# Harness Setup

> [Quality] Use when setting up an agent quality harness with feedforward guides and feedback sensors.

- Skill: `duc01226/harness-setup-2` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add duc01226/harness-setup-2`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/duc01226/harness-setup-2/raw
- Safety review: pending (external: skill-scanner PASS, skillspector CAUTION)
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: AI & ML
- Author: duc01226 (https://skillmd.com/u/duc01226)
- Updated: 2026-09-21
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/duc01226/harness-setup-2

---


<!-- PROMPT-ENHANCE:STEP-TASK-ANCHOR:START -->

> **[BLOCKING]** Execute skill steps in declared order. NEVER skip, reorder, or merge steps without explicit user approval.
> **[BLOCKING]** Before each step or sub-skill call, update task tracking: set `in_progress` when step starts, set `completed` when step ends.
> **[BLOCKING]** Every completed/skipped step MUST include brief evidence or explicit skip reason.
> **[BLOCKING]** If Task tools are unavailable, create and maintain an equivalent step-by-step plan tracker with the same status transitions.

<!-- PROMPT-ENHANCE:STEP-TASK-ANCHOR:END -->

## Quick Summary

**Goal:** Wire every feedforward guide and feedback sensor into the greenfield project so all later AI coding agents operate with maximum guidance and self-correct against quality gates BEFORE human review — raising first-attempt quality and catching defects at the earliest, cheapest stage.

**Summary:**
- **Testability contract:** resolve Unit/Integration/System/E2E applicability from runner/config evidence; record owner/root/data, copy-ready full + focused commands, zero-match behavior, CI/simple-Windows entry, unique run/data identity, and repeat proof; unresolved applicable fields block handoff, while non-applicable tiers require evidence-backed `N/A`.

- BLOCK on the `/linter-setup` prerequisite first — computational sensors (linters, hooks, CI gates) MUST exist before any phase runs; this skill never installs them itself.
- Walk phases A→F as a hard barrier sequence: detect stack → author feedforward guides (CLAUDE.md conventions, anti-patterns, pattern catalog) → confirm computational sensors → wire inferential review skills to lifecycle gates → define behaviour/test strategy → emit inventory.
- Treat every feedforward-guide and sensor choice as `AskUserQuestion`-gated — never auto-decide content — why: harness conventions bind every future agent and silent choices propagate.
- Write `.ai/workspace/harness/harness-inventory.md` incrementally (append per phase, never held in memory) — keep it a LIVING document updated as new sensors are added.

**Main steps (run in order — each BLOCKS the next):**

1. **Guards** — BLOCK until `/linter-setup` verified (linter config + pre-commit hook + CI gate present); detect existing inventory (enhance, never skip).
2. **Phase A — Stack Detection** — read plan / architecture-design / tech-stack reports; write `stack-profile.md`; `AskUserQuestion` on any undetectable field.
3. **Phase B — Feedforward Guides** — author/enhance CLAUDE.md/AGENTS.md (architecture patterns, anti-patterns, naming, module boundaries) + skill-activation rules + `docs/architecture/*` notes + pattern catalog; confirm via `AskUserQuestion`.
4. **Phase C — Computational Sensors** — confirm `/linter-setup` outputs; list config paths (invoke `/linter-setup` if any missing).
5. **Phase D — Inferential Sensors** — wire review skills to lifecycle gates (`/why-review` pre-impl · `/code-review` pre-commit · `/domain-entities-review` post-impl · `/production-readiness-review` + `/security-review` pre-release · `/scan-codebase-health` recurring · `/integration-test-review` feature-area TC audit BOTH pre-release AND recurring — closes the diff-scoped blind spot); record under "## Review Gates".
6. **Phase E — Behaviour Harness** — pick spec format, define test pyramid + approved fixtures, gate on mutation score (NEVER line %), add property/behavior coverage; write `test-strategy.md`.
7. **Phase F — Inventory Report** — append `harness-inventory.md` (feedforward + computational/inferential sensors + open gaps); present via `AskUserQuestion`.
8. **Next Steps** — `AskUserQuestion`: `/feature-implement` (recommended) · `/why-review` · skip.

**Produces:**

- Feedforward guides: CLAUDE.md/AGENTS.md conventions, architecture docs, pattern catalogs, skill activation rules
- Computational feedback sensors: configured via `/linter-setup` (linters, formatters, pre-commit hooks, CI gates)
- Inferential feedback sensors: AI review skills wired to lifecycle stages
- Harness inventory: `.ai/workspace/harness/harness-inventory.md`

**When invoked:** After `/scaffold` + `/linter-setup` in greenfield workflow. Assumes scaffolding complete.

**Does NOT do:** Install linters or configure formatters — that is `/linter-setup`'s responsibility.

---

## Activation Guards

**Check 1 — Linter-setup prerequisite (BLOCK if missing):**
Before running any phases, verify `/linter-setup` completed by checking for:

- Linter config file at project root (e.g., `.eslintrc`, `pyproject.toml`, `.editorconfig`)
- Pre-commit hook config (e.g., `.husky/`, `.pre-commit-config.yaml`)
- CI quality gate definition

If any missing → `AskUserQuestion`: "/linter-setup appears incomplete. Computational feedback sensors must be in place before harness setup. Run /linter-setup first, then return here?"
**BLOCK** Phase A/B/C/D/E until linter-setup verification passes.

**Check 2 — Existing harness inventory:**
Check for `.ai/workspace/harness/harness-inventory.md`

- If found → `AskUserQuestion`: "Harness inventory already exists — re-run to enhance existing harness, or skip?"
- Proceed even when `CLAUDE.md`/`AGENTS.md` present — those are feedforward guides this skill may enhance, NEVER signals to skip

---

## Phase A — Stack Detection

Read from: `plan.md` frontmatter → architecture-design report → tech-stack-comparison report.

Extract:

- Primary language(s) and framework(s)
- Test framework and test runner
- CI provider/tooling
- Package manager and monorepo structure (if any)
- Module system and build tooling

Write detection result to `.ai/workspace/harness/stack-profile.md`.

If any field undetectable → `AskUserQuestion` to confirm before proceeding.

---

## Phase B — Feedforward Guide Setup (Inferential)

For each guide type, check if it exists; if not, create or enhance:

**1. CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md — Architecture conventions**

- Add section: "Architecture Patterns" — document the patterns chosen in `/architecture-design` (e.g., Clean Architecture, CQRS, Repository)
- Add section: "Anti-Patterns" — explicit list of patterns to avoid for this stack
- Add section: "Naming Conventions" — language-idiomatic conventions for this repository
- Add section: "Module Boundaries" — which layers may import which; dependency direction rules

**2. Skill activation rules**

- Document in CLAUDE.md which skills auto-activate for common task types in this stack
- Example: "When modifying domain entities → activate `/domain-entities-review`"
- Example: "Before any commit → run `/code-review`"

**3. Architecture notes**

- Create `docs/architecture/` with:
    - `bounded-contexts.md` — domain boundaries and ownership
    - `dependency-rules.md` — allowed import directions between layers
    - `naming-conventions.md` — project-specific naming for files, classes, functions

**4. Pattern catalog**

- Create `docs/architecture/pattern-catalog.md`
- Document each pattern chosen in `/architecture-design` with DO/DON'T examples
- Anchor to actual project files once scaffolding produces them

Present list of guides created/updated via `AskUserQuestion`: "Feedforward guides above will be created/enhanced. Confirm or adjust?"

---

## Phase C — Computational Feedback Sensors

Confirm `/linter-setup` has completed:

- Check for linter config file at project root (e.g., `.eslintrc`, `pyproject.toml`, `.editorconfig`)
- Check for pre-commit hook config (e.g., `.husky/`, `.pre-commit-config.yaml`)
- Check for CI quality gate definition

If any missing → invoke `/linter-setup` before continuing.

Output: confirmation that computational sensors are in place, with file paths listed.

---

## Phase D — Inferential Feedback Sensors

Configure which AI review skills fire at each lifecycle stage. Present to user via `AskUserQuestion`:
"Which inferential sensors should be mandatory vs optional for this repository?"

**Pre-implementation (planning gate):**

- `/why-review` — validate design rationale before committing to implementation approach

**Pre-commit (lightweight review):**

- Document in CLAUDE.md: run `/code-review` before committing significant changes

**Post-implementation (domain model changes):**

- `/domain-entities-review` — when domain entity files are in the changeset

**Pre-release (mandatory gates):**

- `/production-readiness-review` — reliability and operational readiness
- `/security-review` — security review before production release

**Recurring drift detection:**

- `/scan-codebase-health` — schedule quarterly (or on CI schedule) to detect drift
- `/integration-test-review` — Missing Integration Test / Spec-Coverage Gate: feature-area-wide TC audit (Phase 3 addendum in that skill) catches orphaned Section-8 TCs and uncovered changed behavior. Wire BOTH pre-release (mandatory gate, alongside `/production-readiness-review` and `/security-review`) AND same recurring cadence as `/scan-codebase-health` — a diff-scoped run alone cannot see a TC whose covering test regressed outside the current change set; only a periodic feature-area sweep does.

Add the agreed sensor configuration to CLAUDE.md under "## Review Gates".

---

## Phase E — Behaviour Harness (Spec + Test Strategy)

Define the project's behaviour harness plan:

**Functional spec format:**

- `AskUserQuestion`: "Feature documentation format?" Options: feature-spec (8-section tech-free), TDD specs only, lightweight ADRs
- Establish `docs/specs/` or equivalent spec home

**Test strategy pyramid:**

- Unit: pure functions, domain entities, business logic (no I/O)
- Integration: subcutaneous CQRS tests, repository tests with real DB
- E2E: critical user journeys only (not full coverage — too slow)

**Approved fixtures pattern:**

- Pre-seed reference/lookup data as approved snapshots
- Integration tests are additive (never delete/reset data)

### Testability & Execution Matrix (write to `test-strategy.md`)

Copy the architecture-design contract into the strategy and resolve every tier from verified project/configuration evidence before choosing tools:

| Tier | Applicability + evidence | Owner | Runner/framework + config | Test root | Data/fixture policy | Full command | Focused/partial command | Zero-match behavior | CI gate | Simple/Windows entry point | Repeat proof |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Unit | `APPLICABLE` / `N/A — {evidence}` | {owner} | {runner/config} | {root} | {fixtures/factories} | `{command}` | `{filter}` | `{non-zero behavior}` | {gate} | `{command or .cmd}` | `{result or planned owner}` |
| Integration/System | `APPLICABLE` / `N/A — {evidence}` | {owner} | {runner/config} | {root} | {public-path + additive data} | `{command}` | `{filter}` | `{non-zero behavior}` | {gate} | `{command or .cmd}` | `{two no-reset runs}` |
| E2E | `APPLICABLE` / `N/A — {evidence}` | {owner} | {configured browser/config} | {root} | {reachable journey data} | `{command}` | `{filter}` | `{non-zero behavior}` | {gate} | `{command or .cmd}` | `{result or evidence-backed N/A}` |

`APPLICABLE` requires runner/framework/configuration/root/command evidence. If no E2E framework, configuration, and command are verified, record `N/A — {config/source evidence}`; do not infer a browser stack from generic examples. Full and focused commands must be copy-ready, report exact counts/exit status, and fail invalid or zero-match selection.

### Run, Data, Isolation & Repeat Policy (write beside the matrix)

For each applicable persistent-state tier, record the run/test identity generator and unique business-data suffix, supported public-path arrangement, realistic valid data, count-before-create idempotent/restart-safe reference setup, additive keyed accumulation with integrity checks, mutable-root and parallel-worker isolation, immutable data that may be shared, realistic actor pacing and observable arrange barriers, and the exact result. Require two consecutive no-reset full runs; until executed, mark the proof `planned — {owner}` rather than PASS. Keep property/invariant, mutation, change, and behavior coverage meaningful; line coverage remains diagnostic only.

**Test-strength sensors (NOT a line-coverage gate):**

- **Line coverage is a diagnostic only — NEVER gate a build on it.** Low coverage is a useful NEGATIVE signal (an area is untested → investigate); high coverage is NOT evidence of quality (lines can execute with no meaningful assertion). Report it as a diagnostic; do not fail CI on a coverage %.
- **Mutation score is the real test-strength metric — gate on this.** `AskUserQuestion`: "Configure a mutation-testing tool (e.g. Stryker / PITest / mutmut, per stack) as the CI test-quality gate?" A surviving mutant = a fault your tests did not catch = a missing/weak assertion. Add a minimum mutation-score threshold to CI as the computational test-strength sensor.
- **Property coverage (optional second sensor):** each named business invariant guarded by ≥1 property/metamorphic test. Track which invariants have a property test; an unguarded invariant is a gap to fill.
- **Keep behavior/change-coverage (meaningful, not a %):** every behavior-changing file must have a test that asserts the changed outcome — see `/integration-test-review` Gate 7. This is the right notion of "coverage"; the line-% is not.

Document agreed test strategy to `docs/architecture/test-strategy.md`.

---

## Phase F — Harness Inventory Report

Write `.ai/workspace/harness/harness-inventory.md`:

```markdown
# Harness Inventory

Generated: {date}
Stack: {detected stack from Phase A}

## Testability & Verification Contract

Copy the resolved `test-strategy.md` matrix into this inventory and keep the status current:

**Status:** `PASS | PARTIAL | BLOCKED`

| Tier | Applicability + evidence | Owner | Runner/config/root | Full | Focused/partial | Zero-match behavior | CI / simple-Windows entry point | Identity/data/isolation/fidelity policy | Repeat proof |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Unit | `APPLICABLE` / `N/A — {evidence}` | {owner} | {runner/config/root} | `{command}` | `{filter}` | `{non-zero behavior}` | {gate / command} | {policy reference} | {result/status} |
| Integration/System | `APPLICABLE` / `N/A — {evidence}` | {owner} | {runner/config/root} | `{command}` | `{filter}` | `{non-zero behavior}` | {gate / command} | {policy reference} | `{two no-reset runs}` |
| E2E | `APPLICABLE` / `N/A — {evidence}` | {owner} | {runner/config/root} | `{command}` | `{filter}` | `{non-zero behavior}` | {gate / command} | {policy reference} | `{result or evidence-backed N/A}` |

Missing/placeholder evidence is an open gap, not a PASS. The inventory must preserve the strategy's unique identity, additive-data, isolation, realistic-fidelity, and two-run proof fields; E2E N/A remains evidence-backed.

## Feedforward Guides

| Type          | File/Skill                           | Purpose                         |
| ------------- | ------------------------------------ | ------------------------------- |
| Inferential   | CLAUDE.md §Architecture Patterns     | Shapes AI architectural choices |
| Inferential   | CLAUDE.md §Anti-Patterns             | Prevents known bad patterns     |
| Inferential   | docs/architecture/pattern-catalog.md | DO/DON'T examples per pattern   |
| Computational | .editorconfig                        | Cross-IDE consistency           |

## Feedback Sensors — Computational

| Stage      | Tool/Hook          | What it catches                                |
| ---------- | ------------------ | ---------------------------------------------- |
| Pre-commit | {linter}           | Style violations, common errors                |
| Pre-commit | {formatter}        | Code formatting drift                          |
| CI         | {type-checker}     | Type errors                                    |
| CI         | {static-analyzer}  | Security, complexity, dead code                |
| CI         | {mutation-tool}    | Weak/missing assertions (test-strength GATE)   |
| CI         | {coverage-tool}    | Untested areas (DIAGNOSTIC only — never gated) |

## Feedback Sensors — Inferential

| Stage               | Skill/Agent             | What it catches                |
| ------------------- | ----------------------- | ------------------------------ |
| Pre-implementation  | /why-review             | Design rationale gaps          |
| Pre-commit          | /code-review            | Convention drift, logic errors |
| Post-implementation | /domain-entities-review | Domain model quality           |
| Pre-release         | /production-readiness-review             | Operational readiness          |
| Pre-release         | /security-review               | Security vulnerabilities       |
| Pre-release + Recurring | /integration-test-review (feature-area TC audit) | Orphaned Section-8 TCs, uncovered changed behavior |

## Open Gaps

| Area                     | Reason   | Risk           |
| ------------------------ | -------- | -------------- |
| {area not yet harnessed} | {reason} | {LOW/MED/HIGH} |
```

Present inventory to user for review via `AskUserQuestion`.

---

## Next Steps

`AskUserQuestion`:

- **"/feature-implement (Recommended)"** — Begin implementing the project plan with full harness in place
- **"/why-review"** — Review harness design rationale before proceeding
- **"Skip"** — Proceed manually without workflow guidance

---

> **[IMPORTANT]** Use `TaskCreate` to break ALL work into small tasks BEFORE starting — including tasks for each file read. This prevents context loss from long files. For simple tasks, AI MUST ATTENTION ask user whether to skip.

<!-- SYNC:critical-thinking-mindset -->

> **Critical Thinking Mindset** — Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80% to act.
> **Anti-hallucination:** Never present guess as fact — cite sources for every claim, admit uncertainty freely, self-check output for errors, cross-reference independently, stay skeptical of own confidence — certainty without evidence root of all hallucination.

<!-- /SYNC:critical-thinking-mindset -->

<!-- SYNC:ai-mistake-prevention -->

> **AI Mistake Prevention** — Failure modes to avoid on every task:
>
> **Re-read files after context changes.** Context compaction, resume, or long-running work can make memory stale; verify current files before acting.
> **Verify generated content against source evidence.** AI hallucinates APIs, names, claims, and document facts. Check the relevant source before documenting or referencing.
> **Check downstream references before deleting or renaming.** Removing an artifact can stale docs, generated mirrors, configs, and callers; map references first.
> **Trace the full impact chain after edits.** Changing a definition can miss derived outputs and consumers. Follow the affected chain before declaring done.
> **Verify ALL affected outputs, not just the first.** One green check is not all green checks; validate every output surface the change can affect.
> **Assume existing values are intentional — ask WHY before changing OR flagging one as a defect.** Before changing or reporting a constant, limit, flag, cutoff, wording, or pattern, read nearby context and history, the CALLER's ordering, and 2+ sibling call sites of the same convention. A doc stating WHAT without WHY is missing rationale, not proof of a missing guard.
> **Surface ambiguity before acting — don't pick silently.** Multiple valid interpretations require an explicit question or stated assumption with risk.
> **Assert the outcome your system owns, not the intermediate state your infrastructure owns.** When verifying async work, assert the final business state — never the delivery/retry bookkeeping held in shared infrastructure that any co-running process can write. Such a check passes when run alone and flakes the moment anything else shares that infrastructure.
> **Keep shared guidance role-relevant.** Universal guidance must help every receiving skill or agent; code-specific obligations belong only in code-specific protocols.

<!-- /SYNC:ai-mistake-prevention -->

<!-- SYNC:harness-setup -->

> **Harness Engineering** — An outer agent harness has two jobs: raise first-attempt quality + provide self-correction feedback loops before human review.
>
> **Controls split:**
>
> | Axis        | Type          | Examples                                                                      | Frequency        |
> | ----------- | ------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------- |
> | Feedforward | Computational | `.editorconfig`, strict compiler flags, enforced module boundaries            | Always-on        |
> | Feedforward | Inferential   | `CLAUDE.md` conventions, skill prompts, architecture notes, pattern catalogs  | Always-on        |
> | Feedback    | Computational | Linters, type checks, pre-commit hooks, ArchUnit/arch-fitness tests, mutation-score gate, CI gates | Pre-commit → CI  |
> | Feedback    | Inferential   | `/code-review` skill, `/production-readiness-review`, `/security-review`, LLM-as-judge passes         | Post-commit → CI |
>
> **Test-strength sensor — gate on mutation score, NOT line coverage.** Line coverage is a DIAGNOSTIC only: low coverage is a useful NEGATIVE signal (something is untested); high coverage is NOT evidence of quality (tests can execute lines without asserting intent) — NEVER fail a build on a line-coverage %. The real test-strength metric is **mutation score** (inject faults into changed code; surviving mutant = a missing/weak assertion = write the killing test); gate the build on it where a mutation tool exists. **Where no workable tool exists the obligation does NOT lapse — it falls back to the deliberate defect-seeding drill:** break the production code behind a top invariant, run the suite, record WHICH NAMED TEST went red, restore. Nothing went red ⇒ that behavior has no protection; write the killing test. The drill needs no tooling, works in every ecosystem, costs one edit-run-revert cycle per behavior, and is what makes test-strength checkable rather than aspirational — full contract in `SYNC:engineering-foundation-gate` **F4**. Add **property coverage** as a second sensor — each [HARD] §4 rule / §5 invariant guarded by ≥1 property/metamorphic test. The property tests themselves are REQUIRED for invariant-owning behaviors (`spec [mode=tests]` + `integration-test` force them, not opt-in); what is optional is only wiring property coverage as an *automated CI sensor* on top. Keep **behavior/change-coverage** (does each behavior-changing file have a test that asserts the changed outcome) — that notion is meaningful and stays.
>
> **Three harness types:**
>
> 1. **Maintainability** — Complexity, duplication, line-coverage (diagnostic only — never a gate), style. Easiest: rich deterministic tooling.
> 2. **Architecture fitness** — Module boundaries, dependency direction, performance budgets, observability conventions, and **build scalability** (an unchanged module is not rebuilt; the affected-only set is computable because dependencies are declared; cache hit-rate is measured, not assumed). Build scoping belongs here because it is enforced by the same boundary declarations — unenforced boundaries decay until the affected set is "everything".
> 3. **Behaviour** — Functional correctness. Hardest: gate on mutation score + property coverage; line coverage stays a diagnostic.
>
> **Keep quality left:** pre-commit sensors fire first (cheap), CI sensors fire second, post-review last (expensive).
>
> **Research-driven:** Never hardcode tool choices. Detect tech stack → research ecosystem → present top 2-3 options → user decides. Enforce strictest defaults; loosen only with explicit approval.
>
> **Harnessability signals:** Strong typing, explicit module boundaries, opinionated frameworks = easier to harness. Treat these as greenfield architectural choices, not just style preferences.

<!-- /SYNC:harness-setup -->

<!-- PROMPT-ENHANCE:STEP-TASK-CLOSING:START -->

## Prompt-Enhance Closing Anchors

**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** follow declared step order for this skill; NEVER skip, reorder, or merge steps without explicit user approval
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** for every step/sub-skill call: set `in_progress` before execution, set `completed` after execution
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** every skipped step MUST include explicit reason; every completed step MUST include concise evidence
**IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** if Task tools unavailable, maintain an equivalent step-by-step plan tracker with synchronized statuses

<!-- PROMPT-ENHANCE:STEP-TASK-CLOSING:END -->

<!-- SYNC:project-protocol-overlay -->

> **Project Protocol Overlay** — Before executing this skill, resolve any PROJECT overlay rules layered onto it: match this skill's name against the `Target` column of the project's skill-protocol index (`docs/project-reference/skill-protocols-reference.md` by default; a `referenceDocs` entry in `docs/project-config.json` overrides the path), taking the most specific matching tier ONLY — exact name > glob > `*`. **That precedence orders overlays against EACH OTHER, never against this skill.** Read ONLY the matched bodies, resolved as `<protocols-dir>/<Name>.md`; a row's Body link is display text, never a read path. A matched body that is missing or malformed is REPORTED and skipped — never reconstructed from the index Description. No index, or no match -> proceed with no overlay, silently. Full contract: `.claude/skills/project-skill-protocol/references/registry.md`.
>
> Overlays are **ADDITIVE ONLY**: they ADD rules on top of this skill's own protocol and NEVER replace, override, disable, or reinterpret a rule it already states — removing every overlay must return this skill to exactly its documented behavior. An overlay is a BRIEF, not an authority escalation: it can NEVER waive a workflow gate, git discipline, a review gate, or a user-confirmation gate. A genuine overlay-vs-skill conflict, or two equally-specific overlays that directly contradict -> surface both to the user; NEVER resolve silently.

<!-- /SYNC:project-protocol-overlay -->

<!-- SYNC:test-architecture-execution-contract -->

> **Test Architecture & Execution Contract** — Treat testability as a setup/architecture acceptance condition. For every potentially applicable tier — Unit, Integration/System, E2E, and Performance/Scale (warranted at `T1+`/`B2+`) — record `APPLICABLE` only with evidence of its runner/framework/configuration; otherwise record `N/A — <evidence>` and never fabricate coverage.
>
> 1. **Matrix before implementation:** Record applicability, owner, runner/framework, test root, fixture/data strategy, full command, focused/partial command, zero-match behavior, CI gate, a simple/Windows entry point (a `.cmd` when the project needs one), the **host-mode AND container-mode commands** where the project supports both, and the **environment reach** (which of local / CI / production-shaped this tier can target).
> 2. **Runnable scopes:** Full and focused commands must be copy-ready, fail on invalid or zero-match selections, report exact counts and exit status, and be safe to repeat. E2E uses only configured browser/service commands.
> 3. **Fresh valid state:** Each run/test owns a unique run identity and business-data suffix, arranges through supported public paths, and uses realistic valid data. Reference setup is count-before-create, idempotent, and restart-safe. Intentional accumulation is additive, keyed, and integrity-checked; never hide contamination with destructive reset.
>    Run-scoped cleanup, when supported, is opt-in and idempotent: after evidence capture it may remove only ephemeral resources owned by the current run; it must never delete persistent/additive data or another run's data, reset shared state, or replace no-reset proof.
> 4. **Isolation and fidelity:** Isolate mutable roots and parallel workers; share only immutable/reference data. Preserve real actor pacing and observable arrange barriers. Do not widen retries or weaken assertions to make a scenario pass.
> 5. **Evidence gate:** Report command, scope, identity, seed/accumulation mode, exact result, and repeat proof. For each applicable persistent-state suite, require two consecutive no-reset full runs. Treat line coverage as diagnostic only; use meaningful property/invariant, mutation, change, and behavior coverage signals.
> 6. **Execution modes and environment reach:** A tier claiming two run modes must have **BOTH exercised** — the bare-host command and the fully-containerized command, driven from ONE source of truth for config and topology; record which mode CI exercises, because an unexercised mode rots silently and a claimed-but-rotten mode is worse than one never claimed. The SAME suite must reach local, CI and (where warranted) a production-shaped target, **parameterized by configuration, never by forked test code** — only one fork ever stays maintained, so forking guarantees divergence. A target lacking a required capability reports `ENVIRONMENT-BLOCKED`, never a silent pass. Tests unsafe against production are excluded by an **ENFORCED** mechanism whose absence fails loudly, not by a convention someone must remember; *"runs in prod"* means a safe, declared, **NON-MUTATING** subset. Reproducibility underwrites all of it — pinned toolchain, locked dependencies, declared external prerequisites — which is the difference between a suite that passes anywhere and one that passes on its author's machine. Depth → `SYNC:engineering-foundation-gate` **F1/F2/F3**.
>
> **Ownership:** Architecture/harness defines the matrix; scaffold/workflow makes it runnable; test writers implement tier-specific cases; reviewers verify the contract; the runner reports; seed-data owners preserve uniqueness, idempotency, realism, and accumulation integrity. Missing required evidence blocks setup completion.

<!-- /SYNC:test-architecture-execution-contract -->

<!-- SYNC:engineering-foundation-gate -->

> **Engineering Foundation Gate** — CONDITIONAL, evidence-gated, profile-tiered. Judges the PROJECT'S ENGINEERING FOUNDATION: _can this team build, run, test and change the system safely — anywhere, repeatably, as it grows?_ Its companions judge the running system's DESIGN (`scale-technique-gate`: is technique X present? · `scenario-stress-eval`: does it survive scenario Y?) — a system can score perfectly on both while nobody but its author can build it. **State OUTCOMES, never tools:** detect the stack, research the current ecosystem, present 2–3 options, the user decides, record the decision — best practice turns over, the outcome does not.
>
> 1. **Derive the project profile FIRST — from evidence, never assumed.** `Lifecycle` **G** greenfield (foundation being created) / **B** brownfield (foundation exists, under audit) · scale `T0`–`T3` (**reuse** `scale-technique-catalog.md`, never re-derive) · criticality `B0`–`B3` with its criticality-signal floor (**reuse** `scenario-stress-catalog.md`) · repo shape `R0` single module / `R1` few (2–5) / `R2` many modules, multi-team / `R3` monorepo estate · runtime surface. Cite `file:line`/config/CI + confidence. Unknown axis → state the assumption and take the **LOWER** tier; NEVER default to `T3`/`B3`/`R3` — an over-stated profile turns this gate into busywork a small team correctly ignores.
> 2. **Judge all 7 dimensions — always all 7, never a filtered subset** (an omitted row is indistinguishable from an overlooked one). Depth belongs to the named owner; this gate decides only present/absent:
>    - **F1 Reproducible environment** (ALL profiles — the floor) — one documented path takes a clean machine to a running system; toolchain versions pinned; dependencies locked to exact versions; every external prerequisite declared with a way to obtain or fake it; config environment-injected, never machine-implicit; build deterministic. This is what kills _"works on my machine"_ — not carelessness, but a build depending on ambient state nobody declared. → `scaffold` · `architecture-scalability-review`
>    - **F2 Dual execution modes** (`T1+`, multi-contributor, or containerized target; `B2+` regardless of scale) — the system runs on the **bare host** AND **fully containerized** from ONE source of truth for config and topology, and the suites run in BOTH directions (host-run against a containerized system, and wholly inside a container). Both modes **exercised**, so neither rots. Host mode buys a fast inner loop and a debugger; container mode buys CI/production parity and a trustworthy day one — a project with only one teaches people to work around it undocumented. A mode honestly dropped with a stated reason is `N/A`; the defect is the **claimed-but-rotten** mode. → `scaffold` · `devops` · `production-readiness-review`
>    - **F3 Environment-portable tests** (local+CI all profiles; production-shaped `T1+`/`B2+`) — the SAME suites run against local, CI and production-like targets, **parameterized by configuration, never by forked test code** (only one fork ever stays maintained, so forking guarantees divergence). Missing capability reports `ENVIRONMENT-BLOCKED` rather than silently passing; unsafe-in-production tests are excluded by an **enforced** mechanism whose absence fails loudly, not by a convention someone must remember. _"Runs in prod"_ means a safe, declared, **NON-MUTATING** subset. → `test-architecture-execution-contract` · `integration-test-review`
>    - **F4 Test-strength proof** (wherever tests exist) — evidence the suite **actually fails when the code is wrong**; a passing suite means nothing until it is known to be capable of failing for the right reason. Strongest available first: (a) **automated fault injection** scoped to CHANGED code — a surviving defect is a missing or vacuous assertion; gate on it where the ecosystem offers a workable tool. (b) **Deliberate defect-seeding drill — the universal fallback, needing no tooling and available in every ecosystem:** break the production code behind a top invariant, run the suite, record **WHICH NAMED TEST went red**, restore. Nothing went red ⇒ that behavior has no protection — write the killing test. (c) **Assertion-intent audit:** flag assertions that would still hold under an inverted implementation, that assert only non-nullness or a type, that re-assert the input, or that assert infrastructure bookkeeping instead of the outcome the system owns. **Line coverage is a DIAGNOSTIC, never a gate** — low coverage is a useful negative signal; high coverage is not evidence of quality, and gating on the percentage reliably produces tests written to touch lines rather than protect behavior. **Scope boundary — do NOT re-litigate a solved question:** this gate asks only whether the PROJECT HAS a test-strength mechanism wired into its harness at all; PER-CHANGE enforcement is already owned by `integration-test-review` Gate 1's Mutation Probe Ledger (tool path + manual fallback, ledger required either way). Report the setup gap here, the assertion gap there, never both. → `harness-setup` (sensor design) · `integration-test-review` (per-change enforcement)
>    - **F5 Performance & scale-under-data** (`T1+`/`B2+` for a real tier; `T0`/`B0` = one documented largest-expected-volume check) — performance **MEASURED by something that RUNS and CAN FAIL**, not reasoned about. The companion gates can be fully satisfied by a system that has never once been run against a large dataset; this is the executable counterpart. Requires: a runnable perf tier with a documented command (it belongs in the tier matrix); on-demand **realistic volume AND realistic shape** — distribution, cardinality, skew, not a million identical rows; **named latency/throughput/memory budgets the run ASSERTS** (a perf test that only reports numbers is a dashboard, and eventually nobody reads it); growth compared across **≥2 volumes ~10× apart**, because one data point cannot distinguish O(n) from O(n²); and resource exhaustion as a **tested, bounded** outcome — backpressure, paging or a clean error rather than an OOM kill, with unbounded result-sets, unbounded in-memory accumulation and unbounded concurrency provably absent or bounded on the paths that matter. State whether a number is a regression signal or a capacity statement. → `performance-review` · `seed-test-data`
>    - **F6 Build & change scalability** (`R1+` declared style + boundaries; `R2+` computable affected set, enforced checks, measured incrementality) — build/test cost and blast radius **do NOT grow with the codebase**. Every project is fast on day one; the foundation question is whether the tenth module costs what the second did. Requires: the affected module/sub-domain set is **COMPUTABLE** because inter-module dependencies are explicit and declared; incrementality and caching are real and **measured** (claimed caching that never hits is an invisible failure); boundaries enforced **MECHANICALLY**, since unenforced boundaries decay silently until the affected set is "everything"; a **declared** architecture style (modular monolith / clean / hexagonal / layered — which one matters far less than that one is declared, written down and enforced, because an undeclared style is indistinguishable from none after two years); implementation hidden behind abstraction so a technology swaps without touching business code (depth → `complexity-prevention`); and a fast scoped inner-loop check — if the only available check is the slow exhaustive one, that is the finding. **Scope boundary:** `architecture-scalability-review` **G2 Build & CI Scalability** already SCORES incremental/affected-only/caching/monorepo posture and **G4** scores boundary enforcement — where that review has run, cite its verdict rather than re-scoring; this gate only confirms the dimension was examined and is not silently absent. → `architecture-scalability-review` (G2/G4 depth) · `architecture-review` (diff-level boundary drift) · `complexity-prevention` (cost of change in the code itself)
>    - **F7 Mechanical quality harness** (format + lint + type/static analysis + build/test at ALL profiles; architecture-fitness `R1+`; dependency health + secret scanning wherever real data ships, unconditional at `B2+`; complexity/duplication + drift `R1+`/`T1+`) — no human reviewer spends attention on a defect class a machine could have caught; reviewer attention is the scarcest resource in the project. **Account for EVERY class or record it `N/A` with a reason** — an unlisted class is an unexamined one: formatting · lint/correctness · type & static analysis · complexity & duplication · **executable architecture-fitness** · dependency vulnerability & license · secret scanning · build/test gates plus the **F4** signal · documentation/config drift. Local and CI must run the **SAME** command, configuration and version (divergence means CI failures nobody can reproduce); checks must **ENFORCE**, not warn (an unread warning stream is not a harness); strictest reasonable defaults, loosened only with a recorded reason, since a large silent suppression list is itself a finding; cheap checks first, expensive last. Brownfield adoption uses a **ratchet** — fail on NEW violations, tolerate the existing baseline — which counts as `PRESENT`, not partial, because it stops regression from day one. → `linter-setup` · `harness-setup` · `security-review`
> 3. **Assign one verdict per dimension:** `PRESENT` (achieved and proven by cited evidence) · `MISSING-WARRANTED` · `PARTIAL-WITH-PATH` (gap named + concrete incremental step) · `N/A-by-profile` (below the warranting profile — **a correctly-lean project is a PASS here, never a gap; never report it as a deficiency**) · `OVER-ENGINEERED` (present but unwarranted → advise AGAINST, name the carrying cost) · `UNVERIFIED` (could not be checked — say so honestly; **NEVER score an unverified dimension `PRESENT`**).
> 4. **Authority is context-split 

…(truncated)