An earlier pass scored the same 16 rows from README.md and CLAUDE.md alone and
landed on full 4 / partial 5 / none 7. Re-reading the rows in commands/, agents/,
lib/, hooks/ and tests/ moves three of them and corrects five underlying claims:
- P3 full -> partial. plan-critic is prose ("if blockers are found: revise the
plan"), not a gate. The plan is never committed by the pipeline, and execution
starts on the word `execute`. What is hard is the plan_version 1.7 manifest.
- P9 full -> partial. Exit-code-as-truth and the Phase 7.5 audit are real, but
trekexecute says verbatim "do not block on test-first failures", and nothing
protects a test file from being rewritten during a fix.
- P10 none -> partial. The docs-only pass missed tests/: the config regression
suite and a scored gold eval were there all along. The honest remaining gap is
CI (zero workflow files) and a live-agent eval, not "no evals".
Corrected without moving a verdict: --gates is boolean; /trekreview's input is a
SHA-range diff, not a PR; no hook anywhere returns an "ask" decision; nothing in
the pipeline writes to a memory file.
Result: full 2 of 16, partial 8 of 16, none 6 of 16. Every row carries a file
pointer so a later claim of "we closed that" can be checked against a denominator.
Also records what is worth borrowing from a third-party MIT implementation of the
same playbook, with credit, and what is not: its eval runner and CI example both
invoke Claude Code from code, which this repo prohibits.
No behaviour change. Suite unchanged at 1161 (1159/0/2).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Kjell Tore Guttormsen
5f1ae4b4c2