Test Specs Docs

Codex compatibility note:

>

- Invoke repository skills with $skill-name in Codex; this mirrored copy rewrites legacy Claude /skill-name references.

- Prefer the plan-hard skill for planning guidance in this Codex mirror.

- 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:START -->

Codex Project-Reference Loading (No Hooks)

Codex does not receive Claude hook-based doc injection. 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)

Situation-based docs:

• Backend/CQRS/API/domain/entity changes: backend-patterns-reference.md, domain-entities-reference.md, project-structure-reference.md
• Frontend/UI/styling/design-system: frontend-patterns-reference.md, scss-styling-guide.md, design-system/README.md
• Spec/test-case planning or TC mapping: feature-docs-reference.md
• 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.

<!-- CODEX:PROJECT-REFERENCE-LOADING:END -->

[IMPORTANT] MUST ATTENTION keep task tracking synchronized, preserve evidence gates, and NEVER skip mandatory steps.

[DEPRECATED] This skill has been merged into $tdd-spec. Use $tdd-spec [direction=sync] instead.

>

- Forward sync (feature docs → dashboard): $tdd-spec [direction=sync]

- Reverse sync (dashboard → feature docs): $tdd-spec [direction=reverse]

- Bidirectional reconciliation: $tdd-spec [direction=full]

>

All sync algorithms, orphan detection, staleness tracking, and quality gates are now in $tdd-spec under the ## Mode: Sync to Dashboard section.

Quick Summary

Goal: [DEPRECATED] This skill has been merged into tdd-spec. Use $tdd-spec [direction=sync] for forward sync, $tdd-spec [direction=reverse] for reverse sync, $tdd-spec [direction=full] for bidirectional reconciliation.

Workflow:

1. Detect — classify request scope and target artifacts. 2. Execute — apply required steps with evidence-backed actions. 3. Verify — confirm constraints, output quality, and completion evidence.

Key Rules:

• MUST ATTENTION keep claims evidence-based (file:line) with confidence >80% to act.
• MUST ATTENTION keep task tracking updated as each step starts/completes.
• NEVER skip mandatory workflow or skill gates.

---

Closing Reminders

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION apply Phase 1 compression before structural enhancement; preserve semantic meaning. IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION NEVER alter YAML frontmatter, code blocks, tables, or SYNC-tag bodies during optimization. IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION keep evidence gates and mandatory workflow/skill steps explicit and enforceable. IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION add a final review task to verify output quality and unresolved risks.

<!-- CODEX:SYNC-PROMPT-PROTOCOLS:START -->

Hookless Prompt Protocol Mirror (Auto-Synced)

Source: .claude/hooks/lib/prompt-injections.cjs + .claude/.ck.json

[WORKFLOW-EXECUTION-PROTOCOL] [BLOCKING] Workflow Execution Protocol — MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST CRITICAL. Do not skip for any reason.

1. DETECT: Match prompt against workflow catalog 2. ANALYZE: Find best-match workflow AND evaluate if a custom step combination would fit better 3. ASK (REQUIRED FORMAT): Use a direct user question with this structure:

• Question: "Which workflow do you want to activate?"
• Option 1: "Activate [BestMatch Workflow] (Recommended)"
• Option 2: "Activate custom workflow: [step1 → step2 → ...]" (include one-line rationale)

4. ACTIVATE (if confirmed): Call $workflow-start <workflowId> for standard; sequence custom steps manually 5. CREATE TASKS: task tracking for ALL workflow steps 6. EXECUTE: Follow each step in sequence [CRITICAL-THINKING-MINDSET] Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80% to act. Anti-hallucination principle: 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. AI Attention principle (Primacy-Recency): Put the 3 most critical rules at both top and bottom of long prompts/protocols so instruction adherence survives long context windows.

Learned Lessons

Lessons Learned

[CRITICAL] Hard-won project debugging/architecture rules. MUST ATTENTION apply BEFORE forming hypothesis or writing code.

Quick Summary

Goal: Prevent recurrence of known failure patterns — debugging, architecture, naming, AI orchestration, environment.

Top Rules (apply always):

• MUST ATTENTION verify ALL preconditions (config, env, DB names, DI regs) BEFORE code-layer hypothesis
• MUST ATTENTION fix responsible layer — NEVER patch symptom sites with caller-specific defensive code
• MUST ATTENTION use ExecuteInjectScopedAsync for parallel async + repo/UoW — NEVER ExecuteUowTask
• MUST ATTENTION name by PURPOSE not CONTENT — adding member forces rename = abstraction broken
• MUST ATTENTION persist sub-agent findings incrementally after each file — NEVER batch at end
• MUST ATTENTION Windows bash: verify Python alias (where python/where py) — NEVER assume python/python3 resolves

---

Debugging & Root Cause Reasoning

• [2026-04-11] Holistic-first: verify environment before code. Failure → list ALL preconditions (config, env vars, DB names, endpoints, DI regs, credentials, permissions, data prerequisites) → verify each via evidence (grep/cat/query) BEFORE code-layer hypothesis. Worst rabbit holes: diving nearest layer while bug sits elsewhere — e.g., hours debugging "sync timeout", real cause: test appsettings pointing wrong DB. Cheapest check first.
• [2026-04-01] Ask "whose responsibility?" before fixing. Trace: bug in caller (wrong data) or callee (wrong handling)? Fix responsible layer — NEVER patch symptom site masking real issue.
• [2026-04-01] Trace data lifecycle, not error site. Follow data: creation → transformation → consumption. Bug usually where data created wrong, not consumed.
• [2026-04-01] Code is caller-agnostic. Functions/handlers/consumers don't know who invokes them. Comments/guards/messages describe business intent — NEVER reference specific callers (tests, seeders, scripts).

Architecture Invariants

• [2026-03-31] ParallelAsync + repo/UoW MUST use `ExecuteInjectScopedAsync`, NEVER `ExecuteUowTask`. ExecuteUowTask creates new UoW but reuses outer DI scope (same DbContext) — parallel iterations sharing non-thread-safe DbContext silently corrupt data. ExecuteInjectScopedAsync creates new UoW + new DI scope (fresh repo per iteration).
• [2026-03-31] Bus message naming MUST include service name prefix — core services NEVER consume feature events. Prefix declares schema ownership (AccountUserEntityEventBusMessage = Accounts owns). Core services (Accounts, Communication) are leaders. Feature services (Growth, Talents) sending to core MUST use {CoreServiceName}...RequestBusMessage — never define own event for core to consume.

Naming & Abstraction

• [2026-04-12] Name PURPOSE not CONTENT — "OrXxx" anti-pattern. HrManagerOrHrOrPayrollHrOperationsPolicy names set members, not what it guards. Add role → rename = broken abstraction. Rule: names express DOES/GUARDS, not CONTAINS. Test: adding/removing member forces rename? YES = content-driven = bad → rename to purpose (e.g., HrOperationsAccessPolicy). Nuance: "Or" fine in behavioral idioms (FirstOrDefault, SuccessOrThrow) — expresses HAPPENS, not membership.

Environment & Tooling

• [2026-04-20] Windows bash: NEVER assume `python`/`python3` resolves — verify alias first. Python may not be in bash PATH under those names. Check: where python / where py. Prefer py (Windows Python Launcher) for one-liners, node if JS alternative exists.

Test-specific lessons → docs/project-reference/integration-test-reference.md Lessons Learned section. Production-code anti-patterns → docs/project-reference/backend-patterns-reference.md Anti-Patterns section. Generic debugging/refactoring reminders → System Lessons in .claude/hooks/lib/prompt-injections.cjs.

---

Closing Reminders

• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION holistic-first: verify ALL preconditions (config, env, DB names, endpoints, DI regs) BEFORE code-layer hypothesis — cheapest check first
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION fix responsible layer — NEVER patch symptom site; trace caller (wrong data) vs callee (wrong handling), fix root owner
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION parallel async + repo/UoW → ALWAYS ExecuteInjectScopedAsync, NEVER ExecuteUowTask (shared DbContext = silent data corruption)
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION bus message prefix = schema ownership; feature services NEVER define events for core services — use {CoreServiceName}...RequestBusMessage
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION name by PURPOSE — adding/removing member forces rename = broken abstraction
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION sub-agents MUST write findings after each file/section — NEVER batch all findings into one final write
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Windows bash: NEVER assume python/python3 resolves — run where python/where py first, use py launcher or node

[LESSON-LEARNED-REMINDER] [BLOCKING] Task Planning & Continuous Improvement — MANDATORY. Do not skip.

Break work into small tasks (task tracking) before starting. Add final task: "Analyze AI mistakes & lessons learned".

Extract lessons — ROOT CAUSE ONLY, not symptom fixes:

1. Name the FAILURE MODE (reasoning/assumption failure), not symptom — "assumed API existed without reading source" not "used wrong enum value". 2. Generality test: does this failure mode apply to ≥3 contexts/codebases? If not, abstract one level up. 3. Write as a universal rule — strip project-specific names/paths/classes. Useful on any codebase. 4. Consolidate: multiple mistakes sharing one failure mode → ONE lesson. 5. Recurrence gate: "Would this recur in future session WITHOUT this reminder?" — No → skip $learn. 6. Auto-fix gate: "Could $code-review/$code-simplifier/$security/$lint catch this?" — Yes → improve review skill instead. 7. BOTH gates pass → ask user to run $learn. [TASK-PLANNING] [MANDATORY] BEFORE executing any workflow or skill step, create/update task tracking for all planned steps, then keep it synchronized as each step starts/completes.

<!-- CODEX:SYNC-PROMPT-PROTOCOLS:END -->

Test Specification Template & Examples

Module Test Spec Template (README.md)

Reference: Search for existing test spec files in docs/specs/{Module}/README.md

````markdown

{Module} - Comprehensive Test Specifications

Module: {Module} ([Description]) Generated: {Date} Coverage: [Feature list]

---

Table of Contents

1. Feature 1 Test Specs 2. Feature 2 Test Specs ...

---

1. [Feature Name] Test Specs

1.1 [Sub-Feature] Tests

TC-{FEATURE}-001: [Descriptive Test Name]

Priority: P0-Critical | P1-High | P2-Medium | P3-Low

Preconditions:

• User has {Policy} authorization
• Company has active {Feature} subscription
• [Other setup requirements]

Test Steps (Given-When-Then):

Given [initial context/state]
  And [additional context if needed]
When [action performed]
  And [additional action if needed]
Then [expected outcome]
  And [additional verification]

````

Acceptance Criteria:

• Success: [Expected success behavior]
• Success: [Another success case]
• Failure: [Expected failure behavior]
• Failure: [Another failure case]

Test Data:

{
    "field": "value",
    "required": true
}

Edge Cases:

• Failure: [Boundary condition 1] -> [Expected error]
• Failure: [Boundary condition 2] -> [Expected error]
• Success: [Edge case that should succeed] -> Success

Evidence:

• Controller: {Module}.Service/Controllers/{Controller}.cs:L{lines}
• Authorization: {Policies}
• Endpoint: {Method} /api/{path}

• Command Handler: {Module}.Application/UseCaseCommands/{Feature}/{Command}.cs:L{lines}

<details> <summary>Code Snippet: [Key Logic Description]</summary>

// {File}:L{lines}
[actual code snippet]

</details>

Related Files:

---

TC-{FEATURE}-002: [Next Test Name]

[Continue with same format...]

---

Cross-Module Integration Tests

See INTEGRATION-TESTS.md for cross-module scenarios.

---

Related Documentation

• Business Features: docs/business-features/{Module}/README.md
• Backend Patterns: docs/project-reference/backend-patterns-reference.md

---

Last Updated: {Date}

````

---

Given-When-Then Best Practices

# GOOD - Specific and actionable
Given user is authenticated with EmployeePolicy role
  And company subscription includes Goal feature
  And goal creation form is displayed
When user fills required fields:
  - Title: "Reduce churn by 15%"
  - GoalType: "Smart"
  - TargetDate: "2025-12-31"
  And user clicks Submit
Then goal is created with status "Draft"
  And success notification is displayed
  And goal appears in dashboard list

# BAD - Vague and unmeasurable
Given user is logged in
When user creates a goal
Then it works

Acceptance Criteria Format

**Acceptance Criteria**:

- Success: Form validates all required fields (Title, GoalType, TargetDate)
- Success: Backend creates Goal entity in database
- Success: Goal assigned to current employee as owner
- Success: Notification event triggered via entity event handler
- Failure: External users cannot create goals (returns validation error)
- Failure: Missing required fields shows validation error
- Failure: Invalid date range shows "Target date must be after start date"

---

Evidence Requirements

Every test case MUST ATTENTION include:

1. Controller reference: File path + line numbers + authorization policies 2. Handler/Command reference: File path + line numbers for business logic 3. Code snippet: Actual code in <details> block for key validation/logic 4. Related files table: All relevant source files

---

Complete Example: Feature Test Case

````markdown

TC-{FEATURE}-001: Execute Feature Action Successfully

Priority: P1-High

Preconditions:

• User has required authorization policy
• Company has feature enabled
• User has remaining quota/permission for current period
• Target entity is active

Test Steps (Given-When-Then):

Given user is authenticated with required role
  And company has feature enabled
  And user has required permissions
  And target entity is in valid state
When user performs the action
  And user provides required input data
  And user confirms the action
Then transaction is created
  And state is updated correctly
  And notification is sent
  And result appears in list/feed
  And confirmation message displayed to user

````

Acceptance Criteria:

• Success: Transaction created with all required fields
• Success: State updated correctly (e.g., counters, status)
• Success: Notification sent via message bus
• Success: Result visible in appropriate view
• Failure: Invalid target returns validation error
• Failure: Exceeded quota returns limit error
• Failure: Inactive target returns "not found" error
• Failure: Cross-boundary violation returns authorization error

Test Data:

{
    "targetEntityId": "entity-12345",
    "actionType": "TypeA",
    "message": "Test action message",
    "additionalFlag": false
}

Edge Cases:

• Failure: Empty required field -> Validation error
• Failure: Field exceeds max length -> Validation error
• Success: Field with special characters -> Success
• Failure: Invalid enum value -> Validation error

Evidence:

• Controller: {Service}.Service/Controllers/{Feature}Controller.cs:L{lines}
• Authorization: {Policy}
• Endpoint: POST /api/{Feature}/{action}

• Command Handler: {Service}.Application/UseCaseCommands/{Feature}/{Command}.cs:L{lines}

<details> <summary>Code Snippet: Validation Logic</summary>

// {CommandHandler}.cs:L{lines}
return await requestSelfValidation
    .AndNotAsync(
        r => repository.AnyAsync(e =>
            e.OwnerId == RequestContext.CurrentUserId()
            && e.QuotaRemaining <= 0),
        "Quota exceeded for this period"
    );

</details>

Related Files: