Ship

Ship: Fully Automated Ship Workflow

You are running the /ship workflow. This is a non-interactive, fully automated workflow. Do NOT ask for confirmation at any step. The user said /ship which means DO IT. Run straight through and output the PR URL at the end.

OpenBitFun Dispatch

When this skill is invoked by OpenBitFun, this skill supplies the release-engineering checklist. Use existing Task sub-agents only for read-only readiness checks that can run independently, then keep all mutations in the main session.

• Do not assume a Release Engineer sub-agent exists. Choose only from the Task tool's available agents.
• Prefer matching custom release/CI/docs sub-agents if available; otherwise use Explore for readiness mapping and built-in review sub-agents for final diff checks.
• Good parallel Task tracks: release-note/docs drift, CI/test expectation audit, risk/rollback scan, and final review-quality inspection.
• Do not ask Task sub-agents to push, commit, create PRs, bump versions, or edit files. The main session owns all release mutations.
• The main session synthesizes Task readiness results before running ship steps.

Only stop for:

• On the base branch (abort)
• Merge conflicts that can't be auto-resolved (stop, show conflicts)
• In-branch test failures (pre-existing failures are triaged, not auto-blocking)
• Pre-landing review finds ASK items that need user judgment
• MINOR or MAJOR version bump needed (ask — see Step 4)
• Greptile review comments that need user decision (complex fixes, false positives)
• AI-assessed coverage below minimum threshold (hard gate with user override — see Step 3.4)
• Plan items NOT DONE with no user override (see Step 3.45)
• Plan verification failures (see Step 3.47)
• TODOS.md missing and user wants to create one (ask — see Step 5.5)
• TODOS.md disorganized and user wants to reorganize (ask — see Step 5.5)

Never stop for:

• Uncommitted changes (always include them)
• Version bump choice (auto-pick MICRO or PATCH — see Step 4)
• CHANGELOG content (auto-generate from diff)
• Commit message approval (auto-commit)
• Multi-file changesets (auto-split into bisectable commits)
• TODOS.md completed-item detection (auto-mark)
• Auto-fixable review findings (dead code, N+1, stale comments — fixed automatically)
• Test coverage gaps within target threshold (auto-generate and commit, or flag in PR body)

Re-run behavior (idempotency): Re-running /ship means "run the whole checklist again." Every verification step (tests, coverage audit, plan completion, pre-landing review, adversarial review, VERSION/CHANGELOG check, TODOS, document-release) runs on every invocation. Only actions are idempotent:

• Step 4: If VERSION already bumped, skip the bump but still read the version
• Step 7: If already pushed, skip the push command
• Step 8: If PR exists, update the body instead of creating a new PR Never skip a verification step because a prior /ship run already performed it.

Step 1: Pre-flight

1. Check the current branch. If on the base branch or the repo's default branch, abort: "You're on the base branch. Ship from a feature branch."

2. Run git status (never use -uall). Uncommitted changes are always included — no need to ask.

3. Run git diff <base>...HEAD --stat and git log <base>..HEAD --oneline to understand what's being shipped.

4. Check review readiness:

Review Readiness Dashboard

After completing the review, read the review log and config to display the dashboard.

true # OpenBitFun reads review context from the current session

Parse the output. Find the most recent entry for each skill (plan-ceo-review, plan-eng-review, review, plan-design-review, design-review-lite, adversarial-review, outside-voice-review, outside-voice-plan-review). Ignore entries with timestamps older than 7 days. For the Eng Review row, show whichever is more recent between review (diff-scoped pre-landing review) and plan-eng-review (plan-stage architecture review). Append "(DIFF)" or "(PLAN)" to the status to distinguish. For the Adversarial row, show whichever is more recent between adversarial-review (new auto-scaled) and outside-voice-review (legacy). For Design Review, show whichever is more recent between plan-design-review (full visual audit) and design-review-lite (code-level check). Append "(FULL)" or "(LITE)" to the status to distinguish. For the Outside Voice row, show the most recent outside-voice-plan-review entry — this captures outside voices from both /plan-ceo-review and /plan-eng-review.

Source attribution: If the most recent entry for a skill has a `"via"` field, append it to the status label in parentheses. Examples: plan-eng-review with via:"autoplan" shows as "CLEAR (PLAN via /autoplan)". review with via:"ship" shows as "CLEAR (DIFF via /ship)". Entries without a via field show as "CLEAR (PLAN)" or "CLEAR (DIFF)" as before.

Note: autoplan-voices and design-outside-voices entries are audit-trail-only (forensic data for cross-model consensus analysis). They do not appear in the dashboard and are not checked by any consumer.

Display:

+====================================================================+
|                    REVIEW READINESS DASHBOARD                       |
+====================================================================+
| Review          | Runs | Last Run            | Status    | Required |
|-----------------|------|---------------------|-----------|----------|
| Eng Review      |  1   | 2026-03-16 15:00    | CLEAR     | YES      |
| CEO Review      |  0   | —                   | —         | no       |
| Design Review   |  0   | —                   | —         | no       |
| Adversarial     |  0   | —                   | —         | no       |
| Outside Voice   |  0   | —                   | —         | no       |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| VERDICT: CLEARED — Eng Review passed                                |
+====================================================================+

Review tiers:

• Eng Review (required by default): The only review that gates shipping. Covers architecture, code quality, tests, performance.
• CEO Review (optional): Use your judgment. Recommend it for big product/business changes, new user-facing features, or scope decisions. Skip for bug fixes, refactors, infra, and cleanup.
• Design Review (optional): Use your judgment. Recommend it for UI/UX changes. Skip for backend-only, infra, or prompt-only changes.
• Adversarial Review (automatic): Always-on for every review. Every diff gets both OpenBitFun adversarial subagent and outside-voice sub-agent adversarial challenge. Large diffs (200+ lines) additionally get outside-voice sub-agent structured review with P1 gate. No configuration needed.
• Outside Voice (optional): Independent plan review from a different AI model. Offered after all review sections complete in /plan-ceo-review and /plan-eng-review. Falls back to independent subagent if outside-voice sub-agent is unavailable. Never gates shipping.

Verdict logic:

• CLEARED: Eng Review has >= 1 entry within 7 days from either `review` or `plan-eng-review` with status "clean" (or `skip_eng_review` is `true`)
• NOT CLEARED: Eng Review missing, stale (>7 days), or has open issues
• CEO, Design, and outside-voice sub-agent reviews are shown for context but never block shipping
• If `skip_eng_review` config is `true`, Eng Review shows "SKIPPED (global)" and verdict is CLEARED

Staleness detection: After displaying the dashboard, check if any existing reviews may be stale:

• Parse the `---HEAD---` section from the bash output to get the current HEAD commit hash
• For each review entry that has a `commit` field: compare it against the current HEAD. If different, count elapsed commits: `git rev-list --count STORED_COMMIT..HEAD`. Display: "Note: {skill} review from {date} may be stale — {N} commits since review"
• For entries without a `commit` field (legacy entries): display "Note: {skill} review from {date} has no commit tracking — consider re-running for accurate staleness detection"
• If all reviews match the current HEAD, do not display any staleness notes

If the Eng Review is NOT "CLEAR":

Print: "No prior eng review found — ship will run its own pre-landing review in Step 3.5."

Check diff size: git diff <base>...HEAD --stat | tail -1. If the diff is >200 lines, add: "Note: This is a large diff. Consider running /plan-eng-review or /autoplan for architecture-level review before shipping."

If CEO Review is missing, mention as informational ("CEO Review not run — recommended for product changes") but do NOT block.

For Design Review: run source <(true # OpenBitFun infers diff scope with git/rg <base> 2>/dev/null). If SCOPE_FRONTEND=true and no design review (plan-design-review or design-review-lite) exists in the dashboard, mention: "Design Review not run — this PR changes frontend code. The lite design check will run automatically in Step 3.5, but consider running /design-review for a full visual audit post-implementation." Still never block.

Continue to Step 1.5 — do NOT block or ask. Ship runs its own review in Step 3.5.

Step 1.5: Distribution Pipeline Check

If the diff introduces a new standalone artifact (CLI binary, library package, tool) — not a web service with existing deployment — verify that a distribution pipeline exists.

1. Check if the diff adds a new cmd/ directory, main.go, or bin/ entry point:

   git diff origin/<base> --name-only | grep -E '(cmd/.*/main\.go|bin/|Cargo\.toml|setup\.py|package\.json)' | head -5
   

2. If new artifact detected, check for a release workflow:

   ls .github/workflows/ 2>/dev/null | grep -iE 'release|publish|dist'
   grep -qE 'release|publish|deploy' .gitlab-ci.yml 2>/dev/null && echo "GITLAB_CI_RELEASE"
   

3. If no release pipeline exists and a new artifact was added: Use AskUserQuestion:

   • "This PR adds a new binary/tool but there's no CI/CD pipeline to build and publish it. Users won't be able to download the artifact after merge."
   • A) Add a release workflow now (CI/CD release pipeline — GitHub Actions or GitLab CI depending on platform)
   • B) Defer — add to TODOS.md
   • C) Not needed — this is internal/web-only, existing deployment covers it

4. If release pipeline exists: Continue silently.

5. If no new artifact detected: Skip silently.

Step 2: Merge the base branch (BEFORE tests)

Fetch and merge the base branch into the feature branch so tests run against the merged state:

git fetch origin <base> && git merge origin/<base> --no-edit

If there are merge conflicts: Try to auto-resolve if they are simple (VERSION, schema.rb, CHANGELOG ordering). If conflicts are complex or ambiguous, STOP and show them.

If already up to date: Continue silently.

Step 2.5: Test Framework Bootstrap

Test Framework Bootstrap

Detect existing test framework and project runtime:

setopt +o nomatch 2>/dev/null || true  # zsh compat
# Detect project runtime
[ -f Gemfile ] && echo "RUNTIME:ruby"
[ -f package.json ] && echo "RUNTIME:node"
[ -f requirements.txt ] || [ -f pyproject.toml ] && echo "RUNTIME:python"
[ -f go.mod ] && echo "RUNTIME:go"
[ -f Cargo.toml ] && echo "RUNTIME:rust"
[ -f composer.json ] && echo "RUNTIME:php"
[ -f mix.exs ] && echo "RUNTIME:elixir"
# Detect sub-frameworks
[ -f Gemfile ] && grep -q "rails" Gemfile 2>/dev/null && echo "FRAMEWORK:rails"
[ -f package.json ] && grep -q '"next"' package.json 2>/dev/null && echo "FRAMEWORK:nextjs"
# Check for existing test infrastructure
ls jest.config.* vitest.config.* playwright.config.* .rspec pytest.ini pyproject.toml phpunit.xml 2>/dev/null
ls -d test/ tests/ spec/ __tests__/ cypress/ e2e/ 2>/dev/null
# Check opt-out marker
[ -f .openbitfun/team/no-test-bootstrap ] && echo "BOOTSTRAP_DECLINED"

If test framework detected (config files or test directories found): Print "Test framework detected: {name} ({N} existing tests). Skipping bootstrap." Read 2-3 existing test files to learn conventions (naming, imports, assertion style, setup patterns). Store conventions as prose context for use in Phase 8e.5 or Step 3.4. Skip the rest of bootstrap.

If BOOTSTRAP_DECLINED appears: Print "Test bootstrap previously declined — skipping." Skip the rest of bootstrap.

If NO runtime detected (no config files found): Use AskUserQuestion: "I couldn't detect your project's language. What runtime are you using?" Options: A) Node.js/TypeScript B) Ruby/Rails C) Python D) Go E) Rust F) PHP G) Elixir H) This project doesn't need tests. If user picks H → write .openbitfun/team/no-test-bootstrap and continue without tests.

If runtime detected but no test framework — bootstrap:

B2. Research best practices

Use WebSearch to find current best practices for the detected runtime:

• "[runtime] best test framework 2025 2026"
• "[framework A] vs [framework B] comparison"

If WebSearch is unavailable, use this built-in knowledge table:

B3. Framework selection

Use AskUserQuestion: "I detected this is a [Runtime/Framework] project with no test framework. I researched current best practices. Here are the options: A) [Primary] — [rationale]. Includes: [packages]. Supports: unit, integration, smoke, e2e B) [Alternative] — [rationale]. Includes: [packages] C) Skip — don't set up testing right now RECOMMENDATION: Choose A because [reason based on project context]"

If user picks C → write .openbitfun/team/no-test-bootstrap. Tell user: "If you change your mind later, delete .openbitfun/team/no-test-bootstrap and re-run." Continue without tests.

If multiple runtimes detected (monorepo) → ask which runtime to set up first, with option to do both sequentially.

B4. Install and configure

1. Install the chosen packages (npm/bun/gem/pip/etc.)
2. Create minimal config file
3. Create directory structure (test/, spec/, etc.)
4. Create one example test matching the project's code to verify setup works

If package installation fails → debug once. If still failing → revert with git checkout -- package.json package-lock.json (or equivalent for the runtime). Warn user and continue without tests.

B4.5. First real tests

Generate 3-5 real tests for existing code:

1. Find recently changed files: git log --since=30.days --name-only --format="" | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn | head -10
2. Prioritize by risk: Error handlers > business logic with conditionals > API endpoints > pure functions
3. For each file: Write one test that tests real behavior with meaningful assertions. Never expect(x).toBeDefined() — test what the code DOES.
4. Run each test. Passes → keep. Fails → fix once. Still fails → delete silently.
5. Generate at least 1 test, cap at 5.

Never import secrets, API keys, or credentials in test files. Use environment variables or test fixtures.

B5. Verify

# Run the full test suite to confirm everything works
{detected test command}

If tests fail → debug once. If still failing → revert all bootstrap changes and warn user.

B5.5. CI/CD pipeline

# Check CI provider
ls -d .github/ 2>/dev/null && echo "CI:github"
ls .gitlab-ci.yml .circleci/ bitrise.yml 2>/dev/null

If .github/ exists (or no CI detected — default to GitHub Actions): Create .github/workflows/test.yml with:

• runs-on: ubuntu-latest
• Appropriate setup action for the runtime (setup-node, setup-ruby, setup-python, etc.)
• The same test command verified in B5
• Trigger: push + pull_request

If non-GitHub CI detected → skip CI generation with note: "Detected {provider} — CI pipeline generation supports GitHub Actions only. Add test step to your existing pipeline manually."

B6. Create TESTING.md

First check: If TESTING.md already exists → read it and update/append rather than overwriting. Never destroy existing content.

Write TESTING.md with:

• Philosophy: "100% test coverage is the key to great vibe coding. Tests let you move fast, trust your instincts, and ship with confidence — without them, vibe coding is just yolo coding. With tests, it's a superpower."
• Framework name and version
• How to run tests (the verified command from B5)
• Test layers: Unit tests (what, where, when), Integration tests, Smoke tests, E2E tests
• Conventions: file naming, assertion style, setup/teardown patterns

B7. Update AGENTS.md

First check: If AGENTS.md already has a ## Testing section → skip. Don't duplicate.

Append a ## Testing section:

• Run command and test directory
• Reference to TESTING.md
• Test expectations:
  • 100% test coverage is the goal — tests make vibe coding safe
  • When writing new functions, write a corresponding test
  • When fixing a bug, write a regression test
  • When adding error handling, write a test that triggers the error
  • When adding a conditional (if/else, switch), write tests for BOTH paths
  • Never commit code that makes existing tests fail

B8. Commit

git status --porcelain

Only commit if there are changes. Stage all bootstrap files (config, test directory, TESTING.md, AGENTS.md, .github/workflows/test.yml if created): git commit -m "chore: bootstrap test framework ({framework name})"

Step 3: Run tests (on merged code)

Do NOT run RAILS_ENV=test bin/rails db:migrate — bin/test-lane already calls db:test:prepare internally, which loads the schema into the correct lane database. Running bare test migrations without INSTANCE hits an orphan DB and corrupts structure.sql.

Run both test suites in parallel:

bin/test-lane 2>&1 | tee /tmp/ship_tests.txt &
npm run test 2>&1 | tee /tmp/ship_vitest.txt &
wait

After both complete, read the output files and check pass/fail.

If any test fails: Do NOT immediately stop. Apply the Test Failure Ownership Triage:

Test Failure Ownership Triage

When tests fail, do NOT immediately stop. First, determine ownership:

Step T1: Classify each failure

For each failing test:

1. Get the files changed on this branch:

   git diff origin/<base>...HEAD --name-only
   

2. Classify the failure:

   • In-branch if: the failing test file itself was modified on this branch, OR the test output references code that was changed on this branch, OR you can trace the failure to a change in the branch diff.
   • Likely pre-existing if: neither the test file nor the code it tests was modified on this branch, AND the failure is unrelated to any branch change you can identify.
   • When ambiguous, default to in-branch. It is safer to stop the developer than to let a broken test ship. Only classify as pre-existing when you are confident.

   This classification is heuristic — use your judgment reading the diff and the test output. You do not have a programmatic dependency graph.

Step T2: Handle in-branch failures

STOP. These are your failures. Show them and do not proceed. The developer must fix their own broken tests before shipping.

Step T3: Handle pre-existing failures

Check REPO_MODE from the preamble output.

If REPO_MODE is solo:

Use AskUserQuestion:

These test failures appear pre-existing (not caused by your branch changes):

[list each failure with file:line and brief error description]

Since this is a solo repo, you're the only one who will fix these.

RECOMMENDATION: Choose A — fix now while the context is fresh. Completeness: 9/10. A) Investigate and fix now (human: ~2-4h / CC: ~15min) — Completeness: 10/10 B) Add as P0 TODO — fix after this branch lands — Completeness: 7/10 C) Skip — I know about this, ship anyway — Completeness: 3/10

If REPO_MODE is collaborative or unknown:

Use AskUserQuestion:

These test failures appear pre-existing (not caused by your branch changes):

[list each failure with file:line and brief error description]

This is a collaborative repo — these may be someone else's responsibility.

RECOMMENDATION: Choose B — assign it to whoever broke it so the right person fixes it. Completeness: 9/10. A) Investigate and fix now anyway — Completeness: 10/10 B) Blame + assign GitHub issue to the author — Completeness: 9/10 C) Add as P0 TODO — Completeness: 7/10 D) Skip — ship anyway — Completeness: 3/10

Step T4: Execute the chosen action

If "Investigate and fix now":

• Switch to /investigate mindset: root cause first, then minimal fix.
• Fix the pre-existing failure.
• Commit the fix separately from the branch's changes: git commit -m "fix: pre-existing test failure in <test-file>"
• Continue with the workflow.

If "Add as P0 TODO":

• If TODOS.md exists, add the entry following the format in review/TODOS-format.md (or the built-in review TODO format).
• If TODOS.md does not exist, create it with the standard header and add the entry.
• Entry should include: title, the error output, which branch it was noticed on, and priority P0.
• Continue with the workflow — treat the pre-existing failure as non-blocking.

If "Blame + assign GitHub issue" (collaborative only):

• Find who likely broke it. Check BOTH the test file AND the production code it tests:

  # Who last touched the failing test?
  git log --format="%an (%ae)" -1 -- <failing-test-file>
  # Who last touched the production code the test covers? (often the actual breaker)
  git log --format="%an (%ae)" -1 -- <source-file-under-test>
  

  If these are different people, prefer the production code author — they likely introduced the regression.
• Create an issue assigned to that person (use the platform detected in Step 0):
  • If GitHub:

    gh issue create \
      --title "Pre-existing test failure: <test-name>" \
      --body "Found failing on branch <current-branch>. Failure is pre-existing.\n\n**Error:**\n```\n<first 10 lines>\n```\n\n**Last modified by:** <author>\n**Noticed by:** gstack /ship on <date>" \
      --assignee "<github-username>"
    

  • If GitLab:

    glab issue create \
      -t "Pre-existing test failure: <test-name>" \
      -d "Found failing on branch <current-branch>. Failure is pre-existing.\n\n**Error:**\n```\n<first 10 lines>\n```\n\n**Last modified by:** <author>\n**Noticed by:** gstack /ship on <date>" \
      -a "<gitlab-username>"
    

• If neither CLI is available or --assignee/-a fails (user not in org, etc.), create the issue without assignee and note who should look at it in the body.
• Continue with the workflow.

If "Skip":

• Continue with the workflow.
• Note in output: "Pre-existing test failure skipped: "

After triage: If any in-branch failures remain unfixed, STOP. Do not proceed. If all failures were pre-existing and handled (fixed, TODOed, assigned, or skipped), continue to Step 3.25.

If all pass: Continue silently — just note the counts briefly.

Step 3.25: Eval Suites (conditional)

Evals are mandatory when prompt-related files change. Skip this step entirely if no prompt files are in the diff.

1. Check if the diff touches prompt-related files:

git diff origin/<base> --name-only

Match against these patterns (from AGENTS.md):

• app/services/*_prompt_builder.rb
• app/services/*_generation_service.rb, *_writer_service.rb, *_designer_service.rb
• app/services/*_evaluator.rb, *_scorer.rb, *_classifier_service.rb, *_analyzer.rb
• app/services/concerns/*voice*.rb, *writing*.rb, *prompt*.rb, *token*.rb
• app/services/chat_tools/*.rb, app/services/x_thread_tools/*.rb
• config/system_prompts/*.txt
• test/evals/**/* (eval infrastructure changes affect all suites)

If no matches: Print "No prompt-related files changed — skipping evals." and continue to Step 3.5.

2. Identify affected eval suites:

Each eval runner (test/evals/*_eval_runner.rb) declares PROMPT_SOURCE_FILES listing which source files affect it. Grep these to find which suites match the changed files:

grep -l "changed_file_basename" test/evals/*_eval_runner.rb

Map runner → test file: post_generation_eval_runner.rb → post_generation_eval_test.rb.

Special cases:

• Changes to test/evals/judges/*.rb, test/evals/support/*.rb, or test/evals/fixtures/ affect ALL suites that use those judges/support files. Check imports in the eval test files to determine which.
• Changes to config/system_prompts/*.txt — grep eval runners for the prompt filename to find affected suites.
• If unsure which suites are affected, run ALL suites that could plausibly be impacted. Over-testing is better than missing a regression.

3. Run affected suites at EVAL_JUDGE_TIER=full:

/ship is a pre-merge gate, so always use full tier (Sonnet structural + Opus persona judges).

EVAL_JUDGE_TIER=full EVAL_VERBOSE=1 bin/test-lane --eval test/evals/<suite>_eval_test.rb 2>&1 | tee /tmp/ship_evals.txt

If multiple suites need to run, run them sequentially (each needs a test lane). If the first suite fails, stop immediately — don't burn API cost on remaining suites.

4. Check results:

• If any eval fails: Show the failures, the cost dashboard, and STOP. Do not proceed.
• If all pass: Note pass counts and cost. Continue to Step 3.5.

5. Save eval output — include eval results and cost dashboard in the PR body (Step 8).

Tier reference (for context — /ship always uses full):

Step 3.4: Test Coverage Audit

100% coverage is the goal — every untested path is a path where bugs hide and vibe coding becomes yolo coding. Evaluate what was ACTUALLY coded (from the diff), not what was planned.

Test Framework Detection

Before analyzing coverage, detect the project's test framework:

1. Read AGENTS.md — look for a ## Testing section with test command and framework name. If found, use that as the authoritative source.
2. If AGENTS.md has no testing section, auto-detect:

setopt +o nomatch 2>/dev/null || true  # zsh compat
# Detect project runtime
[ -f Gemfile ] && echo "RUNTIME:ruby"
[ -f package.json ] && echo "RUNTIME:node"
[ -f requirements.txt ] || [ -f pyproject.toml ] && echo "RUNTIME:python"
[ -f go.mod ] && echo "RUNTIME:go"
[ -f Cargo.toml ] && echo "RUNTIME:rust"
# Check for existing test infrastructure
ls jest.config.* vitest.config.* playwright.config.* cypress.config.* .rspec pytest.ini phpunit.xml 2>/dev/null
ls -d test/ tests/ spec/ __tests__/ cypress/ e2e/ 2>/dev/null

3. If no framework detected: falls through to the Test Framework Bootstrap step (Step 2.5) which handles full setup.

0. Before/after test count:

# Count test files before any generation
find . -name '*.test.*' -o -name '*.spec.*' -o -name '*_test.*' -o -name '*_spec.*' | grep -v node_modules | wc -l

Store this number for the PR body.

1. Trace every codepath changed using git diff origin/<base>...HEAD:

Read every changed file. For each one, trace how data flows through the code — don't just list functions, actually follow the execution:

1. Read the diff. For each changed file, read the full file (not just the diff hunk) to understand context.
2. Trace data flow. Starting from each entry point (route handler, exported function, event listener, component render), follow the data through every branch:
   • Where does input come from? (request params, props, database, API call)
   • What transforms it? (validation, mapping, computation)
   • Where does it go? (database write, API response, rendered output, side effect)
   • What can go wrong at each step? (null/undefined, invalid input, network failure, empty collection)
3. Diagram the execution. For each changed file, draw an ASCII diagram showing:
   • Every function/method that was added or modified
   • Every conditional branch (if/else, switch, ternary, guard clause, early return)
   • Every error path (try/catch, rescue, error boundary, fallback)
   • Every call to another function (trace into it — does IT have untested branches?)
   • Every edge: what happens with null input? Empty array? Invalid type?

This is the critical step — you're building a map of every line of code that can execute differently based on input. Every branch in this diagram needs a test.

2. Map user flows, interactions, and error states:

Code coverage isn't enough — you need to cover how real users interact with the changed code. For each changed feature, think through:

• User flows: What sequence of actions does a user take that touches this code? Map the full journey (e.g., "user clicks 'Pay' → form validates → API call → success/failure screen"). Each step in the journey needs a test.
• Interaction edge cases: What happens when the user does something unexpected?
  • Double-click/rapid resubmit
  • Navigate away mid-operation (back button, close tab, click another link)
  • Submit with stale data (page sat open for 30 minutes, session expired)
  • Slow connection (API takes 10 seconds — what does the user see?)
  • Concurrent actions (two tabs, same form)
• Error states the user can see: For every error the code handles, what does the user actually experience?
  • Is there a clear error message or a silent failure?
  • Can the user recover (retry, go back, fix input) or are they stuck?
  • What happens with no network? With a 500 from the API? With invalid data from the server?
• Empty/zero/boundary states: What does the UI show with zero results? With 10,000 results? With a single character input? With maximum-length input?

Add these to your diagram alongside the code branches. A user flow with no test is just as much a gap as an untested if/else.

3. Check each branch against existing tests:

Go through your diagram branch by branch — both code paths AND user flows. For each one, search for a test that exercises it:

• Function processPayment() → look for billing.test.ts, billing.spec.ts, test/billing_test.rb
• An if/else → look for tests covering BOTH the true AND false path
• An error handler → look for a test that triggers that specific error condition
• A call to helperFn() that has its own branches → those branches need tests too
• A user flow → look for an integration or E2E test that walks through the journey
• An interaction edge case → look for a test that simulates the unexpected action

Quality scoring rubric:

• ★★★ Tests behavior with edge cases AND error paths
• ★★ Tests correct behavior, happy path only
• ★ Smoke test / existence check / trivial assertion (e.g., "it renders", "it doesn't throw")

E2E Test Decision Matrix

When checking each branch, also determine whether a unit test or E2E/integration test is the right tool:

RECOMMEND E2E (mark as [→E2E] in the diagram):

• Common user flow spanning 3+ components/services (e.g., signup → verify email → first login)
• Integration point where mocking hides real failures (e.g., API → queue → worker → DB)
• Auth/payment/data-destruction flows — too important to trust unit tests alone

RECOMMEND EVAL (mark as [→EVAL] in the diagram):

• Critical LLM call that needs a quality eval (e.g., prompt change → test output still meets quality bar)
• Changes to prompt templates, system instructions, or tool definitions

STICK WITH UNIT TESTS:

• Pure function with clear inputs/outputs
• Internal helper with no side effects
• Edge case of a single function (null input, empty array)
• Obscure/rare flow that isn't customer-facing

REGRESSION RULE (mandatory)

IRON RULE: When the coverage audit identifies a REGRESSION — code that previously worked but the diff broke — a regression test is written immediately. No AskUserQuestion. No skipping. Regressions are the highest-priority test because they prove something broke.

A regression is when:

• The diff modifies existing behavior (not new code)
• The existing test suite (if any) doesn't cover the changed path
• The change introduces a new failure mode for existing callers

When uncertain whether a change is a regression, err on the side of writing the test.

Format: commit as test: regression test for {what broke}

4. Output ASCII coverage diagram:

Include BOTH code paths and user flows in the same diagram. Mark E2E-worthy and eval-worthy paths:

CODE PATH COVERAGE
===========================
[+] src/services/billing.ts
    │
    ├── processPayment()
    │   ├── [★★★ TESTED] Happy path + card declined + timeout — billing.test.ts:42
    │   ├── [GAP]         Network timeout — NO TEST
    │   └── [GAP]         Invalid currency — NO TEST
    │
    └── refundPayment()
        ├── [★★  TESTED] Full refund — billing.test.ts:89
        └── [★   TESTED] Partial refund (checks non-throw only) — billing.test.ts:101

USER FLOW COVERAGE
===========================
[+] Payment checkout flow
    │
    ├── [★★★ TESTED] Complete purchase — checkout.e2e.ts:15
    ├── [GAP] [→E2E] Double-click submit — needs E2E, not just unit
    ├── [GAP]         Navigate away during payment — unit test sufficient
    └── [★   TESTED]  Form validation errors (checks render only) — checkout.test.ts:40

[+] Error states
    │
    ├── [★★  TESTED] Card declined message — billing.test.ts:58
    ├── [GAP]         Network timeout UX (what does user see?) — NO TEST
    └── [GAP]         Empty cart submission — NO TEST

[+] LLM integration
    │
    └── [GAP] [→EVAL] Prompt template change — needs eval test

─────────────────────────────────
COVERAGE: 5/13 paths tested (38%)
  Code paths: 3/5 (60%)
  User flows: 2/8 (25%)
QUALITY:  ★★★: 2  ★★: 2  ★: 1
GAPS: 8 paths need tests (2 need E2E, 1 needs eval)
─────────────────────────────────

Fast path: All paths covered → "Step 3.4: All new code paths have test coverage ✓" Continue.

5. Generate tests for uncovered paths:

If test framework detected (or bootstrapped in Step 2.5):

• Prioritize error handlers and edge cases first (happy paths are more likely already tested)
• Read 2-3 existing test files to match conventions exactly
• Generate unit tests. Mock all external dependencies (DB, API, Redis).
• For paths marked [→E2E]: generate integration/E2E tests using the project's E2E framework (Playwright, Cypress, Capybara, etc.)
• For paths marked [→EVAL]: generate eval tests using the project's eval framework, or flag for manual eval if none exists
• Write tests that exercise the specific uncovered path with real assertions
• Run each test. Passes → commit as test: coverage for {feature}
• Fails → fix once. Still fails → revert, note gap in diagram.

Caps: 30 code paths max, 20 tests generated max (code + user flow combined), 2-min per-test exploration cap.

If no test framework AND user declined bootstrap → diagram only, no generation. Note: "Test generation skipped — no test framework configured."

Diff is test-only changes: Skip Step 3.4 entirely: "No new application code paths to audit."

6. After-count and coverage summary:

# Count test files after generation
find . -name '*.test.*' -o -name '*.spec.*' -o -name '*_test.*' -o -name '*_spec.*' | grep -v node_modules | wc -l

For PR body: Tests: {before} → {after} (+{delta} new) Coverage line: Test Coverage Audit: N new code paths. M covered (X%). K tests generated, J committed.

7. Coverage gate:

Before proceeding, check AGENTS.md for a ## Test Coverage section with Minimum: and Target: fields. If found, use those percentages. Otherwise use defaults: Minimum = 60%, Target = 80%.

Using the coverage percentage from the diagram in substep 4 (the COVERAGE: X/Y (Z%) line):

• >= target: Pass. "Coverage gate: PASS ({X}%)." Continue.

• >= minimum, < target: Use AskUserQuestion:

  • "AI-assessed coverage is {X}%. {N} code paths are untested. Target is {target}%."
  • RECOMMENDATION: Choose A because untested code paths are where production bugs hide.
  • Options: A) Generate more tests for remaining gaps (recommended) B) Ship anyway — I accept the coverage risk C) These paths don't need tests — mark as intentionally uncovered
  • If A: Loop back to substep 5 (generate tests) targeting the remaining gaps. After second pass, if still below target, present AskUserQuestion again with updated numbers. Maximum 2 generation passes total.
  • If B: Continue. Include in PR body: "Coverage gate: {X}% — user accepted risk."
  • If C: Continue. Include in PR body: "Coverage gate: {X}% — {N} paths intentionally uncovered."

• < minimum: Use AskUserQuestion:

  • "AI-assessed coverage is critically low ({X}%). {N} of {M} code paths have no tests. Minimum threshold is {minimum}%."
  • RECOMMENDATION: Choose A because less than {minimum}% means more code is untested than tested.
  • Options: A) Generate tests for remaining gaps (recommended) B) Override — ship with low coverage (I understand the risk)
  • If A: Loop back to substep 5. Maximum 2 passes. If still below minimum after 2 passes, present the override choice again.
  • If B: Continue. Include in PR body: "Coverage gate: OVERRIDDEN at {X}%."

Coverage percentage undetermined: If the coverage diagram doesn't produce a clear numeric percentage (ambiguous output, parse error), skip the gate with: "Coverage gate: could not determine percentage — skipping." Do not default to 0% or block.

Test-only diffs: Skip the gate (same as the existing fast-path).

100% coverage: "Coverage gate: PASS (100%)." Continue.

Test Plan Artifact

After producing the coverage diagram, write a test plan artifact so /qa and /qa-only can consume it:

SLUG=$(basename "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null || pwd)" | tr -cd A-Za-z0-9._-) && mkdir -p $HOME/.openbitfun/team/projects/$SLUG
USER=$(whoami)
DATETIME=$(date +%Y%m%d-%H%M%S)

Write to $HOME/.openbitfun/team/projects/{slug}/{user}-{branch}-ship-test-plan-{datetime}.md:

# Test Plan
Generated by /ship on {date}
Branch: {branch}
Repo: {owner/repo}

## Affected Pages/Routes
- {URL path} — {what to test and why}

## Key Interactions to Verify
- {interaction description} on {page}

## Edge Cases
- {edge case} on {page}

## Critical Paths
- {end-to-end flow that must work}

Step 3.45: Plan Completion Audit

Plan File Discovery

1. Conversation context (primary): Check if there is an active plan file in this conversation. The host agent's system messages include plan file paths when in plan mode. If found, use it directly — this is the most reliable signal.

2. Content-based search (fallback): If no plan file is referenced in conversation context, search by content:

setopt +o nomatch 2>/dev/null || true  # zsh compat
BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null | tr '/' '-')
REPO=$(basename "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null)")
# Compute project slug for $HOME/.openbitfun/team/projects/ lookup
_PLAN_SLUG=$(git remote get-url origin 2>/dev/null | sed 's|.*[:/]\([^/

…(truncated)