Integration Test Review

Codex compatibility note:

• Invoke repository skills with $skill-name in Codex; this mirrored copy rewrites legacy Claude /skill-name references.
• Task tracker mandate: BEFORE executing any workflow or skill step, create/update task tracking for all steps and keep it synchronized as progress changes.
• User-question prompts mean to ask the user directly in Codex.
• Ignore Claude-specific mode-switch instructions when they appear.
• Strict execution contract: when a user explicitly invokes a skill, execute that skill protocol as written.
• Subagent authorization: when a skill is user-invoked or AI-detected and its protocol requires subagents, that skill activation authorizes use of the required spawn_agent subagent(s) for that task.
• Do not skip, reorder, or merge protocol steps unless the user explicitly approves the deviation first.
• For workflow skills, execute each listed child-skill step explicitly and report step-by-step evidence.
• If a required step/tool cannot run in this environment, stop and ask the user before adapting.

Codex Project-Reference Loading (No Hooks)

Codex uses static project-reference loading instead of runtime-injected project docs. When coding, planning, debugging, testing, or reviewing, open project docs explicitly using this routing.

Always read:

• docs/project-config.json (project-specific paths, commands, modules, and workflow/test settings)
• docs/project-reference/docs-index-reference.md (routes to the full docs/project-reference/* catalog)
• docs/project-reference/lessons.md (always-on guardrails and anti-patterns)

Missing/stale context route: If docs/project-config.json, the docs index, lessons.md, CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, or any task-required reference doc is missing or stale, auto-run $project-init or the narrow setup route ($project-config, $docs-init, $scan-all, $scan --target=<key>, $claude-md-init) before ordinary project-specific work. If Codex mirrors or AGENTS.md are missing/stale, ask the user to run $sync-codex; do not auto-run it.

Situation-based docs:

• Project structure/architecture/tech-stack/deployment/setup (any layer — backend, frontend, or infra): project-structure-reference.md
• Backend/CQRS/API/domain/entity changes: backend-patterns-reference.md, domain-entities-reference.md
• Frontend/UI/styling/design-system: frontend-patterns-reference.md, scss-styling-guide.md, design-system/README.md
• Spec authoring, docs/specs/ pathing, or TC format: feature-spec-reference.md, spec-system-reference.md, spec-principles.md
• Behavior/public-contract changes or spec-test-code sync: workflow-spec-test-code-cycle-reference.md plus the spec docs above
• Derived spec indexes/ERDs/reimplementation guides: spec-system-reference.md and source Feature Specs under docs/specs/
• Integration test implementation/review: integration-test-reference.md
• E2E test implementation/review: e2e-test-reference.md
• Code review/audit work: code-review-rules.md plus domain docs above based on changed files

Do not read all docs blindly. Start from docs-index-reference.md, then open only relevant files for the task.

[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.

Quick Summary

Goal: Ensure the review target (changed production code) is covered by tests that protect real business behavior with correct data assertions, infinite repeatability, and spec alignment — verifying every behavior change has test coverage (integration-first, unit fallback) so that specs ↔ tests ↔ code stay aligned (spec-driven development).

Summary:

• Purpose: Review target is the CHANGE (collect BOTH changed production code AND changed test files), never just the test files — Gates 1-6 and 8 judge test quality, Gate 7 maps every behavior-changing production file to a covering test (integration-first; unit only with recorded justification) + spec TC. Uncovered changed behavior = HIGH finding minimum.
• The 8 Gates (main review steps): G1 Assertion Value — mutation-score, record the Mutation Probe Ledger (no ledger = FAIL); G2 Data State — assert specific DB fields with async polling; G3 Repeatability — unique IDs, additive-only, 2 consecutive green runs; G4 Domain Logic — read handler, assert ONLY fields it writes; G5 Spec Traceability — TestSpec annotation → TC in spec docs (1 TC → many tests is correct); G6 Three-Way Sync — feature-docs > test-spec docs > code > test, escalate conflicts; G7 Change Coverage — every behavior-changing file → covering test + non-stale §8 TC; G8 Scenario Fidelity — the setup's sequence, pacing, and data must be reachable in production; settle barriers in ARRANGE, never widened assertion timeouts.
• The phase pipeline (run ALL, task tracking each): P0 Scope-detect → P1 Collect (split prod vs test files) → P2 Gate Review (Gates 1-6 + 8 per file, Gate 7 across set) → P3 Spec Cross-Check (both directions) → P4 Initial Report → P5 Fix ALL Crit/High + WRITE missing tests → P6 Validated-fix + full fresh re-review until 0 Crit/0 High → P7 Build & run ALL tests → P8 Failure Investigation → P9 Why-Review self-validation.
• Read handler/service source (and feature docs) BEFORE judging any assertion. FAIL smoke-only, existence-only (not-null), dead (always-true), copy-paste, and DI-resolution-only tests — why: assertion quality is unknowable without knowing what the handler actually writes.
• Don't just report gaps — fix them. Gate 6: NEVER fix a test to match broken code, NEVER self-resolve a three-way conflict (escalate by asking the user directly). Phase 5 WRITES the missing test (runs $spec [mode=tests] for SPEC-GAPs); a full fresh re-review runs after every validated fix cycle until a clean pass returns 0 CRITICAL/0 HIGH.
• MANDATORY feature-area-wide TC audit (Phase 1 task + Phase 3 addendum): Gate 7 alone is diff-scoped — it can't see a pre-existing §8 TC that lost its covering test outside the diff. Every review non-skippably enumerates the FULL Section-8 TC list of the implicated feature doc(s), not only diff-touched TCs, into the SAME Coverage Mapping Table; zero GAP rows required, whole table, before PASS.

Scope: The FULL change set — changed production code AND changed test files — from uncommitted changes (default), user-specified files, or a user-specified diff (branch/PR). The review target is never "just the test files".

Workflow: Phase 0 Detect → Collect → Coverage Map (Gate 7) → 8-Gate Review → Spec Cross-Check → Report → validate findings → fix validated issues (including writing missing tests) → full re-review after fixes → Build & verify → If fail: investigate + fix plan

Non-negotiable rules:

• MUST collect BOTH changed production code AND changed test files — coverage of the change is part of the review, not an optional extra

• MUST verify every behavior-changing production change maps to a covering test — integration test FIRST; unit test ONLY with recorded justification (Gate 7)

• MUST treat an uncovered changed behavior as a HIGH finding minimum — fix by writing the missing test in Phase 5, not just reporting

• MUST verify spec↔test↔code alignment for changed code, not only for existing tests — a changed behavior with no TC in spec docs is a spec gap finding

• MUST read handler/service source BEFORE judging any test assertions

• MUST flag smoke-only tests (no-exception-only checks) as FAIL

• MUST flag DI-resolution-only tests (resolve + not-null) as FAIL — NOT integration tests

• MUST verify tests use unique IDs per run (infinitely repeatable)

• MUST use async polling/retry for ALL DB assertions — async delays are norm

• MUST flag repository-created or repository-mutated test data that bypasses real use cases and can leave invalid state

• MUST treat an unrealistic setup as a review finding (Gate 8) — compressed pacing between actor steps, a fixed sleep standing in for a real observable, a widened assertion timeout replacing an ARRANGE barrier, or a retry wrapped around a failing assertion

• MUST require 2 consecutive successful suite/project runs before declaring integration tests verified/idempotent

• NEVER accept assertions that always pass regardless of handler correctness

• NO smoke/fake/useless tests — every test MUST execute actual operations and verify data state

• docs/project-reference/integration-test-reference.md — Integration test patterns, fixture setup, seeder conventions, lessons learned (MUST READ before reviewing)

First Principle — Easy to Change

The success metric of every coding decision is future change cost. DRY, SRP, abstraction, design patterns, naming, layering, tests — every technique exists to serve one goal: making the next change cheaper.

When evaluating code, refactor, test, or abstraction, ask: does this make next change cheaper or more expensive?

• Reject "best practices" raising change cost (premature abstraction, speculative generality, leaky indirection, ceremony without payoff).
• Name real enemies in findings: coupling, hidden state, duplicated knowledge, unclear intent, irreversible decisions exposed too early.
• Simpler design easy to change beats sophisticated design that isn't.

Apply this lens before invoking any specific rule, pattern, or checklist below — if downstream rule would raise change cost, this principle wins.

Phase 0: Scope Detection

Classify BEFORE any gate review. Route wrong → waste all effort.

The review target is the CHANGE, not the test files. Changed test files are reviewed for quality (Gates 1-6 and 8); changed production files are checked for coverage and spec alignment (Gate 7). Both halves are mandatory.

Search for test reference docs — NEVER hardcode paths. Grep for integration-test-reference, test-patterns, integration-test-guide near changed test files to discover project-specific conventions before starting gate review.

The 8 Quality Gates

Gates 1-6 and Gate 8 apply per changed/target TEST file. Gate 7 applies to the CHANGE SET — every behavior-changing production file must map to a covering test and a spec TC.

Gate 1: Assertion Value — "Would this catch the bug?" (MUTATION-SCORE gate)

Think: If a single line of the handler's core logic were changed (a > flipped to >=, a field assignment removed, a boolean negated), would at least one assertion FAIL? If NONE → FAIL. This is the mutation-testing question, made automatic.

#1 AI failure: hallucination assertions — look real, verify nothing.

Operationalized — run the project's mutation tool (PRIMARY). "Would this catch the bug?" is exactly the mutation-score question. Mechanize it instead of eyeballing it:

1. Discover the configured mutation tool from docs/project-config.json, dependency manifests, and CI config. Common per stack: Stryker (JS/TS, .NET — StrykerNet), PITest (Java/JVM), mutmut or cosmic-ray (Python). Cite the local config or command if one exists.
2. Run it scoped to the CHANGED handler/service (mutate only the production files in the review target — never the whole repo) against the covering tests from Gate 7.
3. Read the surviving-mutant report. Each surviving mutant = a missing invariant = an assertion gap → a HIGH finding minimum (CRITICAL when the mutated line touches authorization, money, or data integrity).
4. Fix in Phase 5 by WRITING the killing test — the assertion or property that fails on that mutant. Re-run until the changed code's mutants are killed (or each survivor has a recorded justification, e.g. equivalent mutant). Raising the line-coverage number is NOT a fix — coverage that executes a line without asserting its effect leaves the mutant alive.

Manual fallback (when NO mutation tool is configured or addable). Apply the single-mutation thought experiment by hand: read the handler source, then for each core-logic line ask "if I deleted or inverted this, which assertion fails?" If the answer is NONE for any business-critical line → FAIL. Prefer recommending the stack-appropriate mutation tool as a harness add so the gate becomes automatic next time.

PASS: Every changed core-logic line is killed by ≥1 assertion — no surviving mutant on the changed code (mutation tool), or the manual single-mutation check finds a failing assertion for each (fallback) — AND the Mutation Probe Ledger (below) is recorded in the report with a KILLED/SURVIVOR verdict per changed core-logic line. No ledger → no PASS, regardless of how clean the eyeball check felt.

FAIL:

• A surviving mutant on a changed core-logic line with no killing test (or no recorded equivalent-mutant justification)
• No-exception as ONLY assertion
• Not-null without content check
• Assertions on fields handler doesn't modify
• Dead assertions: x >= 0 where x always >= 0, count >= 0, string not-empty on required fields

Verify: Run the mutation tool on the changed handler → list surviving mutants → each survivor is a missing assertion to write. When no tool is available: read handler source → list fields/branches it changes → check at least one assertion would fail if each were mutated.

Recorded artifact — Mutation Probe Ledger (REQUIRED, non-skippable, BOTH paths). "I checked it mentally" is not evidence. Gate 1 cannot be marked PASS without this ledger written into the review report — it is the proof the probe ran, identical in obligation whether a tool ran or the manual fallback did:

Rules: (1) every changed core-logic line gets a row — no sampling, no "representative subset". (2) Tool path: rows come from the surviving-mutant report; manual fallback: rows come from the line-by-line thought experiment — same table, same columns. (3) A SURVIVOR row with no killing assertion is a HIGH finding minimum (CRITICAL on auth/money/data-integrity lines) UNLESS it carries a written equivalent-mutant justification. (4) An empty or absent ledger = Gate 1 FAIL (not "skipped") — the gate is unproven, so it cannot pass.

Gate 2: Data State — "Does it check the database?"

Think: Does this test prove the database changed, or just that no exception occurred?

PASS: After command, test queries DB and asserts specific entity field values.

FAIL:

• Only checks return value, never verifies DB state
• Checks existence (not-null) without field values
• Missing async polling on side-effect assertions

Exception: Smoke-only ONLY when side effect truly unobservable. MUST include explicit justification comment.

ALWAYS use async polling/retry for data assertions. Event handlers, bus consumers, background jobs run async — data may not be immediately available.

Gate 3: Repeatability — "Can I run this 100 times?"

Think: If this test runs N times in a shared database, does it get noisier each run? Would run #2 fail?

FAIL: Hardcoded IDs, hardcoded business keys without unique suffix, teardown/cleanup, ordering dependency, seeders without existence check, or direct repository setup that creates state users could not create through real use cases.

FAIL (not parallel-safe — see SYNC:test-data-isolation): Assertions hung off a shared mutable entity another test can change, OR off a parent a bulk re-sync/recompute/rebuild/cascade consumer can wipe — even when THIS test never mutates it. Each test MUST own fresh per-test data; only immutable lookup data may be shared. Verify by grepping every other test on that shared data AND every cross-cutting consumer over it.

Verify: Repeatability is only proven when the relevant suite/project passes 2 consecutive runs without resetting data. One green run is not enough.

Gate 4: Domain Logic — "Does test match handler?"

Think: Did I read the handler source? Do I know which exact fields it writes? Do assertions check those fields — and ONLY those fields?

PASS: Assertions match what handler ACTUALLY does (verified by reading source). Covers primary business rule. Validation paths tested.

FAIL: Assertions on untouched fields (copy-paste), missing primary side-effect assertion, event handler tests that never trigger the event.

Verify: Grep handler class → read it → list what it does → compare with assertions.

Also check:

• Authorization: test verifies both authorized AND unauthorized access paths?
• Coverage: happy path + validation failure + DB state check (3 tests minimum)

Gate 5: Spec Traceability — "Is this tracked?"

Think: Can I trace TC-XXX-NNN from test annotation → spec docs → feature docs in one unbroken chain?

PASS: Business test has a TestSpec annotation linking to a TC ID that exists in spec docs. Technical-only test has a TechnicalSpec annotation and does not claim §8 business coverage. The test method name need NOT match the TC, and many test methods may legitimately carry the same TC (one business TC → many tests across components/services — the join key is the test-spec annotation, not the method name; see tc-format.md → TC ↔ Test Code Cardinality).

FAIL (WARN, not BLOCK): Missing annotation, orphaned TC ID (business TestSpec points to a TC absent from spec docs), technical-only test still carrying a business TestSpec, or spec says "Planned" but test exists. NOT a finding: several tests sharing one TC, a method name that differs from the TC, or a technical-only test carrying TechnicalSpec instead of TestSpec.

Gate 6: Three-Way Sync — "Do test, code, and docs agree?"

Think: Have I read ALL 3 sources? Where exactly do they disagree? Does evidence support a verdict, or must I escalate?

Hardest gate. Identify discrepancy, classify using source-of-truth hierarchy — NEVER silently pick winner. Always state the resolved source with file:line evidence — why: a winner picked without evidence hides bugs.

Source of Truth Hierarchy (highest → lowest)

Rule: Docs win over code. Code wins over tests. Feature docs win over test-spec docs.

Conflict Classification

CRITICAL rules:

• NEVER fix a test to match broken code — that hides bugs
• NEVER assume docs are wrong without evidence they were intentionally superseded
• NEVER self-resolve a three-way conflict — always escalate by asking the user directly
• "Stale docs" verdict requires BOTH code AND test to agree — one source never enough
• When escalating, include: TC ID, what each source says, evidence found

Verify Each Source

1. Feature doc: Read Section 8 — scenario title, preconditions, steps, expected results
2. Test-spec doc: Find same TC — Planned/Implemented status and described scenario
3. Implementation code: Read handler/entity/service — fields written, events fired, validation rules
4. Test code: Read test method — arrange, execute, assert

Compare each pair with file:line evidence for each source.

PASS: All three agree. WARN: Minor wording, same semantic. FAIL: Semantic disagreement on field/rule/outcome. ESCALATE: All three differ and evidence cannot resolve.

Gate 7: Change Coverage — "Is every changed behavior tested AND specced?"

Think: For each behavior-changing production file in the review target, which test would FAIL if this change were broken? If NONE → coverage gap. Which spec TC describes this behavior? If NONE → spec gap.

This gate makes the skill verify the REVIEW TARGET has coverage — not merely review tests that happen to exist.

Scope note: protocol below diff-scoped (changed production files → TC). Does NOT by itself prove 100% feature-area coverage — a pre-existing TC that lost its covering test, or was never covered, sits outside this diff and passes silently. Phase 3 addendum — Feature-Area-Wide TC Audit (below) closes that gap: audits every Section-8 TC in implicated feature doc(s), not only ones this diff touches; both feed the SAME Coverage Mapping Table, SAME zero-GAP exit bar.

Protocol:

1. Collect changed production files from the review target (Phase 0 scope): commands, queries, handlers, entities, services, event handlers, consumers, controllers, frontend services/stores with business logic.
2. Filter to behavior-changing files. Exclude: migrations (one-time execution paths), generated code, pure renames/formatting, config-only, DI registration-only changes. Record each exclusion with reason.
3. Find covering tests per changed behavior — use graph (query tests_for <fn>, trace <file> --direction both) plus grep for the handler/class name under test directories. A test COVERS a change only if it exercises the changed path and asserts the changed outcome — read the test; name match alone is NOT coverage.
4. Apply test-type priority: integration test FIRST (subcutaneous CQRS through real DI, data-state assertions). Unit test is an acceptable fallback ONLY when integration coverage is infeasible (pure function/calculation logic, no observable data state, no DI path) — record the justification per fallback.
5. Check spec alignment for the change — existence AND correctness. Each changed behavior must map to a TC in spec docs (feature doc Section 8 / test-spec docs). Finding a TC is NOT enough: READ the mapped TC and confirm it describes the CURRENT behavior. New behavior with no TC, or a TC that exists but still describes the OLD/superseded behavior → spec gap (spec-driven development violation). A behavior is only fully covered when a covering test exercises it AND a non-stale §8 TC documents it — so this correctness re-check applies to COVERED rows too, never just to GAP rows.

Coverage Mapping Table (MANDATORY output):

Rows are keyed by changed production behavior, not by TC. A behavior is COVERED when ≥1 covering test exercises it — list ALL covering tests in the column when several apply. One Spec TC may legitimately appear across multiple rows and be covered by many tests (one TC → many tests, 1:N). Do NOT expect or require one test per TC, and do NOT flag a TC reused across rows as a duplicate (see tc-format.md → TC ↔ Test Code Cardinality).

Verdicts:

• COVERED — integration test exercises the changed path with data-state assertions AND the mapped §8 TC describes the CURRENT behavior. A covering test whose mapped TC is stale is NOT COVERED — record it as SPEC-GAP.
• COVERED-UNIT — unit test covers it, integration infeasible, justification recorded, and the mapped §8 TC is current (same stale-TC rule applies).
• GAP (FAIL) — no test would fail if the change broke. Severity: HIGH minimum; CRITICAL when the change touches authorization, money, or data integrity. Fix in Phase 5 by WRITING the missing test (integration-first) — reporting alone does not clear this gate
• SPEC-GAP (FAIL) — behavior has no TC, OR a covering test exists but its mapped TC still describes OLD/superseded behavior (stale TC ≠ covered). Both the missing-TC and the stale-but-covered case are SPEC-GAP. Fix via $spec [mode=tests] UPDATE (and $spec when business rules changed)

FAIL:

• Changed handler/command/entity rule with zero covering test
• Unit test substituted where an integration test is feasible, with no justification
• Test exists but does not assert the changed outcome (stale coverage counted as coverage)
• New/changed behavior absent from spec docs, or TC describing superseded behavior
• A COVERED row marked COVERED without reading its mapped §8 TC — TC existence assumed instead of its CURRENT-behavior correctness verified (a stale-but-covered TC silently passes as covered)

Explicit user waiver (recorded verbatim in the report with the user's reason) is the ONLY alternative to closing a GAP.

Gate 8: Scenario Fidelity — "Could production ever reach this setup?"

Think: Read the ARRANGE block as a production trace. Could this exact sequence, timing, and data actually occur in the running system? If no, the test is mis-specified — the finding lands on the SCENARIO, never on the assertion.

An unrealistic setup proves nothing when it passes and burns hours when it fails. Judge fidelity BEFORE judging assertion strength — a strong assertion over an impossible scenario is still a defective test. Applies per changed/target TEST file, alongside Gates 1-6.

Finding triggers — mechanically checkable; each fires as a finding with severity + file:line evidence:

PASS: Every actor step in ARRANGE could occur in production in that order and at that pacing; every wait is an ARRANGE-phase barrier on a real observable (or a commented fixed delay where no observable exists); any deliberately impossible state carries a comment naming WHY production could reach it (upstream bug, partial write, legacy data).

FAIL: Any trigger row fires with no recorded justification.

Verify: Read the test end-to-end as a production trace — per actor step ask "what separates this from the previous step in real life, and what does the test wait on?" Then grep the test file (and, when reviewing a change, its diff) for sleep/delay calls, retry/poll wrappers, and enlarged timeout arguments; every hit is a candidate row above. A trigger that fires in the DIFF (a wait that grew, a retry that appeared) outranks one that merely pre-existed — it is evidence of masking in progress.

Review Protocol (9 Phases)

Use task tracking for EACH phase before starting.

Phase 1 — Collect: Split the change set: production files (Gate 7 coverage targets) vs test files. Categorize test files: new (full review), modified (changed methods only), new projects (infra + samples). Categorize production files: behavior-changing vs excluded (with reason).

MANDATORY task — "Validate: 100% Section-8 TC coverage for {feature doc(s)} — not just diff-touched TCs." Create as OWN named task tracking item in Phase 1 breakdown. Non-skippable whenever this review runs inside a workflow, current git changes are present (staged/unstaged), or by direct user request — every invocation of this skill except a scope explicitly narrowed by the user to a single named TC/test. Identify feature doc(s) implicated by the change set (or named by the user) up front — their full Section 8 TC list is the audit scope for Phase 3's addendum below, independent of which TCs the diff touches.

Phase 2 — Gate Review: Per test file, apply Gates 1-6 and Gate 8. Apply Gate 7 once across the change set and produce the Coverage Mapping Table. Record per-file verdict table:

Phase 3 — Spec Cross-Check + Three-Way Diff: Two directions — from tests AND from changed code.

For each TC ID in code:

1. Verify TC entry exists in both docs/specs/ (Section 8) and docs/specs/
2. Read what TC describes in each doc
3. Read what implementation code actually does
4. Read what test asserts
5. Classify conflict pattern (Gate 6 table) and record action
6. Flag gaps both directions: TC in code but not in docs, or "Implemented" TC in docs but no test found

For each behavior-changing production file in the review target (reverse direction — spec-driven development check):

7. Verify a TC exists describing the changed behavior AND read it to confirm it describes the CURRENT behavior — run this even when a covering test was already found and the row is otherwise COVERED. If the TC still describes the OLD behavior, downgrade the row from COVERED to SPEC-GAP and flag it stale (route to $spec [mode=tests] UPDATE). Finding a covering test never excuses re-checking the TC's correctness.
8. New behavior with no TC anywhere → SPEC-GAP finding (Gate 7); recommend $spec [mode=tests] (and $spec when business rules changed)

Phase 3 addendum — Feature-Area-Wide TC Audit (MANDATORY, satisfies Phase 1 "100% Section-8 TC coverage" task). Steps 1-8 above diff-scoped: map changed production files → TC. This addendum TC-scoped instead, covers TCs the diff never touched:

9. Enumerate every TC-{FEATURE}-{NNN} in Section 8 of all feature doc(s) implicated by the change set (or named by the user) — FULL list, not the subset steps 1-8 already visited.
10. For each TC not already resolved by steps 1-8, find covering test(s) the same way Gate 7 does (graph query / grep the handler or class the TC describes; read test — name match alone NOT coverage) and read TC to confirm it still describes CURRENT behavior.
11. Classify each using SAME verdicts and Coverage Mapping Table format as Gate 7 (COVERED / COVERED-UNIT / GAP / SPEC-GAP) — append rows to the SAME Coverage Mapping Table Gate 7 produces, so review emits one unified table covering both diff-touched and pre-existing TCs.
12. A GAP surfaced here (pre-existing TC, zero covering test — coverage regressed or never written) carries the SAME Phase 5 "WRITE the missing test" obligation as a diff-touched Gate 7 GAP — not a lesser finding merely because the diff didn't touch it. Severity: HIGH minimum per Gate 7's rule.
13. Zero GAP rows across the WHOLE unified table (diff-touched + feature-area-wide) required before review can report PASS on Gate 7 / the Phase 1 mandatory task.

Phase 4 — Initial Report: Write to plans/reports/integration-test-review-{date}-{slug}.md

Phase 5 — Fix All Issues (MANDATORY — fix ONLY findings already validated per the embedded double-round-trip-review validate-before-fix contract): Fix every CRITICAL and HIGH issue. MEDIUM: fix if straightforward, document as tech debt otherwise.

1. Prioritize: CRITICAL → HIGH → MEDIUM
2. Per fix: read handler source, understand domain logic, write/fix assertion
3. Gate 7 GAP fixes: WRITE the missing test — integration test first (route through $integration-test patterns); unit test only with recorded justification. SPEC-GAP fixes: run $spec [mode=tests] UPDATE to add/correct the TC before or alongside writing the test
4. Gate 8 fidelity fixes: repair the SCENARIO, never the assertion — add the ARRANGE-phase settle barrier on a real observable, restore any widened assertion timeout to its original window, remove any retry wrapped around a failing assertion, and comment a delibe

…(truncated)