tribunal-kit 9.2.6 → 9.2.7

package/.agent/scripts/verification_auditor.js

@@ -0,0 +1,266 @@
+'use strict';
+
+/**
+ * verification_auditor.js — Tribunal Kit Verification & Post-Execution Auditor
+ * ============================================================================
+ * Implements Phase 8 & Phase 9 of the Skill Intelligence Engine:
+ *   - Post-Execution Coverage Recheck
+ *   - Failure Mode Recheck
+ *   - Implementation Verification (Concept detected vs implemented)
+ *   - Dynamic Coverage Downgrade upon verification failure
+ *   - Unexpected Implementation Risk & New Capability Gap Detection
+ *   - Closed-Loop Corrective Action Generation
+ *   - Skill Telemetry & Improvement Proposals
+ */
+
+const fs = require('fs');
+const path = require('path');
+
+/**
+ * Audit post-execution evidence against discovered task intelligence.
+ *
+ * @param {Object|string} taskIntelligenceOrQuery - Pre-execution analysis or task query
+ * @param {Object} executionEvidence - Evidence from implementation & verification
+ *   - code_diff: string (diff or modified code)
+ *   - changed_files: string[] (list of files modified)
+ *   - tests_executed: Array<{ name: string, target?: string, passed: boolean, error?: string }>
+ *   - runtime_observations: string[]
+ * @param {Object} [options]
+ * @returns {Object} Post-execution audit report
+ */
+function auditPostExecution(taskIntelligenceOrQuery, executionEvidence, options = {}) {
+  let taskIntelligence;
+  const agentDir = options.agentDir || path.resolve(__dirname, '..', '.agent');
+
+  if (typeof taskIntelligenceOrQuery === 'string') {
+    const { analyzeTask } = require('./skill_intelligence');
+    taskIntelligence = analyzeTask(taskIntelligenceOrQuery, agentDir);
+  } else {
+    taskIntelligence = taskIntelligenceOrQuery;
+  }
+
+  const evidence = executionEvidence || {};
+  const codeDiff = (evidence.code_diff || '').toLowerCase();
+  const changedFiles = (evidence.changed_files || []).map(f => f.toLowerCase());
+  const tests = evidence.tests_executed || [];
+  const runtimeObs = (evidence.runtime_observations || []).map(o => o.toLowerCase());
+
+  const auditFindings = [];
+  const downgradedConcepts = [];
+  const verifiedConcepts = [];
+  const unverifiedFailureModes = [];
+  const newCapabilityGaps = [];
+  const correctiveActions = [];
+
+  // Extract concept list from task intelligence
+  const allConcepts = Array.isArray(taskIntelligence.concepts)
+    ? taskIntelligence.concepts
+    : taskIntelligence.concepts && taskIntelligence.concepts.all
+      ? taskIntelligence.concepts.all.map(name => ({
+          name,
+          id: name.toLowerCase().replace(/[^a-z0-9]+/g, '-'),
+        }))
+      : (taskIntelligence.coverage || []).map(c => ({ id: c.concept_id, name: c.concept_name }));
+
+  // 1. Implementation Verification (Was each discovered concept addressed in code or files?)
+  for (const concept of allConcepts) {
+    const cId = (concept.id || concept.name || '').toLowerCase().replace(/[^a-z0-9]+/g, '-');
+    const cName = (concept.name || concept.id || '').toLowerCase();
+    const tokens = cName.split(/\s+/).filter(t => t.length > 3);
+
+    // Look for traces of concept in diff, changed filenames, or tests
+    let hasCodeTrace = false;
+    if (codeDiff.includes(cId) || codeDiff.includes(cName)) {
+      hasCodeTrace = true;
+    } else {
+      hasCodeTrace = tokens.some(
+        tok => codeDiff.includes(tok) || changedFiles.some(f => f.includes(tok)),
+      );
+    }
+
+    const testForConcept = tests.find(
+      t =>
+        (t.target && (t.target.toLowerCase() === cId || t.target.toLowerCase().includes(cId))) ||
+        (t.name &&
+          (t.name.toLowerCase().includes(cName) ||
+            tokens.some(tok => t.name.toLowerCase().includes(tok)))),
+    );
+
+    if (!hasCodeTrace && !testForConcept) {
+      auditFindings.push({
+        type: 'UNIMPLEMENTED_CONCEPT',
+        severity: 'HIGH',
+        concept: concept.name || concept.id,
+        detail: `Discovered concept '${concept.name || concept.id}' had no identifiable code changes or tests in execution evidence.`,
+      });
+      correctiveActions.push(`Implement missing capability for '${concept.name || concept.id}'.`);
+    } else if (testForConcept) {
+      if (!testForConcept.passed) {
+        // Concept was implemented but verification failed!
+        downgradedConcepts.push({
+          concept: concept.name || concept.id,
+          previous_coverage: 'PARTIAL',
+          current_coverage: 'DOWNGRADED_FAILED',
+          reason: testForConcept.error || `Verification test '${testForConcept.name}' failed.`,
+        });
+        auditFindings.push({
+          type: 'VERIFICATION_FAILURE',
+          severity: 'CRITICAL',
+          concept: concept.name || concept.id,
+          detail: `Verification for '${concept.name || concept.id}' failed: ${testForConcept.error || 'Test assertion failed.'}`,
+        });
+        correctiveActions.push(
+          `Fix verification failure in '${concept.name || concept.id}' (${testForConcept.name}): ${testForConcept.error || 'Assertion failed'} and re-verify.`,
+        );
+      } else {
+        verifiedConcepts.push({
+          concept: concept.name || concept.id,
+          test: testForConcept.name,
+          status: 'VERIFIED',
+        });
+      }
+    } else {
+      // Code exists but no explicit test ran
+      auditFindings.push({
+        type: 'UNVERIFIED_IMPLEMENTATION',
+        severity: 'MEDIUM',
+        concept: concept.name || concept.id,
+        detail: `Code trace exists for '${concept.name || concept.id}', but no targeted verification test was executed.`,
+      });
+      correctiveActions.push(`Add targeted verification test for '${concept.name || concept.id}'.`);
+    }
+  }
+
+  // 2. Failure Mode Recheck
+  const failureModes = taskIntelligence.failure_modes || [];
+  for (const fm of failureModes) {
+    const fmNormalized = fm.toLowerCase().replace(/[^a-z0-9]+/g, ' ');
+    const testAddressed = tests.some(
+      t =>
+        (t.name && t.name.toLowerCase().includes(fmNormalized)) ||
+        (t.target && t.target.toLowerCase().includes(fmNormalized)),
+    );
+    const obsAddressed = runtimeObs.some(o => o.includes(fmNormalized));
+
+    if (!testAddressed && !obsAddressed) {
+      unverifiedFailureModes.push(fm);
+    }
+  }
+
+  if (unverifiedFailureModes.length > 0) {
+    auditFindings.push({
+      type: 'UNVERIFIED_FAILURE_MODES',
+      severity: 'MEDIUM',
+      count: unverifiedFailureModes.length,
+      failure_modes: unverifiedFailureModes,
+      detail: `${unverifiedFailureModes.length} identified failure modes were not explicitly verified in the test run.`,
+    });
+  }
+
+  // 3. Unexpected Implementation Risk & New Capability Gap Detection
+  // Check if codeDiff introduced risky anti-patterns
+  const riskPatterns = [
+    {
+      regex: /(?:SELECT\s+.*\s+FROM\s+.*\s+WHERE\s+.*['"]\s*\+)|(?:\$\{[^}]*\}\s*WHERE)/i,
+      risk: 'SQL Injection Vulnerability',
+      gapSkill: 'agentshield-security',
+      recommendation: 'Use parameterized queries or ORM bindings instead of string interpolation.',
+    },
+    {
+      regex: /(?:password|secret|api_key|token)\s*=\s*['"][a-zA-Z0-9_\-]{8,}['"]/i,
+      risk: 'Hardcoded Secret / Credential',
+      gapSkill: 'agentshield-security',
+      recommendation: 'Extract secrets to environment variables.',
+    },
+    {
+      regex: /(?:Promise\.all\(\s*.*\.map\()/i,
+      risk: 'Unbounded Concurrency Spike',
+      gapSkill: 'error-resilience',
+      recommendation: 'Use p-limit or p-queue to throttle parallel execution.',
+    },
+  ];
+
+  const activePipeline =
+    (taskIntelligence.composition && taskIntelligence.composition.pipeline) || [];
+
+  for (const rp of riskPatterns) {
+    if (rp.regex.test(codeDiff)) {
+      const isCovered = activePipeline.includes(rp.gapSkill);
+      newCapabilityGaps.push({
+        risk: rp.risk,
+        recommended_skill: rp.gapSkill,
+        covered_by_active_pipeline: isCovered,
+        recommendation: rp.recommendation,
+      });
+      auditFindings.push({
+        type: 'NEW_IMPLEMENTATION_RISK',
+        severity: 'CRITICAL',
+        risk: rp.risk,
+        detail: `New code diff introduces risk: ${rp.risk}. ${rp.recommendation}`,
+      });
+      if (!isCovered) {
+        correctiveActions.push(`Activate capability '${rp.gapSkill}' to remediate ${rp.risk}.`);
+      }
+    }
+  }
+
+  const criticalIssues = auditFindings.filter(f => f.severity === 'CRITICAL');
+  const highIssues = auditFindings.filter(f => f.severity === 'HIGH');
+  const isComplete =
+    criticalIssues.length === 0 && highIssues.length === 0 && downgradedConcepts.length === 0;
+
+  return {
+    status: isComplete ? 'VERIFIED' : 'ACTION_REQUIRED',
+    is_complete: isComplete,
+    findings_count: auditFindings.length,
+    findings: auditFindings,
+    verified_concepts: verifiedConcepts,
+    downgraded_concepts: downgradedConcepts,
+    unverified_failure_modes: unverifiedFailureModes,
+    new_capability_gaps: newCapabilityGaps,
+    corrective_actions: correctiveActions,
+    audit_summary: {
+      total_concepts_checked: allConcepts.length,
+      verified_count: verifiedConcepts.length,
+      downgraded_count: downgradedConcepts.length,
+      unimplemented_count: auditFindings.filter(f => f.type === 'UNIMPLEMENTED_CONCEPT').length,
+      new_risks_detected: newCapabilityGaps.length,
+    },
+  };
+}
+
+/**
+ * Generate a structured Skill Improvement Proposal when gaps or partial coverage are discovered.
+ *
+ * @param {string} targetSkillOrGap - Name of existing skill or capability gap
+ * @param {Object} context - Evidence context
+ * @param {string} [agentDir] - Agent directory
+ * @returns {Object} Skill improvement proposal
+ */
+function generateImprovementProposal(targetSkillOrGap, context = {}, agentDir) {
+  const isExistingSkill = Boolean(context.existingSkill);
+  const gapName = context.gap || targetSkillOrGap;
+
+  return {
+    proposal_id: `prop-${(targetSkillOrGap || 'skill').replace(/[^a-z0-9]+/g, '-')}-${Date.now().toString(36)}`,
+    target: targetSkillOrGap,
+    type: isExistingSkill ? 'ENHANCE_EXISTING_SKILL' : 'EVALUATE_NEW_CAPABILITY',
+    rationale: isExistingSkill
+      ? `Extending existing skill '${targetSkillOrGap}' preserves cohesion and satisfies 11-check gate without proliferating duplicate skills.`
+      : `Addressing confirmed capability gap '${gapName}' with a modular, highly focused engineering capability.`,
+    gap_addressed: gapName,
+    failure_modes_covered: context.failure_modes || [],
+    proposed_enhancements: [
+      `Add explicit engineering guidelines for '${gapName}' to SKILL.md.`,
+      `Incorporate verification checklist tests targeting failure modes: ${(context.failure_modes || ['edge-case-regression']).join(', ')}.`,
+      `Update skill triggers and taxonomy mappings.`,
+    ],
+    validation_gate_passed: false,
+    status: 'PROPOSED_PENDING_APPROVAL',
+  };
+}
+
+module.exports = {
+  auditPostExecution,
+  generateImprovementProposal,
+};