES modules, etc.
 - **Comprehensive**: Covers many accessibility rules, good for pattern establishment
@@ -770,14 +812,16 @@ You're absolutely right about `nuVal`'s limitations. Since it requires publicly
 
 Your distinction between "testing" (primary functionality) and "validation" (verification) is crucial. Here's how to modernize the validation approach:
 
-### **Current validation approach:**
+### Current validation approach
+
 - **55 Testaro tests** as oracles
 - **Cross-tool comparison** via Testilo
 - **User judgment collection** for deprecation decisions
 
-### **Modernized validation strategy:**
+### Modernized validation strategy
+
+#### 1. Standardized test interfaces
 
-#### **1. Standardized test interfaces**
 ```typescript
 // Core validation interface
 interface ValidationSuite {
@@ -793,7 +837,8 @@ interface ToolValidation extends ValidationSuite {
 }
 ```
 
-#### **2. Playwright Test integration**
+#### 2. Playwright Test integration
+
 ```typescript
 // validation/tests/axe.spec.ts
 import { test, expect } from '@playwright/test';
@@ -812,7 +857,8 @@ test.describe('Axe Tool Validation', () => {
 });
 ```
 
-#### **3. Cross-tool validation framework**
+#### 3. Cross-tool validation framework
+
 ```typescript
 // validation/tests/cross-tool.spec.ts
 test.describe('Cross-Tool Validation', () => {
@@ -830,7 +876,8 @@ test.describe('Cross-Tool Validation', () => {
 });
 ```
 
-#### **4. User judgment collection**
+#### 4. User judgment collection
+
 ```typescript
 // packages/ui/src/components/ValidationReview.tsx
 interface ValidationReview {
@@ -845,15 +892,17 @@ interface ValidationReview {
 
 **Yes, absolutely use Turborepo!** It's specifically designed for this use case and provides significant advantages:
 
-### **Turborepo benefits:**
+### Turborepo benefits
+
 - **Incremental builds**: Only rebuilds what changed
 - **Parallel execution**: Runs tasks across packages simultaneously
 - **Caching**: Intelligent caching of build artifacts
 - **Dependency management**: Tracks inter-package dependencies
 - **CI optimization**: Dramatically faster CI/CD pipelines
 
-### **Recommended monorepo structure:**
-```
+### Recommended monorepo structure
+
+```text
 testaro-monorepo/
 ├── turbo.json
 ├── pnpm-workspace.yaml
@@ -871,7 +920,8 @@ testaro-monorepo/
     └── rule-builder/            # Custom rule creation tool
 ```
 
-### **turbo.json configuration:**
+### turbo.json configuration
+
 ```json
 {
   "pipeline": {
@@ -899,7 +949,8 @@ testaro-monorepo/
 
 ## Updated minimal package strategy
 
-### **Phase 1: Minimal Foundation with `axe`**
+### Phase 1: Minimal Foundation with `axe`
+
 ```typescript
 // packages/testaro/src/tools/axe.ts
 export class AxeTool implements TestingTool {
@@ -913,7 +964,8 @@ export class AxeTool implements TestingTool {
 }
 ```
 
-### **Phase 2: Validation framework**
+### Phase 2: Validation framework
+
 ```typescript
 // packages/validation/src/suites/axe-validation.ts
 export class AxeValidationSuite implements ValidationSuite {
@@ -925,7 +977,8 @@ export class AxeValidationSuite implements ValidationSuite {
 }
 ```
 
-### **Phase 3: Cross-tool validation**
+### Phase 3: Cross-tool validation
+
 ```typescript
 // packages/validation/src/cross-tool-validator.ts
 export class CrossToolValidator {
@@ -939,35 +992,39 @@ export class CrossToolValidator {
 
 ## Implementation timeline
 
-### **Week 1-2: Minimal package with `axe`**
+### Week 1-2: Minimal package with `axe`
+
 - [ ] Set up Turborepo monorepo
 - [ ] Implement `axe` tool with all upgrades
 - [ ] Basic validation framework
 - [ ] Containerization
 
-### **Week 3-4: Validation modernization**
+### Week 3-4: Validation modernization
+
 - [ ] Playwright Test integration
 - [ ] Standardized validation interfaces
 - [ ] Cross-tool validation framework
 - [ ] User judgment collection system
 
-### **Week 5-6: Tool addition**
+### Week 5-6: Tool addition
+
 - [ ] Add second tool (e.g., `htmlcs`)
 - [ ] Validate cross-tool patterns
 - [ ] Performance testing
 
-### **Week 7-8: UI and Testilo integration**
+### Week 7-8: UI and Testilo integration
+
 - [ ] Basic UI for judgment collection
 - [ ] Testilo integration
 - [ ] Custom rules framework
 
 ## Key advantages of this approach
 
-1. **`axe` as starting point**: Self-contained, mature, well-documented
-2. **Turborepo**: Handles monorepo complexity efficiently
-3. **Modern validation**: Playwright Test provides excellent testing infrastructure
-4. **Scalable architecture**: Patterns established with `axe` apply to all tools
-5. **User-centric**: Maintains the oracle-based approach while modernizing the interface
+1. `axe` as starting point: Self-contained, mature, well-documented
+2. Turborepo: Handles monorepo complexity efficiently
+3. Modern validation: Playwright Test provides excellent testing infrastructure
+4. Scalable architecture: Patterns established with `axe` apply to all tools
+5. User-centric: Maintains the oracle-based approach while modernizing the interface
 
 This strategy addresses your concerns about `nuVal`'s limitations while providing a solid foundation for the more complex tools that follow. The validation modernization ensures the project maintains its unique value proposition while adopting modern testing practices.
 
@@ -1111,24 +1168,24 @@ export class CrossToolValidator {
 
 ---
 
-**User**
+## User comment about tool sequence
 
 But Axe is probably not the most antiquated tool. I would expect ASLint and HTML CodeSniffer to be the most antiquated. Alfa, Axe, Editoria11y, IBM Equal Access, and QualWeb are all currently being actively maintained. I have no intuition as to which of those might pose upgrade problems, but inspection could reveal that.
 
 ---
 
-**Cursor**
+## Cursor reply about tool sequence
 
 You're absolutely right! Let me analyze the tools by their maintenance status and potential upgrade challenges.
 
-
 Perfect! Now I can see the implementation details. You're absolutely correct about the maintenance status and potential upgrade challenges. Let me analyze the tools by their implementation patterns and maintenance status:
 
 ## Tool Analysis by Maintenance Status & Upgrade Challenges
 
-### **Most Antiquated (Best for initial minimal package):**
+### Most Antiquated (Best for initial minimal package)
+
+#### 1. HTML CodeSniffer (`htmlcs`) - RECOMMENDED
 
-#### **1. HTML CodeSniffer (`htmlcs`) - RECOMMENDED**
 - **Maintenance**: Squiz Labs, appears less actively maintained
 - **Implementation**: Pure JavaScript, self-contained, reads from local file
 - **Upgrade challenges**:
@@ -1138,7 +1195,8 @@ Perfect! Now I can see the implementation details. You're absolutely correct abo
   - String-based result parsing
 - **Why it's ideal**: Simple, self-contained, no external dependencies, clear patterns
 
-#### **2. ASLint (`aslint`) - SECOND CHOICE**
+#### 2. ASLint (`aslint`) - SECOND CHOICE
+
 - **Maintenance**: eSSENTIAL Accessibility, moderate maintenance
 - **Implementation**: More complex, uses bundled script from `node_modules`
 - **Upgrade challenges**:
@@ -1148,28 +1206,32 @@ Perfect! Now I can see the implementation details. You're absolutely correct abo
   - JSON result parsing
 - **Why it's good**: More modern patterns, but still self-contained
 
-### **Actively Maintained (Higher upgrade risk):**
+### Actively Maintained (Higher upgrade risk)
+
+#### 3. Axe (`axe`)
 
-#### **3. Axe (`axe`)**
 - **Maintenance**: Deque, very active
 - **Implementation**: Uses `axe-playwright` package
 - **Upgrade challenges**: Modern package, frequent updates, complex API
 
-#### **4. Alfa (`alfa`)**
+#### 4. Alfa (`alfa`)
+
 - **Maintenance**: Siteimprove, very active
 - **Implementation**: Uses `@siteimprove/alfa-*` packages
 - **Upgrade challenges**: Modern TypeScript packages, complex API
 
-#### **5. QualWeb (`qualWeb`)**
+#### 5. QualWeb (`qualWeb`)
+
 - **Maintenance**: University of Lisbon, active
 - **Implementation**: Uses `@qualweb/*` packages
 - **Upgrade challenges**: Modern packages, complex configuration
 
-## **Recommended Strategy: Start with HTML CodeSniffer**
+## Recommended Strategy: Start with HTML CodeSniffer
 
-### **Why HTML CodeSniffer is perfect for the minimal package:**
+### Why HTML CodeSniffer is perfect for the minimal package
+
+1. Simple implementation pattern:
 
-1. **Simple implementation pattern**:
    ```typescript
    // Current pattern (easy to modernize)
    const scriptText = await fs.readFile(`${__dirname}/../htmlcs/HTMLCS.js`, 'utf8');
@@ -1183,9 +1245,10 @@ Perfect! Now I can see the implementation details. You're absolutely correct abo
 4. **Established patterns**: The script injection pattern will work for other tools
 5. **Minimal complexity**: String parsing is straightforward to type
 
-### **Implementation plan for HTML CodeSniffer:**
+### Implementation plan for HTML CodeSniffer
+
+#### Phase 1: Minimal HTML CodeSniffer package
 
-#### **Phase 1: Minimal HTML CodeSniffer package**
 ```typescript
 // packages/testaro/src/tools/htmlcs.ts
 export class HTMLCodeSnifferTool implements TestingTool {
@@ -1209,7 +1272,8 @@ export class HTMLCodeSnifferTool implements TestingTool {
 }
 ```
 
-#### **Phase 2: Validation framework**
+#### Phase 2: Validation framework for HTML CodeSniffer
+
 ```typescript
 // packages/validation/src/suites/htmlcs-validation.ts
 export class HTMLCodeSnifferValidationSuite implements ValidationSuite {
@@ -1221,7 +1285,7 @@ export class HTMLCodeSnifferValidationSuite implements ValidationSuite {
 }
 ```
 
-### **Why this approach works:**
+### Why this approach works
 
 1. **Proves architecture**: HTML CodeSniffer will validate all upgrade patterns
 2. **Simple debugging**: String-based results are easy to troubleshoot
@@ -1229,30 +1293,30 @@ export class HTMLCodeSnifferValidationSuite implements ValidationSuite {
 4. **Minimal risk**: Self-contained tool reduces external dependencies
 5. **Learning curve**: Team can master patterns with simple tool first
 
-### **Tool addition order after HTML CodeSniffer:**
+### Tool addition order after HTML CodeSniffer
 
-1. **ASLint** (similar complexity, bundled script pattern)
-2. **Axe** (modern package, different patterns)
-3. **Alfa** (complex TypeScript packages)
-4. **QualWeb** (most complex, modern packages)
-5. **Testaro rules** (custom rules framework)
+1. ASLint (similar complexity, bundled script pattern)
+2. Axe (modern package, different patterns)
+3. Alfa (complex TypeScript packages)
+4. QualWeb (most complex, modern packages)
+5. Testaro rules (custom rules framework)
 
-### **Key advantages of starting with HTML CodeSniffer:**
+### Key advantages of starting with HTML CodeSniffer
 
-- **No external package dependencies** to manage during upgrades
-- **Simple string parsing** that's easy to type with TypeScript
-- **Clear script injection pattern** that applies to other tools
-- **Self-contained tool** that won't break during monorepo setup
+- No external package dependencies to manage during upgrades
+- Simple string parsing that's easy to type with TypeScript
+- Clear script injection pattern that applies to other tools
+- Self-contained tool that won't break during monorepo setup
 - **Established patterns** that can be replicated for other tools
 
 This approach gives you the most antiquated tool (as requested) while providing a solid foundation for all the planned upgrades. The patterns established with HTML CodeSniffer will directly apply to the more complex tools that follow.
 
 ```typescript
-   // Current pattern (easy to modernize)
-   const scriptText = await fs.readFile(`${__dirname}/../htmlcs/HTMLCS.js`, 'utf8');
-   const issues = await page.evaluate((scriptText, scriptNonce) => {
-     // Inject and run HTMLCS
-   }, scriptText, scriptNonce);
+// Current pattern (easy to modernize)
+const scriptText = await fs.readFile(`${__dirname}/../htmlcs/HTMLCS.js`, 'utf8');
+const issues = await page.evaluate((scriptText, scriptNonce) => {
+  // Inject and run HTMLCS
+}, scriptText, scriptNonce);
 ```
 
 ```typescript
@@ -1291,32 +1355,35 @@ export class HTMLCodeSnifferValidationSuite implements ValidationSuite {
 
 ---
 
-**User**
+## User comment on tool selection
 
 The purpose of starting with an antiquated tool was to maximize the risk of unmodernizability, but your advice is now advocating this tactic because of its ease, rather than because of its difficulty. We should be clear about the considerations that motivate our decisions.
 
 ---
 
-**Cursor**
+## Cursor reply on tool selection
 
 You're absolutely right, and I apologize for the confusion. Let me clarify the actual considerations that should motivate our decisions.
 
 ## The Real Considerations
 
-### **Primary Goal: Maximize Upgrade Risk Detection**
+### Primary Goal: Maximize Upgrade Risk Detection
+
 The purpose of starting with an antiquated tool is to **stress-test the architecture** by encountering the most challenging upgrade scenarios early. We want to discover what breaks, what's incompatible, and what requires significant rework.
 
-### **Secondary Goal: Establish Robust Patterns**
+### Secondary Goal: Establish Robust Patterns
+
 Once we've proven the architecture can handle the most difficult cases, we can confidently apply those patterns to easier tools.
 
 ## Re-evaluating Tool Selection by Upgrade Difficulty
 
-### **Most Challenging (Highest Risk) - RECOMMENDED:**
+### Most Challenging (Highest Risk) - RECOMMENDED
 
-#### **1. ASLint (`aslint`) - HIGHEST RISK**
-- **Why it's the most challenging**:
-  - **Complex dependency chain**: Uses `aslint-testaro` package with bundled script
-  - **Script injection complexity**: Multiple script elements, nonce handling, DOM waiting
+#### 1. ASLint (`aslint`) - HIGHEST RISK
+
+- Why it's the most challenging:
+  - Complex dependency chain: Uses `aslint-testaro` package with bundled script
+  - Script injection complexity: Multiple script elements, nonce handling, DOM waiting
   - **Modern package management**: Depends on `node_modules` structure
   - **Error handling**: Complex timeout and attachment logic
   - **JSON parsing**: Structured result processing
@@ -1327,8 +1394,9 @@ Once we've proven the architecture can handle the most difficult cases, we can c
   - **Monorepo**: Package dependency management
   - **Playwright Test**: Async waiting patterns
 
-#### **2. HTML CodeSniffer (`htmlcs`) - MEDIUM RISK**
-- **Why it's moderately challenging**:
+#### 2. HTML CodeSniffer (`htmlcs`) - MEDIUM RISK
+
+- Why it's moderately challenging:
   - **File system access**: `fs.readFile()` for script loading
   - **Global variable usage**: `window.HTMLCS_RUNNER` API
   - **String parsing**: Complex result processing
@@ -1337,50 +1405,56 @@ Once we've proven the architecture can handle the most difficult cases, we can c
   - **TypeScript**: String parsing typing
   - **Containerization**: File path resolution
 
-### **Least Challenging (Lowest Risk):**
+### Least Challenging (Lowest Risk)
+
+#### 3. Axe (`axe`) - LOWEST RISK
 
-#### **3. Axe (`axe`) - LOWEST RISK**
-- **Why it's easiest**:
+- Why it's easiest:
   - **Modern package**: `axe-playwright` with TypeScript support
   - **Clean API**: Well-documented, modern patterns
   - **Active maintenance**: Regular updates, good documentation
 - **Upgrade challenges**: Minimal, mostly configuration
 
-## **Recommended Strategy: Start with ASLint**
+## Recommended Strategy: Start with ASLint
 
-### **Why ASLint is the right choice for stress-testing:**
+### Why ASLint is the right choice for stress-testing
 
-1. **Maximum complexity**: Most challenging upgrade scenarios
-2. **Multiple failure points**: Script injection, file system, async waiting, JSON parsing
+1. Maximum complexity: Most challenging upgrade scenarios
+2. Multiple failure points: Script injection, file system, async waiting, JSON parsing
 3. **Modern package dependencies**: Tests monorepo package management
 4. **Containerization challenges**: File system access patterns
 5. **TypeScript complexity**: Complex typing for script injection and results
 
-### **What we'll learn from ASLint:**
+### What we'll learn from ASLint
+
+#### Module System Challenges
 
-#### **Module System Challenges:**
 - How to handle `node_modules` paths in ES modules
 - Script injection with nonce handling
 - File system access patterns
 
-#### **TypeScript Challenges:**
+#### TypeScript Challenges
+
 - Typing complex script injection
 - Result parsing and validation
 - Error handling patterns
 
-#### **Containerization Challenges:**
+#### Containerization Challenges
+
 - File system access in containers
 - Script loading and execution
 - Timeout and waiting patterns
 
-#### **Monorepo Challenges:**
+#### Monorepo Challenges
+
 - Package dependency management
 - Cross-package file access
 - Build and deployment patterns
 
-### **Implementation approach:**
+### Implementation approach
+
+#### Phase 1: Stress-test with ASLint
 
-#### **Phase 1: Stress-test with ASLint**
 ```typescript
 // This will be HARD - that's the point
 export class ASLintTool implements TestingTool {
@@ -1421,19 +1495,20 @@ export class ASLintTool implements TestingTool {
 }
 ```
 
-#### **Phase 2: Apply lessons to easier tools**
+#### Phase 2: Apply lessons to easier tools
+
 Once we've solved ASLint's challenges, HTML CodeSniffer and Axe will be straightforward.
 
-### **Success criteria for ASLint stress-test:**
+### Success criteria for ASLint stress-test
 
-- [ ] **ES modules**: File system access works with `import.meta.url`
-- [ ] **TypeScript**: Complex script injection is properly typed
-- [ ] **Containerization**: Script loading works in containers
-- [ ] **Monorepo**: Package dependencies resolve correctly
+- [ ] ES modules: File system access works with `import.meta.url`
+- [ ] TypeScript: Complex script injection is properly typed
+- [ ] Containerization: Script loading works in containers
+- [ ] Monorepo: Package dependencies resolve correctly
 - [ ] **Playwright Test**: Async waiting patterns work
 - [ ] **Error handling**: Robust error handling for all failure points
 
-### **Why this approach is correct:**
+### Why this approach is correct
 
 1. **Risk mitigation**: Discover problems early when scope is small
 2. **Pattern establishment**: Solve the hardest problems first
@@ -1441,7 +1516,7 @@ Once we've solved ASLint's challenges, HTML CodeSniffer and Axe will be straight
 4. **Learning**: Team masters complex patterns early
 5. **Efficiency**: Easier tools become trivial after solving hard ones
 
-### **Timeline expectations:**
+### Timeline expectations
 
 - **ASLint**: 3-4 weeks (stress-testing phase)
 - **HTML CodeSniffer**: 1 week (apply established patterns)
@@ -1492,7 +1567,7 @@ export class ASLintTool implements TestingTool {
 
 ---
 
-**User**
+## User prompt about packaging
 
 The recommended monorepo structure above provides for Testaro being a package. Is it wise to consider making each testing tool that is currently within Testaro a distinct package? I imagine some benefits from this:
 (1) Protection of the rest of Testaro from disruption when a particular testing tool is revised.
@@ -1501,25 +1576,28 @@ The recommended monorepo structure above provides for Testaro being a package. I
 
 ---
 
-**Cursor**
+## Cursor reply about packaging
 
 Excellent strategic thinking! Your analysis of the benefits is spot-on, and this approach would significantly improve the architecture. Let me analyze the implications and provide a refined monorepo structure.
 
 ## Benefits Analysis
 
-### **1. Isolation & Protection**
+### 1. Isolation & Protection
+
 - **Tool-specific updates**: Each tool can be updated independently
 - **Dependency isolation**: Tool-specific dependencies don't conflict
 - **Versioning**: Each tool can have its own versioning strategy
 - **Testing**: Tool-specific validation and testing
 
-### **2. Parallelization & Performance**
+### 2. Parallelization & Performance
+
 - **Horizontal scaling**: Run tools on separate servers/containers
 - **Resource optimization**: Allocate resources per tool requirements
 - **Fault tolerance**: One tool failure doesn't affect others
 - **Load balancing**: Distribute tool execution across infrastructure
 
-### **3. Custom Rules Framework**
+### 3. Custom Rules Framework
+
 - **Plugin architecture**: Each tool becomes a plugin
 - **Customer-specific tools**: Custom tools as separate packages
 - **Rule enforcement**: Tools can enforce custom business rules
@@ -1527,7 +1605,7 @@ Excellent strategic thinking! Your analysis of the benefits is spot-on, and this
 
 ## Recommended Monorepo Structure
 
-```
+```text
 testaro-monorepo/
 ├── turbo.json
 ├── pnpm-workspace.yaml
@@ -1563,8 +1641,9 @@ testaro-monorepo/
 
 ## Tool Package Structure
 
-### **Individual Tool Package Example:**
-```
+### Individual Tool Package Example
+
+```text
 packages/tools/axe/
 ├── package.json
 ├── src/
@@ -1578,7 +1657,8 @@ packages/tools/axe/
 └── README.md
 ```
 
-### **Tool Package Interface:**
+### Tool Package Interface
+
 ```typescript
 // packages/tools/axe/src/types.ts
 export interface AxeToolOptions {
@@ -1608,7 +1688,8 @@ export class AxeTool implements TestingTool {
 
 ## Core Orchestrator Package
 
-### **Testaro Main Package:**
+### Testaro Main Package
+
 ```typescript
 // packages/testaro/src/orchestrator.ts
 export class TestaroOrchestrator {
@@ -1646,7 +1727,8 @@ export class TestaroOrchestrator {
 
 ## Parallelization Architecture
 
-### **Tool Server Implementation:**
+### Tool Server Implementation
+
 ```typescript
 // apps/tool-server/src/server.ts
 export class ToolServer {
@@ -1682,7 +1764,8 @@ export class ToolServer {
 }
 ```
 
-### **Distributed Execution:**
+### Distributed Execution
+
 ```typescript
 // packages/testaro/src/distributed-executor.ts
 export class DistributedExecutor {
@@ -1723,7 +1806,8 @@ export class DistributedExecutor {
 
 ## Custom Rules Framework
 
-### **Custom Tool Package:**
+### Custom Tool Package
+
 ```typescript
 // packages/custom-tools/customer-a-rules/src/index.ts
 export class CustomerARulesTool implements TestingTool {
@@ -1758,19 +1842,22 @@ export class CustomerARulesTool implements TestingTool {
 
 ## Implementation Benefits
 
-### **1. Isolation & Protection**
+### 1. Isolation & Protection benefit
+
 - **Independent updates**: Each tool can be updated without affecting others
 - **Dependency management**: Tool-specific dependencies are isolated
 - **Versioning**: Each tool follows its own versioning strategy
 - **Testing**: Tool-specific validation and testing
 
-### **2. Parallelization & Performance**
+### 2. Parallelization & Performance benefit
+
 - **Horizontal scaling**: Tools can run on separate servers
 - **Resource optimization**: Allocate resources per tool requirements
 - **Fault tolerance**: One tool failure doesn't affect others
 - **Load balancing**: Distribute tool execution across infrastructure
 
-### **3. Custom Rules Framework**
+### 3. Custom Rules Framework benefit
+
 - **Plugin architecture**: Each tool becomes a plugin
 - **Customer-specific tools**: Custom tools as separate packages
 - **Rule enforcement**: Tools can enforce custom business rules
@@ -1778,31 +1865,35 @@ export class CustomerARulesTool implements TestingTool {
 
 ## Migration Strategy
 
-### **Phase 1: Tool Package Extraction**
+### Phase 1: Tool Package Extraction
+
 1. Extract each tool into its own package
 2. Establish common interfaces
 3. Implement tool-specific validation
 4. Test individual tool packages
 
-### **Phase 2: Orchestrator Implementation**
+### Phase 2: Orchestrator Implementation
+
 1. Implement Testaro orchestrator
 2. Add parallel execution support
 3. Implement distributed execution
 4. Test orchestrator with tool packages
 
-### **Phase 3: Custom Rules Framework**
+### Phase 3: Custom Rules Framework
+
 1. Implement custom tool interface
 2. Create example custom tools
 3. Add rule builder tool
 4. Test custom rules framework
 
-### **Phase 4: Production Deployment**
+### Phase 4: Production Deployment
+
 1. Deploy tool servers
 2. Implement load balancing
 3. Add monitoring and logging
 4. Performance optimization
 
-## Conclusion
+## Conclusion about packaging
 
 Your suggestion to make each testing tool a distinct package is **architecturally sound** and provides significant benefits:
 
@@ -2031,13 +2122,13 @@ export class CustomerARulesTool implements TestingTool {
 
 ---
 
-**User**
+## User comment about Turborepo
 
 I am beginning to doubt the wisdom of using Turborepo in a rearchitected project, because in another monorepo Turborepo is severely complicating my effort to tailor test and check output summaries to optimize the experience of the person who reads them.
 
 ---
 
-**Cursor**
+## Cursor reply about Turborepo
 
 That’s a reasonable doubt. If bespoke, human-friendly summaries are a priority, Turborepo’s log grouping/caching model can get in your way. You have three solid paths:
 
@@ -2060,6 +2151,7 @@ That’s a reasonable doubt. If bespoke, human-friendly summaries are a priority
   - Use package-level reporters (Vitest/Playwright/ESLint/Biome) as the source of truth
 
 Recommendation for your case
+
 - Use pnpm workspaces + a tiny custom runner (and/or a CI matrix) so you fully own output format and ordering, and avoid Turbo’s abstractions entirely. Add per-tool reporters that emit JSON and let a single summarizer assemble exactly the view you want. You can introduce a heavier orchestrator later if you need build graph/caching beyond what tools already provide.
 
 If you want, I can sketch the runner’s interface (inputs/filters/concurrency) and the summary artifact format so it slots cleanly into your validation flow and UI.
@@ -2241,7 +2333,7 @@ A password is required only for the local database. CAP requires no password, be
 
 It is possible to make the databases of different environments completely independent. A straightforward strategy is to equip your application with the ability to create and modify a PostgreSQL database, by making `postgres` a package dependency:
 
-```
+```json
 "dependencies": {
   "postgres": "3.4.7"
 }
@@ -2276,11 +2368,11 @@ postgres=> create database spacedb owner localuser;
 \q
 ```
 
-#### Set environment variables
+#### Set environment variables for migration
 
 Add to `~/.bash_profile`:
 
-```
+```bash
 # PostgreSQL
 export PGHOST=localhost
 export PGPORT=5432
@@ -2460,7 +2552,7 @@ describe('Database queries', () => {
 
 It is suspected that some Testaro tests are unnecessarily inefficient because they iterate across elements in a page, performing a browser operation on each and then returning a result for processing by Node. For example, in `lineHeight`:
 
-```
+```javascript
 const all = await init(100, page, 'body *', {hasText: /[^\s]/});
 // For each locator:
 for (const loc of all.allLocs) {
@@ -2481,7 +2573,7 @@ However, there is evidence that moving the processing of Playwright locators int
 
 One proposal for a rewrite of `lineHeight`, still doing sampling, was:
 
-```
+```javascript
 // Reports a test.
 exports.reporter = async (page, report) => {
   // Get data on elements with potentially invalid line heights.
@@ -2549,7 +2641,7 @@ exports.reporter = async (page, report) => {
 
 To reuse a sampling (or any other) function in multiple tests, it was proposed to store the function in a file and then inject it into the page as follows:
 
-```
+```javascript
 const getSample = require(path.join(__dirname, 'procs/sample.js')).getSample;
 const initScript = `window.getSample = ${getSample.toString()};`;
 await browserContext.addInitScript(initScript);
@@ -2564,7 +2656,7 @@ Option 1: Don't commit package-lock.json on the server (Recommended)
 
 On the server, tell git to ignore local changes to package-lock.json:
 
-```
+```bash
 # Assume package-lock.json is unchanged locally
 git update-index --assume-unchanged package-lock.json
 ```
@@ -2575,7 +2667,7 @@ Option 2: Exclude package-lock.json from version control
 
 If you don't need package-lock.json in your repo (since you use * for all versions in package.json), add it to .gitignore:
 
-```
+```bash
 echo "package-lock.json" >> .gitignore
 git rm --cached package-lock.json
 git commit -m "Stop tracking package-lock.json"
@@ -2584,7 +2676,7 @@ git push
 
 Then on the server:
 
-```
+```bash
 git pull
 npm update  # Will create package-lock.json locally but git won't track it
 ```
@@ -2593,7 +2685,7 @@ Option 3: Proper deployment workflow (Best Practice)
 
 On the server, use a deployment script instead of git pull:
 
-```
+```bash
 #!/bin/bash
 # deploy.sh
 
@@ -2618,7 +2710,7 @@ pm2 restart kilotest
 
 Make it executable and use it:
 
-```
+```bash
 chmod +x deploy.sh
 ./deploy.sh
 ```
@@ -2635,7 +2727,7 @@ Recommended Approach
 
 Use exact versions to ensure consistency across environments:
 
-```
+```json
 {
   "dependencies": {
     "dotenv": "^17.2.3",
@@ -2647,7 +2739,7 @@ Use exact versions to ensure consistency across environments:
 
 Then:
 
-```
+```bash
 # Lock versions
 npm install
 
@@ -2670,13 +2762,13 @@ You can use npm-check-updates (ncu) to automatically update version numbers in p
 
 Installation
 
-```
+```bash
 npm install -g npm-check-updates
 ```
 
 Usage
 
-```
+```bash
 # Check what would be updated
 ncu
 
@@ -2695,7 +2787,7 @@ git push
 Automate with a Script
 Add to your package.json:
 
-```
+```json
 {
   "scripts": {
     "update-deps": "ncu -u && npm install && git add package.json package-lock.json"
@@ -2705,7 +2797,7 @@ Add to your package.json:
 
 Then use:
 
-```
+```bash
 npm run update-deps
 git commit -m "chore: update dependencies"
 git push
@@ -2714,7 +2806,7 @@ git push
 More Control with Target Versions
 Instead of *, use caret ranges for automatic minor/patch updates:
 
-```
+```json
 {
   "dependencies": {
     "dotenv": "^17.2.3",      // allows 17.x.x
@@ -2734,7 +2826,7 @@ Workflow
 
 Local development:
 
-```
+```bash
 # When you want to update dependencies
 ncu -u          # Update package.json to latest versions
 npm install     # Install and lock exact versions
@@ -2746,7 +2838,7 @@ git push
 
 Server deployment:
 
-```
+```bash
 git pull                    # Gets updated package.json and package-lock.json
 npm ci                      # Installs exact locked versions
 pm2 restart kilotest
@@ -2756,7 +2848,7 @@ Alternative: Use npm's Built-in Commands
 
 For major version updates with interactive prompts:
 
-```
+```bash
 # Check outdated packages
 npm outdated
 
@@ -2776,7 +2868,7 @@ git push
 Pre-commit Hook (Optional)
 Ensure package-lock.json is always in sync:
 
-```
+```bash
 # .husky/pre-commit or .git/hooks/pre-commit
 #!/bin/sh
 if git diff --cached --name-only | grep -q "package.json"; then
@@ -2789,6 +2881,7 @@ fi
 ```
 
 Recommended Setup
+
 1. Change * to ^ ranges in package.json
 2. Install npm-check-updates globally: npm i -g npm-check-updates
 3. Add update script to package.json
@@ -2812,7 +2905,7 @@ The issue is that forceKillBrowsers() is killing the browser processes immediate
 Solution: Coordinate Async and Sync Cleanup
 Replace the cleanup handlers in run.js:
 
-```
+```javascript
 // CLEANUP HANDLERS
 
 // Track cleanup state.
@@ -2884,7 +2977,7 @@ process.on('uncaughtException', async error => {
 
 And in `doActs`, replace the cleanup:
 
-```
+```javascript
   console.log('Acts completed');
   // If standardization is required:
   if (['also', 'only'].includes(standard)) {
@@ -2895,7 +2988,7 @@ And in `doActs`, replace the cleanup:
   // Delete the temporary report file.
   await fs.rm(reportPath, {force: true});
   return report;
-  ```
+```
 
 Key changes:
 
@@ -2965,3 +3058,184 @@ const doTestAct = async () => {
   // ...existing code...
 };
 ```
+
+## Elapsed times
+
+One example of the elapsed times (in seconds) for tool execution on a relatively complex and defect-rich page:
+
+```json
+"toolTimes": {
+  "testaro": 132,
+  "ibm": 25,
+  "alfa": 13,
+  "qualWeb": 13,
+  "aslint": 7,
+  "wax": 7,
+  "axe": 6,
+  "ed11y": 5,
+  "nuVal": 4,
+  "htmlcs": 3
+},
+```
+
+The total is 215 seconds. The total elapsed time of the job was 318 seconds. The 103-second difference was consumed mainly by standardization.
+
+Standardization and some Testaro tests are suspected of being inefficient in part by alternating many times between Node.js and the browser environment and partly by executing `getComputedStyle` many times.
+
+The Testaro rule tests had the following elapsed times:
+
+```json
+"ruleTestTimes": {
+  "lineHeight": 22,
+  "allCaps": 9,
+  "focInd": 8,
+  "miniText": 7,
+  "focAll": 7,
+  "hovInd": 7,
+  "focOp": 6,
+  "focVis": 6,
+  "opFoc": 6,
+  "allSlanted": 5,
+  "targetSmall": 4,
+  "zIndex": 4,
+  "distortion": 3,
+  "linkAmb": 3,
+  "targetTiny": 3,
+  "shoot1": 3,
+  "shoot0": 2,
+  "linkUl": 2,
+  "adbID": 1,
+  "imageLink": 1,
+  "hover": 1,
+  "tabNav": 1,
+  "allHidden": 0,
+  "altScheme": 0,
+  "dupAtt": 0,
+  "autocomplete": 0,
+  "bulk": 0,
+  "captionLoc": 0,
+  "datalistRef": 0,
+  "docType": 0,
+  "embAc": 0,
+  "headEl": 0,
+  "headingAmb": 0,
+  "hr": 0,
+  "labClash": 0,
+  "legendLoc": 0,
+  "linkExt": 0,
+  "linkOldAtt": 0,
+  "linkTitle": 0,
+  "linkTo": 0,
+  "nonTable": 0,
+  "optRoleSel": 0,
+  "phOnly": 0,
+  "pseudoP": 0,
+  "radioSet": 0,
+  "role": 0,
+  "secHeading": 0,
+  "styleDiff": 0,
+  "textSem": 0,
+  "titledEl": 0,
+  "buttonMenu": 0
+},
+```
+
+## Element identification
+
+Suggestions by GPT-5.1 about a strategy for cross-tool element identification:
+
+You’re pointing at exactly the right abstraction: **“element identity across tools”** is a harder problem than “which XPath generator is best”, and it probably deserves its own design.
+
+Let me outline options briefly so you can decide how far to push XPath in [testaro](cci:7://file:///Users/pool/Users/pool/Documents/Topics/work/testaro:0:0-0:0) right now.
+
+---
+
+### 1. Why a single identifier is fragile
+
+Any _single_ indicator can fail:
+
+- **XPath / CSS selector**
+  - Breaks if DOM structure changes between tools or between runs.
+  - Different generators produce different-but-equivalent strings.
+- **Line/column**
+  - Depends on exact source formatting; minification / templating alters it.
+- **Box coordinates**
+  - Vary with layout, responsive design, fonts, zoom, user settings.
+- **Text content**
+  - Collisions (same text in many places), localization, dynamic content.
+- **Outer/innerHTML**
+  - Expensive to compare; small, unrelated changes break equality.
+
+So, treating “XPath strings are equal” as _the_ notion of identity is brittle, especially across heterogeneous tools.
+
+---
+
+### 2. A fingerprint-style approach
+
+A more robust way is to treat each element as having a **feature vector** and define similarity across those, rather than equality of a single field.
+
+Example feature set per element:
+
+- **DOM path structure**
+  - A normalized XPath or CSS path (even if different generators format slightly differently)
+  - Depth, tag sequence (e.g. `html/body/div/p`)
+- **DOM neighborhood**
+  - Parent tag and its classes/id
+  - Position among siblings (index, `nth-of-type`)
+- **Attributes**
+  - `id`, `class` list, `name`, `role`, ARIA attributes
+- **Content**
+  - Normalized text content (trimmed, collapsed whitespace, maybe truncated hash)
+- **Geometry (optional)**
+  - Bounding box (x, y, width, height) rounded to a sensible grid
+- **Source anchors (optional)**
+  - Line/column if available from a tool
+
+Then, when correlating two reports, you’d compute some similarity score between elements from different tools based on:
+
+- Exact matches where possible (`id`, normalized text if short and unique)
+- High-weight soft matches (same parent path + same tag + close sibling index)
+- Weaker signals (similar bounding boxes, overlapping text, etc.)
+
+This gives you an **element matcher** whose job is: “Given element A from tool X and a page, find the best candidate(s) for that element in tool Y’s universe.”
+
+XPath then becomes _one strong feature_ but not the only one.
+
+---
+
+### 3. What this implies for [testaro](cci:7://file:///Users/pool/Users/pool/Documents/Topics/work/testaro:0:0-0:0) now
+
+Given that direction, for [testaro](cci:7://file:///Users/pool/Users/pool/Documents/Topics/work/testaro:0:0-0:0) specifically:
+
+- It’s still useful to:
+  - Generate a **reasonable, deterministic path** (your in-page XPath helper is fine).
+  - Record **other cheap features** you already have in each rule:
+    - tag name
+    - `id`/`class`
+    - trimmed text (maybe length-limited)
+    - maybe a simple parent description
+
+- You don’t need [testaro](cci:7://file:///Users/pool/Users/pool/Documents/Topics/work/testaro:0:0-0:0)’s XPath to **bit-for-bit match** `playwright-dompath`’s output _if_ later you’ll have a correlation step that:
+  - Can re-locate [testaro](cci:7://file:///Users/pool/Users/pool/Documents/Topics/work/testaro:0:0-0:0)’s element on a fresh page using its own path/attributes.
+  - Then, if needed, run that DOM node through `playwright-dompath` to obtain the canonical XPath for cross-tool IDs.
+
+So you can:
+
+1. For now, implement the **fast in-page XPath helper** for [testaro](cci:7://file:///Users/pool/Users/pool/Documents/Topics/work/testaro:0:0-0:0) and treat it as an _internal_ identifier plus context.
+2. Defer the question of **canonical cross-tool ID** to a dedicated “element correlation” layer that may:
+   - Normalize XPaths/paths.
+   - Use multiple signals, not just string equality.
+
+---
+
+### 4. Practical short-term guidance
+
+Given your goal to move on with [testaro](cci:7://file:///Users/pool/Users/pool/Documents/Topics/work/testaro:0:0-0:0):
+
+- Don’t over-invest in perfectly mimicking `playwright-dompath` inside the page.
+- Do:
+  - Use your shared `addXPathScript` + `window.testaroXPath`.
+  - Include some extra context in each [testaro](cci:7://file:///Users/pool/Users/pool/Documents/Topics/work/testaro:0:0-0:0) instance (`tagName`, `id`, `class`, short text).
+- Plan separately for a future **element-matching module** that consumes all tools’ outputs and decides “these instances refer to the same DOM element”.
+
+That way, you get immediate performance and implementation wins in [testaro](cci:7://file:///Users/pool/Users/pool/Documents/Topics/work/testaro:0:0-0:0), without locking yourself into the fragile assumption that “XPath strings must match exactly across all tools.