voyage/tests/validators/brief-gate-coverage.test.mjs

// tests/validators/brief-gate-coverage.test.mjs
// SKAL-1·4a — two-sided (class-balanced) coverage for every error-severity
// BRIEF_* BLOCKER the brief-validator can emit.
//
// brief-validator.test.mjs already tests many codes; several were FAILURE-only
// (only the raising case asserted) and three were untested. This meta-test pins
// a class-balanced pair { fail, pass } for EACH in-scope BLOCKER and a parity
// guard so a code can't sit in IN_SCOPE_CODES without a paired case. It removes
// the one-sided-optimization risk programmatically, not by inspection.
//
// In scope = ERROR-severity BRIEF_* codes the validator pushes to errors[]
// (BLOCKERs). EXCLUDED: warning-severity codes (BRIEF_TLDR_TOO_LONG,
// BRIEF_VERSION_FORMAT, BRIEF_VERSION_BELOW_MINIMUM, BRIEF_PARTIAL_SKIPPED) — a
// "passing" counterpart to a warning is not a BLOCKER concern — and the
// file-level BRIEF_NOT_FOUND / BRIEF_READ_ERROR which live in validateBrief()
// (filesystem), not validateBriefContent().
//
// LIMITATION: brief-validator.mjs does not export its code set (codes are string
// literals inside issue(...)), so IN_SCOPE_CODES is HAND-MAINTAINED. A NEW
// validator BLOCKER must be added here manually; the parity guard catches
// list/case drift, not validator drift. (Operator chose the hand-maintained list
// over exporting BRIEF_ERROR_CODES from the forbidden_paths-guarded validator.)

import { test } from 'node:test';
import { strict as assert } from 'node:assert';
import { validateBriefContent } from '../../lib/validators/brief-validator.mjs';

// ---- valid bases (mirror tests/validators/brief-validator.test.mjs) ----------

const GOOD_BRIEF = `---
type: trekbrief
brief_version: "2.0"
created: 2026-04-30
task: "Add JWT auth to API"
slug: jwt-auth
project_dir: .claude/projects/2026-04-30-jwt-auth/
research_topics: 2
research_status: pending
auto_research: false
interview_turns: 5
source: interview
---

# Task: JWT auth

## Intent

Why this matters.

## Goal

What success looks like.

## Success Criteria

- All tests pass.
`;

const GOOD_BRIEF_22 = `---
type: trekbrief
brief_version: "2.2"
created: 2026-06-18
task: "Add JWT auth to API"
slug: jwt-auth
project_dir: .claude/projects/2026-06-18-jwt-auth/
research_topics: 0
research_status: complete
auto_research: false
interview_turns: 5
source: interview
framing: new-direction
---

# Task: JWT auth

## TL;DR

Net-new JWT auth; no prior brief to anchor against.

## Intent

Why this matters.

## Goal

What success looks like.

## Success Criteria

- All tests pass.
`;

const REVIEW_AS_BRIEF = `---
type: trekreview
task: "Review delivered trekreview v1.0"
slug: trekreview
project_dir: .claude/projects/2026-05-01-trekreview/
findings:
  - 0123456789abcdef0123456789abcdef01234567
  - fedcba9876543210fedcba9876543210fedcba98
---

# Review brief

## Intent

Adversarial review of delivered trekreview v1.0.

## Goal

Find what was missed.

## Success Criteria

- All BLOCKER findings get a fix-plan.
`;

// convenience builders
const withLine = (s, line) => s.replace('source: interview\n', `source: interview\n${line}`);

// ---- the canonical in-scope set + a class-balanced pair for each -------------

const IN_SCOPE_CODES = [
  'BRIEF_MISSING_FIELD',
  'BRIEF_BAD_STATUS',
  'BRIEF_STATE_INCOHERENT',
  'BRIEF_WRONG_TYPE',
  'BRIEF_BAD_FINDINGS_TYPE',
  'BRIEF_MISSING_SECTION',
  'BRIEF_INVALID_FRAMING',
  'BRIEF_MISSING_FRAMING',
  'BRIEF_THREAT_MODEL_MALFORMED',
];

const CASES = {
  BRIEF_MISSING_FIELD: {
    fail: GOOD_BRIEF.replace(/^research_topics: 2\n/m, ''),
    pass: GOOD_BRIEF,
  },
  BRIEF_BAD_STATUS: {
    fail: GOOD_BRIEF.replace('research_status: pending', 'research_status: maybe'),
    pass: GOOD_BRIEF,
  },
  BRIEF_STATE_INCOHERENT: {
    fail: GOOD_BRIEF.replace('research_status: pending', 'research_status: skipped'),
    pass: GOOD_BRIEF,
  },
  BRIEF_WRONG_TYPE: {
    fail: GOOD_BRIEF.replace('type: trekbrief', 'type: notabrief'),
    pass: GOOD_BRIEF,
  },
  BRIEF_BAD_FINDINGS_TYPE: {
    fail: REVIEW_AS_BRIEF.replace(/findings:\n  - 0123[\s\S]*?- fedcba[0-9a-f]+/, 'findings: not-an-array'),
    pass: REVIEW_AS_BRIEF,
  },
  BRIEF_MISSING_SECTION: {
    fail: GOOD_BRIEF.replace(/## Intent\n\nWhy this matters\.\n\n/, ''),
    pass: GOOD_BRIEF,
  },
  BRIEF_INVALID_FRAMING: {
    fail: withLine(GOOD_BRIEF, 'framing: sideways\n'),
    pass: GOOD_BRIEF_22,
  },
  BRIEF_MISSING_FRAMING: {
    fail: GOOD_BRIEF_22.replace('framing: new-direction\n', ''),
    pass: GOOD_BRIEF_22,
  },
  BRIEF_THREAT_MODEL_MALFORMED: {
    fail: GOOD_BRIEF_22.replace('## Success Criteria', '## Threat Model\n\n- Scope: the API\n\n## Success Criteria'),
    pass: GOOD_BRIEF_22.replace('## Success Criteria', '## Threat Model\n\n- Inside: a forged token\n- Outside: a stolen signing key\n\n## Success Criteria'),
  },
};

test('gate coverage — CASES keys exactly match IN_SCOPE_CODES (no silent gap)', () => {
  assert.deepEqual(Object.keys(CASES).sort(), [...IN_SCOPE_CODES].sort());
});

test('gate coverage — every in-scope BRIEF_* BLOCKER raises on its fail case', () => {
  for (const code of IN_SCOPE_CODES) {
    const r = validateBriefContent(CASES[code].fail, { strict: true });
    assert.ok(
      r.errors.find((e) => e.code === code),
      `${code}: fail case did NOT raise it; errors=${JSON.stringify(r.errors.map((e) => e.code))}`,
    );
  }
});

test('gate coverage — every in-scope BRIEF_* BLOCKER is absent on its (valid) pass case', () => {
  for (const code of IN_SCOPE_CODES) {
    const r = validateBriefContent(CASES[code].pass, { strict: true });
    assert.ok(
      !r.errors.find((e) => e.code === code),
      `${code}: pass case wrongly raised it; errors=${JSON.stringify(r.errors.map((e) => e.code))}`,
    );
    assert.equal(r.valid, true, `${code}: pass case should be a fully valid brief; errors=${JSON.stringify(r.errors)}`);
  }
});