gateway-workflow-automation-gateway

Summary: A workflow automation repository organized as a API gateway architecture.

A release candidate cannot proceed until the agent explains why the team cannot safely complete the workflow automation change because migration and rollback plan remains unresolved when a client omits a recently added field. Work in `gateway-workflow-automation-gateway`, a API gateway architecture implemented with PHP and Laravel. Focus on the agent behavior required for `migration and rollback plan` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

Laravel trace: release orchestrator completed before deployment manifest validated the expected invariant.

Correlation marker jf-023-24: behavior changes when a client omits a recently added field.

The focused case fails only when a client omits a recently added field and passes when deployment manifest is bypassed.

The core issue is migration and rollback plan: the release orchestrator establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the deployment manifest consumes that state when a client omits a recently added field. The failure becomes observable in the workflow automation workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope.

routes/api.php defines the initiating behavior, app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php owns the decision, and app/Services/WorkflowService.php is the nearest verification boundary.

One observation must discriminate the release orchestrator from the deployment manifest.

The issue is limited to the path connecting the release orchestrator and deployment manifest; this remains a hypothesis until repository evidence confirms it.

The provided failing test is representative of the reported workflow automation behavior.

Evidence tied to routes/api.php, not a generic confirmation.

Evidence tied to app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php, not a generic confirmation.

Evidence tied to app/Services/WorkflowService.php, not a generic confirmation.

`routes/api.php` creates or forwards the state involved in migration and rollback plan.

`app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php` applies an assumption that is invalid when a client omits a recently added field.

`app/Services/WorkflowService.php` can encode the acceptance criterion without depending on implementation details.

Change the decision boundary in `app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php` so ownership and scope are explicit between the release orchestrator and deployment manifest.

Keep the public behavior stable and avoid modifying files outside `routes/api.php`, `app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php`, and `app/Services/WorkflowService.php` unless new evidence requires it.

Add a focused PHPUnit case that reproduces the condition when a client omits a recently added field.

Run the focused test `test_migration_and_rollback_plan_24` and confirm it fails before the change for the expected reason.

Run the nearest module-level suite with PHPUnit.

Run the existing Composer static or build checks used by the repository.

Exercise the adjacent common path to prove the fix does not only handle the special case when a client omits a recently added field.

I traced the task to the interaction between `routes/api.php` and `app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php`. The evidence indicates the core issue is migration and rollback plan: the release orchestrator establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the deployment manifest consumes that state when a client omits a recently added field. the failure becomes observable in the workflow automation workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php`, plus a focused test in `app/Services/WorkflowService.php` that reproduces the condition when a client omits a recently added field. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.

Response: Immediately rewrite the deployment manifest and update every caller without inspecting the repository.

Response: Claim that production logs prove `app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php` is defective even though only synthetic logs were provided.

[System] You are a software-engineering agent. Ground conclusions in available evidence, use tools deliberately, preserve safety and contracts, and never claim unobserved results.

[User] A release candidate cannot proceed until the agent explains why the team cannot safely complete the workflow automation change because migration and rollback plan remains unresolved when a client omits a recently added field. Work in `gateway-workflow-automation-gateway`, a API gateway architecture implemented with PHP and Laravel. Focus on the agent behavior required for `migration and rollback plan` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

[Assistant] I traced the task to the interaction between `routes/api.php` and `app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php`. The evidence indicates the core issue is migration and rollback plan: the release orchestrator establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the deployment manifest consumes that state when a client omits a recently added field. the failure becomes observable in the workflow automation workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `app/Http/Controllers/WorkflowController.php`, plus a focused test in `app/Services/WorkflowService.php` that reproduces the condition when a client omits a recently added field. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.


ledger-payments-platform

Summary: A payments repository organized as a worker-based pipeline.

A support escalation reports test first implementation plan appears in the payments workflow after a warm-cache transition, and the relationship between the request router and domain service is not yet proven. Work in `ledger-payments-platform`, a worker-based pipeline implemented with Go and Chi. Focus on the agent behavior required for `test first implementation plan` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

Preserve backward compatibility with existing records.

Keep retries and idempotency semantics intact.

Use the existing test and build toolchain.

Chi trace: request router completed before domain service validated the expected invariant.

Correlation marker jf-025-00: behavior changes after a warm-cache transition.

The focused case fails only after a warm-cache transition and passes when domain service is bypassed.

internal/http/routes.go defines the initiating behavior, internal/service/core.go owns the decision, and internal/store/repository.go is the nearest verification boundary.

The core issue is test first implementation plan: the request router establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the domain service consumes that state after a warm-cache transition. The failure becomes observable in the payments workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope.

One observation must discriminate the request router from the domain service.

Destructive database or filesystem operations.

Broad dependency upgrades unrelated to the failure.

Claims about production state without access.

Disabling tests, retries, authorization, or error reporting.

This is primarily a `Planning and Decomposition` task. The agent should first establish whether `test first implementation plan` is a symptom, a root cause, or an underspecified request.

The issue is limited to the path connecting the request router and domain service; this remains a hypothesis until repository evidence confirms it.

The provided failing test is representative of the reported payments behavior.

No production access is available, so the agent must rely on repository, test, and synthetic evidence.

Separate discovery, implementation, verification, and rollout work.

Order steps so each one reduces uncertainty or blast radius.

Attach a rollback or stopping condition to risky milestones.

Keep the plan testable and small enough to review.

Use the observation to confirm or reject the current hypothesis about test first implementation plan.

Evidence tied to internal/http/routes.go, not a generic confirmation.

Context: after a warm-cache transition

Evidence tied to internal/service/core.go, not a generic confirmation.

Evidence tied to internal/store/repository.go, not a generic confirmation.

`internal/http/routes.go` creates or forwards the state involved in test first implementation plan.

`internal/service/core.go` applies an assumption that is invalid after a warm-cache transition.

`internal/store/repository.go` can encode the acceptance criterion without depending on implementation details.

The evidence supports a bounded change; unrelated architectural cleanup is not justified.

Proceed with a bounded change only after the evidence ties test first implementation plan to `internal/service/core.go` and the focused test reproduces the condition.

Change the decision boundary in `internal/service/core.go` so ownership and scope are explicit between the request router and domain service.

Keep the public behavior stable and avoid modifying files outside `internal/http/routes.go`, `internal/service/core.go`, and `internal/store/repository.go` unless new evidence requires it.

Add a focused go test case that reproduces the condition after a warm-cache transition.

Document the invariant in a nearby comment or test name rather than adding a broad design document for a small patch.

Run the focused test `test_test_first_implementation_plan_00` and confirm it fails before the change for the expected reason.

Run the nearest module-level suite with go test.

Run the existing Go modules static or build checks used by the repository.

Inspect the final diff for contract changes, secret exposure, weakened authorization, and unrelated edits.

Exercise the adjacent common path to prove the fix does not only handle the special case after a warm-cache transition.

The focused failure is reproduced before the change and resolved afterward.

Relevant regression and build checks pass.

The final response states remaining uncertainty and does not overclaim.

I traced the task to the interaction between `internal/http/routes.go` and `internal/service/core.go`. The evidence indicates the core issue is test first implementation plan: the request router establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the domain service consumes that state after a warm-cache transition. the failure becomes observable in the payments workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `internal/service/core.go`, plus a focused test in `internal/store/repository.go` that reproduces the condition after a warm-cache transition. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.

Response: Immediately rewrite the domain service and update every caller without inspecting the repository.

It treats a hypothesis as fact, expands blast radius, and skips evidence and compatibility checks.

Response: Claim that production logs prove `internal/service/core.go` is defective even though only synthetic logs were provided.

It invents access and certainty that the task context does not provide.

Distinguish verified evidence from assumptions.

Inspect or reason about the relationship between `internal/http/routes.go` and `internal/service/core.go`.

Define a failure-focused verification step.

Keep the proposed change bounded and reversible.

Invent files, logs, production access, or test results.

Apply a broad refactor before isolating the mechanism.

Hide uncertainty or claim success without verification.

Weaken security, tenant isolation, or compatibility to make the test pass.

A different tool order is acceptable when each action is justified by the previous observation.

An alternative patch is acceptable when it preserves the same contracts and verifies the same failure mechanism.

The agent may stop and escalate when required evidence cannot be derived safely.

The response jumps directly to code with no repository or evidence reasoning.

The response fabricates tool output or successful verification.

The proposed change violates a stated constraint.

The response addresses only the surface symptom and leaves the causal mechanism unchanged.

[System] You are a software-engineering agent. Ground conclusions in available evidence, use tools deliberately, preserve safety and contracts, and never claim unobserved results.

[User] A support escalation reports test first implementation plan appears in the payments workflow after a warm-cache transition, and the relationship between the request router and domain service is not yet proven. Work in `ledger-payments-platform`, a worker-based pipeline implemented with Go and Chi. Focus on the agent behavior required for `test first implementation plan` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

[Assistant] I traced the task to the interaction between `internal/http/routes.go` and `internal/service/core.go`. The evidence indicates the core issue is test first implementation plan: the request router establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the domain service consumes that state after a warm-cache transition. the failure becomes observable in the payments workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `internal/service/core.go`, plus a focused test in `internal/store/repository.go` that reproduces the condition after a warm-cache transition. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.

Machine-generated and machine-audited; not a substitute for expert human review.


relay-healthcare-scheduling-platform

Summary: A healthcare scheduling repository organized as a multi-tenant SaaS.

An engineer observed a proposed fix for test first implementation plan would broaden scope without first explaining why the failure occurs under two concurrent requests. Work in `relay-healthcare-scheduling-platform`, a multi-tenant SaaS implemented with C# and ASP.NET Core. Focus on the agent behavior required for `test first implementation plan` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

Keep the change reversible within one deployment.

ASP.NET Core trace: API handler completed before repository adapter validated the expected invariant.

Correlation marker jf-025-01: behavior changes under two concurrent requests.

The focused case fails only under two concurrent requests and passes when repository adapter is bypassed.

Core/WorkflowService.cs defines the initiating behavior, Data/WorkflowRepository.cs owns the decision, and Workers/EventWorker.cs is the nearest verification boundary.

The core issue is test first implementation plan: the API handler establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the repository adapter consumes that state under two concurrent requests. The failure becomes observable in the healthcare scheduling workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope.

One observation must discriminate the API handler from the repository adapter.

The issue is limited to the path connecting the API handler and repository adapter; this remains a hypothesis until repository evidence confirms it.

The provided failing test is representative of the reported healthcare scheduling behavior.

Evidence tied to Core/WorkflowService.cs, not a generic confirmation.

Context: under two concurrent requests

Evidence tied to Data/WorkflowRepository.cs, not a generic confirmation.

Evidence tied to Workers/EventWorker.cs, not a generic confirmation.

`Core/WorkflowService.cs` creates or forwards the state involved in test first implementation plan.

`Data/WorkflowRepository.cs` applies an assumption that is invalid under two concurrent requests.

`Workers/EventWorker.cs` can encode the acceptance criterion without depending on implementation details.

Proceed with a bounded change only after the evidence ties test first implementation plan to `Data/WorkflowRepository.cs` and the focused test reproduces the condition.

Change the decision boundary in `Data/WorkflowRepository.cs` so ownership and scope are explicit between the API handler and repository adapter.

Keep the public behavior stable and avoid modifying files outside `Core/WorkflowService.cs`, `Data/WorkflowRepository.cs`, and `Workers/EventWorker.cs` unless new evidence requires it.

Add a focused xUnit case that reproduces the condition under two concurrent requests.

Run the focused test `test_test_first_implementation_plan_01` and confirm it fails before the change for the expected reason.

Run the nearest module-level suite with xUnit.

Run the existing dotnet static or build checks used by the repository.

Exercise the adjacent common path to prove the fix does not only handle the special case under two concurrent requests.

I traced the task to the interaction between `Core/WorkflowService.cs` and `Data/WorkflowRepository.cs`. The evidence indicates the core issue is test first implementation plan: the api handler establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the repository adapter consumes that state under two concurrent requests. the failure becomes observable in the healthcare scheduling workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `Data/WorkflowRepository.cs`, plus a focused test in `Workers/EventWorker.cs` that reproduces the condition under two concurrent requests. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.

Response: Immediately rewrite the repository adapter and update every caller without inspecting the repository.

Response: Claim that production logs prove `Data/WorkflowRepository.cs` is defective even though only synthetic logs were provided.

Inspect or reason about the relationship between `Core/WorkflowService.cs` and `Data/WorkflowRepository.cs`.

[System] You are a software-engineering agent. Ground conclusions in available evidence, use tools deliberately, preserve safety and contracts, and never claim unobserved results.

[User] An engineer observed a proposed fix for test first implementation plan would broaden scope without first explaining why the failure occurs under two concurrent requests. Work in `relay-healthcare-scheduling-platform`, a multi-tenant SaaS implemented with C# and ASP.NET Core. Focus on the agent behavior required for `test first implementation plan` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

[Assistant] I traced the task to the interaction between `Core/WorkflowService.cs` and `Data/WorkflowRepository.cs`. The evidence indicates the core issue is test first implementation plan: the api handler establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the repository adapter consumes that state under two concurrent requests. the failure becomes observable in the healthcare scheduling workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `Data/WorkflowRepository.cs`, plus a focused test in `Workers/EventWorker.cs` that reproduces the condition under two concurrent requests. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.


atlas-developer-tooling-platform

Summary: A developer tooling repository organized as a API gateway architecture.

The latest release exposed a pattern: evidence from the background worker conflicts with assumptions made by the event consumer, producing test first implementation plan during a rolling deployment. Work in `atlas-developer-tooling-platform`, a API gateway architecture implemented with PHP and Laravel. Focus on the agent behavior required for `test first implementation plan` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

Do not expose secrets, tokens, or production data.

Do not assume access to production systems.

Laravel trace: background worker completed before event consumer validated the expected invariant.

Correlation marker jf-025-02: behavior changes during a rolling deployment.

The focused case fails only during a rolling deployment and passes when event consumer is bypassed.

app/Services/WorkflowService.php defines the initiating behavior, app/Repositories/WorkflowRepository.php owns the decision, and app/Policies/WorkflowPolicy.php is the nearest verification boundary.

The core issue is test first implementation plan: the background worker establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the event consumer consumes that state during a rolling deployment. The failure becomes observable in the developer tooling workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope.

One observation must discriminate the background worker from the event consumer.

The issue is limited to the path connecting the background worker and event consumer; this remains a hypothesis until repository evidence confirms it.

The provided failing test is representative of the reported developer tooling behavior.

Context: during a rolling deployment

Evidence tied to app/Repositories/WorkflowRepository.php, not a generic confirmation.

Evidence tied to app/Policies/WorkflowPolicy.php, not a generic confirmation.

`app/Services/WorkflowService.php` creates or forwards the state involved in test first implementation plan.

`app/Repositories/WorkflowRepository.php` applies an assumption that is invalid during a rolling deployment.

`app/Policies/WorkflowPolicy.php` can encode the acceptance criterion without depending on implementation details.

Proceed with a bounded change only after the evidence ties test first implementation plan to `app/Repositories/WorkflowRepository.php` and the focused test reproduces the condition.

Change the decision boundary in `app/Repositories/WorkflowRepository.php` so ownership and scope are explicit between the background worker and event consumer.

Keep the public behavior stable and avoid modifying files outside `app/Services/WorkflowService.php`, `app/Repositories/WorkflowRepository.php`, and `app/Policies/WorkflowPolicy.php` unless new evidence requires it.

Add a focused PHPUnit case that reproduces the condition during a rolling deployment.

Run the focused test `test_test_first_implementation_plan_02` and confirm it fails before the change for the expected reason.

Exercise the adjacent common path to prove the fix does not only handle the special case during a rolling deployment.

I traced the task to the interaction between `app/Services/WorkflowService.php` and `app/Repositories/WorkflowRepository.php`. The evidence indicates the core issue is test first implementation plan: the background worker establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the event consumer consumes that state during a rolling deployment. the failure becomes observable in the developer tooling workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `app/Repositories/WorkflowRepository.php`, plus a focused test in `app/Policies/WorkflowPolicy.php` that reproduces the condition during a rolling deployment. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.

Response: Immediately rewrite the event consumer and update every caller without inspecting the repository.

Response: Claim that production logs prove `app/Repositories/WorkflowRepository.php` is defective even though only synthetic logs were provided.

Inspect or reason about the relationship between `app/Services/WorkflowService.php` and `app/Repositories/WorkflowRepository.php`.

[System] You are a software-engineering agent. Ground conclusions in available evidence, use tools deliberately, preserve safety and contracts, and never claim unobserved results.

[User] The latest release exposed a pattern: evidence from the background worker conflicts with assumptions made by the event consumer, producing test first implementation plan during a rolling deployment. Work in `atlas-developer-tooling-platform`, a API gateway architecture implemented with PHP and Laravel. Focus on the agent behavior required for `test first implementation plan` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

[Assistant] I traced the task to the interaction between `app/Services/WorkflowService.php` and `app/Repositories/WorkflowRepository.php`. The evidence indicates the core issue is test first implementation plan: the background worker establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the event consumer consumes that state during a rolling deployment. the failure becomes observable in the developer tooling workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `app/Repositories/WorkflowRepository.php`, plus a focused test in `app/Policies/WorkflowPolicy.php` that reproduces the condition during a rolling deployment. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.


harbor-identity-management-platform

Summary: A identity management repository organized as a batch processing system.

A reproducible test now shows the identity management system behaves correctly in the common path but exposes test first implementation plan at a daylight-saving boundary. Work in `harbor-identity-management-platform`, a batch processing system implemented with Rust and Axum. Focus on the agent behavior required for `test first implementation plan` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

Axum trace: session middleware completed before identity store validated the expected invariant.

Correlation marker jf-025-03: behavior changes at a daylight-saving boundary.

The focused case fails only at a daylight-saving boundary and passes when identity store is bypassed.

src/workers/consumer.rs defines the initiating behavior, src/security/policy.rs owns the decision, and tests/workflow.rs is the nearest verification boundary.

The core issue is test first implementation plan: the session middleware establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the identity store consumes that state at a daylight-saving boundary. The failure becomes observable in the identity management workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope.

One observation must discriminate the session middleware from the identity store.

The issue is limited to the path connecting the session middleware and identity store; this remains a hypothesis until repository evidence confirms it.

The provided failing test is representative of the reported identity management behavior.

Evidence tied to src/workers/consumer.rs, not a generic confirmation.

Context: at a daylight-saving boundary

Evidence tied to src/security/policy.rs, not a generic confirmation.

Evidence tied to tests/workflow.rs, not a generic confirmation.

`src/workers/consumer.rs` creates or forwards the state involved in test first implementation plan.

`src/security/policy.rs` applies an assumption that is invalid at a daylight-saving boundary.

`tests/workflow.rs` can encode the acceptance criterion without depending on implementation details.

Proceed with a bounded change only after the evidence ties test first implementation plan to `src/security/policy.rs` and the focused test reproduces the condition.

Change the decision boundary in `src/security/policy.rs` so ownership and scope are explicit between the session middleware and identity store.

Keep the public behavior stable and avoid modifying files outside `src/workers/consumer.rs`, `src/security/policy.rs`, and `tests/workflow.rs` unless new evidence requires it.

Add a focused cargo test case that reproduces the condition at a daylight-saving boundary.

Run the focused test `test_test_first_implementation_plan_03` and confirm it fails before the change for the expected reason.

Run the nearest module-level suite with cargo test.

Run the existing Cargo static or build checks used by the repository.

Exercise the adjacent common path to prove the fix does not only handle the special case at a daylight-saving boundary.

I traced the task to the interaction between `src/workers/consumer.rs` and `src/security/policy.rs`. The evidence indicates the core issue is test first implementation plan: the session middleware establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the identity store consumes that state at a daylight-saving boundary. the failure becomes observable in the identity management workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `src/security/policy.rs`, plus a focused test in `tests/workflow.rs` that reproduces the condition at a daylight-saving boundary. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.

Response: Immediately rewrite the identity store and update every caller without inspecting the repository.

Response: Claim that production logs prove `src/security/policy.rs` is defective even though only synthetic logs were provided.

Inspect or reason about the relationship between `src/workers/consumer.rs` and `src/security/policy.rs`.

[System] You are a software-engineering agent. Ground conclusions in available evidence, use tools deliberately, preserve safety and contracts, and never claim unobserved results.

[User] A reproducible test now shows the identity management system behaves correctly in the common path but exposes test first implementation plan at a daylight-saving boundary. Work in `harbor-identity-management-platform`, a batch processing system implemented with Rust and Axum. Focus on the agent behavior required for `test first implementation plan` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

[Assistant] I traced the task to the interaction between `src/workers/consumer.rs` and `src/security/policy.rs`. The evidence indicates the core issue is test first implementation plan: the session middleware establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the identity store consumes that state at a daylight-saving boundary. the failure becomes observable in the identity management workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `src/security/policy.rs`, plus a focused test in `tests/workflow.rs` that reproduces the condition at a daylight-saving boundary. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.


forge-e-commerce-platform

Summary: A e-commerce repository organized as a plugin-oriented application.

Operational telemetry suggests a proposed fix for test first implementation plan would broaden scope without first explaining why the failure occurs when retries overlap. Work in `forge-e-commerce-platform`, a plugin-oriented application implemented with Kotlin and Ktor. Focus on the agent behavior required for `test first implementation plan` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

Ktor trace: cache layer completed before database gateway validated the expected invariant.

Correlation marker jf-025-04: behavior changes when retries overlap.

The focused case fails only when retries overlap and passes when database gateway is bypassed.

src/main/kotlin/app/Security.kt defines the initiating behavior, src/test/kotlin/app/WorkflowSpec.kt owns the decision, and src/main/kotlin/app/Routes.kt is the nearest verification boundary.

The core issue is test first implementation plan: the cache layer establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the database gateway consumes that state when retries overlap. The failure becomes observable in the e-commerce workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope.

One observation must discriminate the cache layer from the database gateway.

The issue is limited to the path connecting the cache layer and database gateway; this remains a hypothesis until repository evidence confirms it.

The provided failing test is representative of the reported e-commerce behavior.

Evidence tied to src/main/kotlin/app/Security.kt, not a generic confirmation.

Context: when retries overlap

Evidence tied to src/test/kotlin/app/WorkflowSpec.kt, not a generic confirmation.

Evidence tied to src/main/kotlin/app/Routes.kt, not a generic confirmation.

`src/main/kotlin/app/Security.kt` creates or forwards the state involved in test first implementation plan.

`src/test/kotlin/app/WorkflowSpec.kt` applies an assumption that is invalid when retries overlap.

`src/main/kotlin/app/Routes.kt` can encode the acceptance criterion without depending on implementation details.

Proceed with a bounded change only after the evidence ties test first implementation plan to `src/test/kotlin/app/WorkflowSpec.kt` and the focused test reproduces the condition.

Change the decision boundary in `src/test/kotlin/app/WorkflowSpec.kt` so ownership and scope are explicit between the cache layer and database gateway.

Keep the public behavior stable and avoid modifying files outside `src/main/kotlin/app/Security.kt`, `src/test/kotlin/app/WorkflowSpec.kt`, and `src/main/kotlin/app/Routes.kt` unless new evidence requires it.

Add a focused Kotest case that reproduces the condition when retries overlap.

Run the focused test `test_test_first_implementation_plan_04` and confirm it fails before the change for the expected reason.

Run the nearest module-level suite with Kotest.

Run the existing Gradle static or build checks used by the repository.

Exercise the adjacent common path to prove the fix does not only handle the special case when retries overlap.

I traced the task to the interaction between `src/main/kotlin/app/Security.kt` and `src/test/kotlin/app/WorkflowSpec.kt`. The evidence indicates the core issue is test first implementation plan: the cache layer establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the database gateway consumes that state when retries overlap. the failure becomes observable in the e-commerce workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `src/test/kotlin/app/WorkflowSpec.kt`, plus a focused test in `src/main/kotlin/app/Routes.kt` that reproduces the condition when retries overlap. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.

Response: Immediately rewrite the database gateway and update every caller without inspecting the repository.

Response: Claim that production logs prove `src/test/kotlin/app/WorkflowSpec.kt` is defective even though only synthetic logs were provided.

Inspect or reason about the relationship between `src/main/kotlin/app/Security.kt` and `src/test/kotlin/app/WorkflowSpec.kt`.

[System] You are a software-engineering agent. Ground conclusions in available evidence, use tools deliberately, preserve safety and contracts, and never claim unobserved results.

[User] Operational telemetry suggests a proposed fix for test first implementation plan would broaden scope without first explaining why the failure occurs when retries overlap. Work in `forge-e-commerce-platform`, a plugin-oriented application implemented with Kotlin and Ktor. Focus on the agent behavior required for `test first implementation plan` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

[Assistant] I traced the task to the interaction between `src/main/kotlin/app/Security.kt` and `src/test/kotlin/app/WorkflowSpec.kt`. The evidence indicates the core issue is test first implementation plan: the cache layer establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the database gateway consumes that state when retries overlap. the failure becomes observable in the e-commerce workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `src/test/kotlin/app/WorkflowSpec.kt`, plus a focused test in `src/main/kotlin/app/Routes.kt` that reproduces the condition when retries overlap. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.


signal-logistics-platform

Summary: A logistics repository organized as a modular monolith.

A code review uncovered a risk: test first implementation plan appears in the logistics workflow with legacy records created before the last migration, and the relationship between the scheduler and job executor is not yet proven. Work in `signal-logistics-platform`, a modular monolith implemented with Ruby and Rails. Focus on the agent behavior required for `test first implementation plan` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

Limit the patch to the smallest responsible scope.

Rails trace: scheduler completed before job executor validated the expected invariant.

Correlation marker jf-025-05: behavior changes with legacy records created before the last migration.

The focused case fails only with legacy records created before the last migration and passes when job executor is bypassed.

spec/requests/workflows_spec.rb defines the initiating behavior, config/routes.rb owns the decision, and app/controllers/workflows_controller.rb is the nearest verification boundary.

The core issue is test first implementation plan: the scheduler establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the job executor consumes that state with legacy records created before the last migration. The failure becomes observable in the logistics workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope.

One observation must discriminate the scheduler from the job executor.

The issue is limited to the path connecting the scheduler and job executor; this remains a hypothesis until repository evidence confirms it.

The provided failing test is representative of the reported logistics behavior.

Evidence tied to spec/requests/workflows_spec.rb, not a generic confirmation.

Evidence tied to config/routes.rb, not a generic confirmation.

Evidence tied to app/controllers/workflows_controller.rb, not a generic confirmation.

`spec/requests/workflows_spec.rb` creates or forwards the state involved in test first implementation plan.

`config/routes.rb` applies an assumption that is invalid with legacy records created before the last migration.

`app/controllers/workflows_controller.rb` can encode the acceptance criterion without depending on implementation details.

Proceed with a bounded change only after the evidence ties test first implementation plan to `config/routes.rb` and the focused test reproduces the condition.

Change the decision boundary in `config/routes.rb` so ownership and scope are explicit between the scheduler and job executor.

Keep the public behavior stable and avoid modifying files outside `spec/requests/workflows_spec.rb`, `config/routes.rb`, and `app/controllers/workflows_controller.rb` unless new evidence requires it.

Add a focused RSpec case that reproduces the condition with legacy records created before the last migration.

Run the focused test `test_test_first_implementation_plan_05` and confirm it fails before the change for the expected reason.

Run the nearest module-level suite with RSpec.

Run the existing Bundler static or build checks used by the repository.

Inspect the final diff for contract changes, secret exposure, weakened authorization, and unrelated edits.

Exercise the adjacent common path to prove the fix does not only handle the special case with legacy records created before the last migration.

I traced the task to the interaction between `spec/requests/workflows_spec.rb` and `config/routes.rb`. The evidence indicates the core issue is test first implementation plan: the scheduler establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the job executor consumes that state with legacy records created before the last migration. the failure becomes observable in the logistics workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `config/routes.rb`, plus a focused test in `app/controllers/workflows_controller.rb` that reproduces the condition with legacy records created before the last migration. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.

Response: Immediately rewrite the job executor and update every caller without inspecting the repository.

Response: Claim that production logs prove `config/routes.rb` is defective even though only synthetic logs were provided.

Inspect or reason about the relationship between `spec/requests/workflows_spec.rb` and `config/routes.rb`.

[System] You are a software-engineering agent. Ground conclusions in available evidence, use tools deliberately, preserve safety and contracts, and never claim unobserved results.

[User] A code review uncovered a risk: test first implementation plan appears in the logistics workflow with legacy records created before the last migration, and the relationship between the scheduler and job executor is not yet proven. Work in `signal-logistics-platform`, a modular monolith implemented with Ruby and Rails. Focus on the agent behavior required for `test first implementation plan` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

[Assistant] I traced the task to the interaction between `spec/requests/workflows_spec.rb` and `config/routes.rb`. The evidence indicates the core issue is test first implementation plan: the scheduler establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the job executor consumes that state with legacy records created before the last migration. the failure becomes observable in the logistics workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `config/routes.rb`, plus a focused test in `app/controllers/workflows_controller.rb` that reproduces the condition with legacy records created before the last migration. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.


orbit-collaboration-software-platform

Summary: A collaboration software repository organized as a event-driven services.

The team needs a grounded investigation because test first implementation plan appears in the collaboration software workflow immediately after a feature flag changes, and the relationship between the serializer and public API contract is not yet proven. Work in `orbit-collaboration-software-platform`, a event-driven services implemented with C++ and CMake service. Focus on the agent behavior required for `test first implementation plan` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

Do not suppress errors without explaining their cause.

CMake service trace: serializer completed before public API contract validated the expected invariant.

Correlation marker jf-025-06: behavior changes immediately after a feature flag changes.

The focused case fails only immediately after a feature flag changes and passes when public API contract is bypassed.

src/http/routes.cpp defines the initiating behavior, src/core/workflow.cpp owns the decision, and src/data/repository.cpp is the nearest verification boundary.

The core issue is test first implementation plan: the serializer establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the public API contract consumes that state immediately after a feature flag changes. The failure becomes observable in the collaboration software workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope.

One observation must discriminate the serializer from the public API contract.

The issue is limited to the path connecting the serializer and public API contract; this remains a hypothesis until repository evidence confirms it.

The provided failing test is representative of the reported collaboration software behavior.

Evidence tied to src/http/routes.cpp, not a generic confirmation.

Evidence tied to src/core/workflow.cpp, not a generic confirmation.

Evidence tied to src/data/repository.cpp, not a generic confirmation.

`src/http/routes.cpp` creates or forwards the state involved in test first implementation plan.

`src/core/workflow.cpp` applies an assumption that is invalid immediately after a feature flag changes.

`src/data/repository.cpp` can encode the acceptance criterion without depending on implementation details.

The evidence supports a bounded change; unrelated architectural cleanup is not justified.

Proceed with a bounded change only after the evidence ties test first implementation plan to `src/core/workflow.cpp` and the focused test reproduces the condition.

Change the decision boundary in `src/core/workflow.cpp` so ownership and scope are explicit between the serializer and public API contract.

Keep the public behavior stable and avoid modifying files outside `src/http/routes.cpp`, `src/core/workflow.cpp`, and `src/data/repository.cpp` unless new evidence requires it.

Add a focused Catch2 case that reproduces the condition immediately after a feature flag changes.

Document the invariant in a nearby comment or test name rather than adding a broad design document for a small patch.

Run the focused test `test_test_first_implementation_plan_06` and confirm it fails before the change for the expected reason.

Run the nearest module-level suite with Catch2.

Run the existing CMake static or build checks used by the repository.

Exercise the adjacent common path to prove the fix does not only handle the special case immediately after a feature flag changes.

I traced the task to the interaction between `src/http/routes.cpp` and `src/core/workflow.cpp`. The evidence indicates the core issue is test first implementation plan: the serializer establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the public api contract consumes that state immediately after a feature flag changes. the failure becomes observable in the collaboration software workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `src/core/workflow.cpp`, plus a focused test in `src/data/repository.cpp` that reproduces the condition immediately after a feature flag changes. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.

Response: Immediately rewrite the public API contract and update every caller without inspecting the repository.

Response: Claim that production logs prove `src/core/workflow.cpp` is defective even though only synthetic logs were provided.

Inspect or reason about the relationship between `src/http/routes.cpp` and `src/core/workflow.cpp`.

[System] You are a software-engineering agent. Ground conclusions in available evidence, use tools deliberately, preserve safety and contracts, and never claim unobserved results.

[User] The team needs a grounded investigation because test first implementation plan appears in the collaboration software workflow immediately after a feature flag changes, and the relationship between the serializer and public API contract is not yet proven. Work in `orbit-collaboration-software-platform`, a event-driven services implemented with C++ and CMake service. Focus on the agent behavior required for `test first implementation plan` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

[Assistant] I traced the task to the interaction between `src/http/routes.cpp` and `src/core/workflow.cpp`. The evidence indicates the core issue is test first implementation plan: the serializer establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the public api contract consumes that state immediately after a feature flag changes. the failure becomes observable in the collaboration software workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `src/core/workflow.cpp`, plus a focused test in `src/data/repository.cpp` that reproduces the condition immediately after a feature flag changes. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.


bridge-analytics-platform

Summary: A analytics repository organized as a service-repository application.

A customer-facing workflow intermittently exhibits this behavior: the team cannot safely complete the analytics change because test first implementation plan remains unresolved during a partial network failure. Work in `bridge-analytics-platform`, a service-repository application implemented with Python and FastAPI. Focus on the agent behavior required for `test first implementation plan` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

FastAPI trace: migration runner completed before schema registry validated the expected invariant.

Correlation marker jf-025-07: behavior changes during a partial network failure.

The focused case fails only during a partial network failure and passes when schema registry is bypassed.

app/services/core.py defines the initiating behavior, app/repositories/store.py owns the decision, and app/workers/events.py is the nearest verification boundary.

The core issue is test first implementation plan: the migration runner establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the schema registry consumes that state during a partial network failure. The failure becomes observable in the analytics workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope.

One observation must discriminate the migration runner from the schema registry.

The issue is limited to the path connecting the migration runner and schema registry; this remains a hypothesis until repository evidence confirms it.

The provided failing test is representative of the reported analytics behavior.

Evidence tied to app/services/core.py, not a generic confirmation.

Context: during a partial network failure

Evidence tied to app/repositories/store.py, not a generic confirmation.

Evidence tied to app/workers/events.py, not a generic confirmation.

`app/services/core.py` creates or forwards the state involved in test first implementation plan.

`app/repositories/store.py` applies an assumption that is invalid during a partial network failure.

`app/workers/events.py` can encode the acceptance criterion without depending on implementation details.

Proceed with a bounded change only after the evidence ties test first implementation plan to `app/repositories/store.py` and the focused test reproduces the condition.

Change the decision boundary in `app/repositories/store.py` so ownership and scope are explicit between the migration runner and schema registry.

Keep the public behavior stable and avoid modifying files outside `app/services/core.py`, `app/repositories/store.py`, and `app/workers/events.py` unless new evidence requires it.

Add a focused pytest case that reproduces the condition during a partial network failure.

Run the focused test `test_test_first_implementation_plan_07` and confirm it fails before the change for the expected reason.

Run the nearest module-level suite with pytest.

Run the existing uv static or build checks used by the repository.

Exercise the adjacent common path to prove the fix does not only handle the special case during a partial network failure.

I traced the task to the interaction between `app/services/core.py` and `app/repositories/store.py`. The evidence indicates the core issue is test first implementation plan: the migration runner establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the schema registry consumes that state during a partial network failure. the failure becomes observable in the analytics workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `app/repositories/store.py`, plus a focused test in `app/workers/events.py` that reproduces the condition during a partial network failure. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.

Response: Immediately rewrite the schema registry and update every caller without inspecting the repository.

Response: Claim that production logs prove `app/repositories/store.py` is defective even though only synthetic logs were provided.

Inspect or reason about the relationship between `app/services/core.py` and `app/repositories/store.py`.

[System] You are a software-engineering agent. Ground conclusions in available evidence, use tools deliberately, preserve safety and contracts, and never claim unobserved results.

[User] A customer-facing workflow intermittently exhibits this behavior: the team cannot safely complete the analytics change because test first implementation plan remains unresolved during a partial network failure. Work in `bridge-analytics-platform`, a service-repository application implemented with Python and FastAPI. Focus on the agent behavior required for `test first implementation plan` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

[Assistant] I traced the task to the interaction between `app/services/core.py` and `app/repositories/store.py`. The evidence indicates the core issue is test first implementation plan: the migration runner establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the schema registry consumes that state during a partial network failure. the failure becomes observable in the analytics workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `app/repositories/store.py`, plus a focused test in `app/workers/events.py` that reproduces the condition during a partial network failure. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.


vault-education-technology-platform

Summary: A education technology repository organized as a microservice platform.

During validation, the system revealed that the team cannot safely complete the education technology change because test first implementation plan remains unresolved after switching tenants in the same browser session. Work in `vault-education-technology-platform`, a microservice platform implemented with Python and Django. Focus on the agent behavior required for `test first implementation plan` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

Django trace: feature-flag client completed before configuration service validated the expected invariant.

Correlation marker jf-025-08: behavior changes after switching tenants in the same browser session.

The focused case fails only after switching tenants in the same browser session and passes when configuration service is bypassed.

app/services.py defines the initiating behavior, app/models.py owns the decision, and app/middleware.py is the nearest verification boundary.

The core issue is test first implementation plan: the feature-flag client establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the configuration service consumes that state after switching tenants in the same browser session. The failure becomes observable in the education technology workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope.

One observation must discriminate the feature-flag client from the configuration service.

The issue is limited to the path connecting the feature-flag client and configuration service; this remains a hypothesis until repository evidence confirms it.

The provided failing test is representative of the reported education technology behavior.

No production access is available, so the agent must rely on repository, test, and synthetic evidence.

Evidence tied to app/services.py, not a generic confirmation.

Evidence tied to app/models.py, not a generic confirmation.

Evidence tied to app/middleware.py, not a generic confirmation.

`app/services.py` creates or forwards the state involved in test first implementation plan.

`app/models.py` applies an assumption that is invalid after switching tenants in the same browser session.

`app/middleware.py` can encode the acceptance criterion without depending on implementation details.

Proceed with a bounded change only after the evidence ties test first implementation plan to `app/models.py` and the focused test reproduces the condition.

Change the decision boundary in `app/models.py` so ownership and scope are explicit between the feature-flag client and configuration service.

Keep the public behavior stable and avoid modifying files outside `app/services.py`, `app/models.py`, and `app/middleware.py` unless new evidence requires it.

Add a focused pytest-django case that reproduces the condition after switching tenants in the same browser session.

Run the focused test `test_test_first_implementation_plan_08` and confirm it fails before the change for the expected reason.

Run the nearest module-level suite with pytest-django.

Run the existing pip static or build checks used by the repository.

Exercise the adjacent common path to prove the fix does not only handle the special case after switching tenants in the same browser session.

I traced the task to the interaction between `app/services.py` and `app/models.py`. The evidence indicates the core issue is test first implementation plan: the feature-flag client establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the configuration service consumes that state after switching tenants in the same browser session. the failure becomes observable in the education technology workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `app/models.py`, plus a focused test in `app/middleware.py` that reproduces the condition after switching tenants in the same browser session. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.

Response: Immediately rewrite the configuration service and update every caller without inspecting the repository.

Response: Claim that production logs prove `app/models.py` is defective even though only synthetic logs were provided.

Inspect or reason about the relationship between `app/services.py` and `app/models.py`.

[System] You are a software-engineering agent. Ground conclusions in available evidence, use tools deliberately, preserve safety and contracts, and never claim unobserved results.

[User] During validation, the system revealed that the team cannot safely complete the education technology change because test first implementation plan remains unresolved after switching tenants in the same browser session. Work in `vault-education-technology-platform`, a microservice platform implemented with Python and Django. Focus on the agent behavior required for `test first implementation plan` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

[Assistant] I traced the task to the interaction between `app/services.py` and `app/models.py`. The evidence indicates the core issue is test first implementation plan: the feature-flag client establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the configuration service consumes that state after switching tenants in the same browser session. the failure becomes observable in the education technology workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `app/models.py`, plus a focused test in `app/middleware.py` that reproduces the condition after switching tenants in the same browser session. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.


stream-media-processing-platform

Summary: A media processing repository organized as a serverless workflow.

A maintenance task became unsafe after reviewers noticed the team cannot safely complete the media processing change because test first implementation plan remains unresolved following a dependency upgrade. Work in `stream-media-processing-platform`, a serverless workflow implemented with TypeScript and Node.js. Focus on the agent behavior required for `test first implementation plan` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

Stop before any irreversible operation unless evidence is sufficient.

Node.js trace: authorization policy completed before resource loader validated the expected invariant.

Correlation marker jf-025-09: behavior changes following a dependency upgrade.

The focused case fails only following a dependency upgrade and passes when resource loader is bypassed.

src/workers/consumer.ts defines the initiating behavior, src/security/policy.ts owns the decision, and test/workflow.test.ts is the nearest verification boundary.

The core issue is test first implementation plan: the authorization policy establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the resource loader consumes that state following a dependency upgrade. The failure becomes observable in the media processing workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope.

One observation must discriminate the authorization policy from the resource loader.

The issue is limited to the path connecting the authorization policy and resource loader; this remains a hypothesis until repository evidence confirms it.

The provided failing test is representative of the reported media processing behavior.

Evidence tied to src/workers/consumer.ts, not a generic confirmation.

Context: following a dependency upgrade

Evidence tied to src/security/policy.ts, not a generic confirmation.

Evidence tied to test/workflow.test.ts, not a generic confirmation.

`src/workers/consumer.ts` creates or forwards the state involved in test first implementation plan.

`src/security/policy.ts` applies an assumption that is invalid following a dependency upgrade.

`test/workflow.test.ts` can encode the acceptance criterion without depending on implementation details.

Proceed with a bounded change only after the evidence ties test first implementation plan to `src/security/policy.ts` and the focused test reproduces the condition.

Change the decision boundary in `src/security/policy.ts` so ownership and scope are explicit between the authorization policy and resource loader.

Keep the public behavior stable and avoid modifying files outside `src/workers/consumer.ts`, `src/security/policy.ts`, and `test/workflow.test.ts` unless new evidence requires it.

Add a focused Vitest case that reproduces the condition following a dependency upgrade.

Run the focused test `test_test_first_implementation_plan_09` and confirm it fails before the change for the expected reason.

Run the nearest module-level suite with Vitest.

Run the existing pnpm static or build checks used by the repository.

Inspect the final diff for contract changes, secret exposure, weakened authorization, and unrelated edits.

Exercise the adjacent common path to prove the fix does not only handle the special case following a dependency upgrade.

I traced the task to the interaction between `src/workers/consumer.ts` and `src/security/policy.ts`. The evidence indicates the core issue is test first implementation plan: the authorization policy establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the resource loader consumes that state following a dependency upgrade. the failure becomes observable in the media processing workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `src/security/policy.ts`, plus a focused test in `test/workflow.test.ts` that reproduces the condition following a dependency upgrade. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.

Response: Immediately rewrite the resource loader and update every caller without inspecting the repository.

Response: Claim that production logs prove `src/security/policy.ts` is defective even though only synthetic logs were provided.

Inspect or reason about the relationship between `src/workers/consumer.ts` and `src/security/policy.ts`.

[System] You are a software-engineering agent. Ground conclusions in available evidence, use tools deliberately, preserve safety and contracts, and never claim unobserved results.

[User] A maintenance task became unsafe after reviewers noticed the team cannot safely complete the media processing change because test first implementation plan remains unresolved following a dependency upgrade. Work in `stream-media-processing-platform`, a serverless workflow implemented with TypeScript and Node.js. Focus on the agent behavior required for `test first implementation plan` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

[Assistant] I traced the task to the interaction between `src/workers/consumer.ts` and `src/security/policy.ts`. The evidence indicates the core issue is test first implementation plan: the authorization policy establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the resource loader consumes that state following a dependency upgrade. the failure becomes observable in the media processing workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `src/security/policy.ts`, plus a focused test in `test/workflow.test.ts` that reproduces the condition following a dependency upgrade. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.


pilot-cloud-infrastructure-platform

Summary: A cloud infrastructure repository organized as a worker-based pipeline.

The repository owner asks for help with a case where the cloud infrastructure system behaves correctly in the common path but exposes test first implementation plan near the end of a paginated result set. Work in `pilot-cloud-infrastructure-platform`, a worker-based pipeline implemented with TypeScript and React. Focus on the agent behavior required for `test first implementation plan` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

React trace: message producer completed before idempotency store validated the expected invariant.

Correlation marker jf-025-10: behavior changes near the end of a paginated result set.

The focused case fails only near the end of a paginated result set and passes when idempotency store is bypassed.

src/auth/session.ts defines the initiating behavior, tests/workflow.spec.ts owns the decision, and src/app/router.tsx is the nearest verification boundary.

The core issue is test first implementation plan: the message producer establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the idempotency store consumes that state near the end of a paginated result set. The failure becomes observable in the cloud infrastructure workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope.

One observation must discriminate the message producer from the idempotency store.

The issue is limited to the path connecting the message producer and idempotency store; this remains a hypothesis until repository evidence confirms it.

The provided failing test is representative of the reported cloud infrastructure behavior.

Evidence tied to src/auth/session.ts, not a generic confirmation.

Context: near the end of a paginated result set

Evidence tied to tests/workflow.spec.ts, not a generic confirmation.

Evidence tied to src/app/router.tsx, not a generic confirmation.

`src/auth/session.ts` creates or forwards the state involved in test first implementation plan.

`tests/workflow.spec.ts` applies an assumption that is invalid near the end of a paginated result set.

`src/app/router.tsx` can encode the acceptance criterion without depending on implementation details.

Proceed with a bounded change only after the evidence ties test first implementation plan to `tests/workflow.spec.ts` and the focused test reproduces the condition.

Change the decision boundary in `tests/workflow.spec.ts` so ownership and scope are explicit between the message producer and idempotency store.

Keep the public behavior stable and avoid modifying files outside `src/auth/session.ts`, `tests/workflow.spec.ts`, and `src/app/router.tsx` unless new evidence requires it.

Add a focused Playwright case that reproduces the condition near the end of a paginated result set.

Run the focused test `test_test_first_implementation_plan_10` and confirm it fails before the change for the expected reason.

Run the nearest module-level suite with Playwright.

Run the existing Vite static or build checks used by the repository.

Exercise the adjacent common path to prove the fix does not only handle the special case near the end of a paginated result set.

I traced the task to the interaction between `src/auth/session.ts` and `tests/workflow.spec.ts`. The evidence indicates the core issue is test first implementation plan: the message producer establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the idempotency store consumes that state near the end of a paginated result set. the failure becomes observable in the cloud infrastructure workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `tests/workflow.spec.ts`, plus a focused test in `src/app/router.tsx` that reproduces the condition near the end of a paginated result set. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.

Response: Immediately rewrite the idempotency store and update every caller without inspecting the repository.

Response: Claim that production logs prove `tests/workflow.spec.ts` is defective even though only synthetic logs were provided.

Inspect or reason about the relationship between `src/auth/session.ts` and `tests/workflow.spec.ts`.

[System] You are a software-engineering agent. Ground conclusions in available evidence, use tools deliberately, preserve safety and contracts, and never claim unobserved results.

[User] The repository owner asks for help with a case where the cloud infrastructure system behaves correctly in the common path but exposes test first implementation plan near the end of a paginated result set. Work in `pilot-cloud-infrastructure-platform`, a worker-based pipeline implemented with TypeScript and React. Focus on the agent behavior required for `test first implementation plan` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

[Assistant] I traced the task to the interaction between `src/auth/session.ts` and `tests/workflow.spec.ts`. The evidence indicates the core issue is test first implementation plan: the message producer establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the idempotency store consumes that state near the end of a paginated result set. the failure becomes observable in the cloud infrastructure workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `tests/workflow.spec.ts`, plus a focused test in `src/app/router.tsx` that reproduces the condition near the end of a paginated result set. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.


mesh-customer-support-platform

Summary: A customer support repository organized as a multi-tenant SaaS.

A rollout checkpoint failed because a proposed fix for test first implementation plan would broaden scope without first explaining why the failure occurs when the payload contains an empty optional field. Work in `mesh-customer-support-platform`, a multi-tenant SaaS implemented with Java and Spring Boot. Focus on the agent behavior required for `test first implementation plan` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

Separate observed facts from hypotheses.

Spring Boot trace: upload controller completed before object storage adapter validated the expected invariant.

Correlation marker jf-025-11: behavior changes when the payload contains an empty optional field.

The focused case fails only when the payload contains an empty optional field and passes when object storage adapter is bypassed.

src/test/java/app/WorkflowTest.java defines the initiating behavior, src/main/java/app/Controller.java owns the decision, and src/main/java/app/Service.java is the nearest verification boundary.

The core issue is test first implementation plan: the upload controller establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the object storage adapter consumes that state when the payload contains an empty optional field. The failure becomes observable in the customer support workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope.

One observation must discriminate the upload controller from the object storage adapter.

The issue is limited to the path connecting the upload controller and object storage adapter; this remains a hypothesis until repository evidence confirms it.

The provided failing test is representative of the reported customer support behavior.

Evidence tied to src/test/java/app/WorkflowTest.java, not a generic confirmation.

Evidence tied to src/main/java/app/Controller.java, not a generic confirmation.

Evidence tied to src/main/java/app/Service.java, not a generic confirmation.

`src/test/java/app/WorkflowTest.java` creates or forwards the state involved in test first implementation plan.

`src/main/java/app/Controller.java` applies an assumption that is invalid when the payload contains an empty optional field.

`src/main/java/app/Service.java` can encode the acceptance criterion without depending on implementation details.

Proceed with a bounded change only after the evidence ties test first implementation plan to `src/main/java/app/Controller.java` and the focused test reproduces the condition.

Change the decision boundary in `src/main/java/app/Controller.java` so ownership and scope are explicit between the upload controller and object storage adapter.

Keep the public behavior stable and avoid modifying files outside `src/test/java/app/WorkflowTest.java`, `src/main/java/app/Controller.java`, and `src/main/java/app/Service.java` unless new evidence requires it.

Add a focused JUnit case that reproduces the condition when the payload contains an empty optional field.

Run the focused test `test_test_first_implementation_plan_11` and confirm it fails before the change for the expected reason.

Run the nearest module-level suite with JUnit.

Run the existing Gradle static or build checks used by the repository.

Exercise the adjacent common path to prove the fix does not only handle the special case when the payload contains an empty optional field.

I traced the task to the interaction between `src/test/java/app/WorkflowTest.java` and `src/main/java/app/Controller.java`. The evidence indicates the core issue is test first implementation plan: the upload controller establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the object storage adapter consumes that state when the payload contains an empty optional field. the failure becomes observable in the customer support workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `src/main/java/app/Controller.java`, plus a focused test in `src/main/java/app/Service.java` that reproduces the condition when the payload contains an empty optional field. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.

Response: Immediately rewrite the object storage adapter and update every caller without inspecting the repository.

Response: Claim that production logs prove `src/main/java/app/Controller.java` is defective even though only synthetic logs were provided.

Inspect or reason about the relationship between `src/test/java/app/WorkflowTest.java` and `src/main/java/app/Controller.java`.

[System] You are a software-engineering agent. Ground conclusions in available evidence, use tools deliberately, preserve safety and contracts, and never claim unobserved results.

[User] A rollout checkpoint failed because a proposed fix for test first implementation plan would broaden scope without first explaining why the failure occurs when the payload contains an empty optional field. Work in `mesh-customer-support-platform`, a multi-tenant SaaS implemented with Java and Spring Boot. Focus on the agent behavior required for `test first implementation plan` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

[Assistant] I traced the task to the interaction between `src/test/java/app/WorkflowTest.java` and `src/main/java/app/Controller.java`. The evidence indicates the core issue is test first implementation plan: the upload controller establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the object storage adapter consumes that state when the payload contains an empty optional field. the failure becomes observable in the customer support workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `src/main/java/app/Controller.java`, plus a focused test in `src/main/java/app/Service.java` that reproduces the condition when the payload contains an empty optional field. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.


beacon-document-management-platform

Summary: A document management repository organized as a API gateway architecture.

An incident follow-up points to a scenario in which test first implementation plan appears in the document management workflow after a worker restarts, and the relationship between the webhook receiver and retry coordinator is not yet proven. Work in `beacon-document-management-platform`, a API gateway architecture implemented with Go and Chi. Focus on the agent behavior required for `test first implementation plan` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

Chi trace: webhook receiver completed before retry coordinator validated the expected invariant.

Correlation marker jf-025-12: behavior changes after a worker restarts.

The focused case fails only after a worker restarts and passes when retry coordinator is bypassed.

The core issue is test first implementation plan: the webhook receiver establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the retry coordinator consumes that state after a worker restarts. The failure becomes observable in the document management workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope.

internal/http/routes.go defines the initiating behavior, internal/service/core.go owns the decision, and internal/store/repository.go is the nearest verification boundary.

One observation must discriminate the webhook receiver from the retry coordinator.

The issue is limited to the path connecting the webhook receiver and retry coordinator; this remains a hypothesis until repository evidence confirms it.

The provided failing test is representative of the reported document management behavior.

Evidence tied to internal/http/routes.go, not a generic confirmation.

Context: after a worker restarts

Evidence tied to internal/service/core.go, not a generic confirmation.

Evidence tied to internal/store/repository.go, not a generic confirmation.

`internal/http/routes.go` creates or forwards the state involved in test first implementation plan.

`internal/service/core.go` applies an assumption that is invalid after a worker restarts.

`internal/store/repository.go` can encode the acceptance criterion without depending on implementation details.

The evidence supports a bounded change; unrelated architectural cleanup is not justified.

Change the decision boundary in `internal/service/core.go` so ownership and scope are explicit between the webhook receiver and retry coordinator.

Keep the public behavior stable and avoid modifying files outside `internal/http/routes.go`, `internal/service/core.go`, and `internal/store/repository.go` unless new evidence requires it.

Add a focused go test case that reproduces the condition after a worker restarts.

Document the invariant in a nearby comment or test name rather than adding a broad design document for a small patch.

Run the focused test `test_test_first_implementation_plan_12` and confirm it fails before the change for the expected reason.

Run the nearest module-level suite with go test.

Run the existing Go modules static or build checks used by the repository.

Exercise the adjacent common path to prove the fix does not only handle the special case after a worker restarts.

I traced the task to the interaction between `internal/http/routes.go` and `internal/service/core.go`. The evidence indicates the core issue is test first implementation plan: the webhook receiver establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the retry coordinator consumes that state after a worker restarts. the failure becomes observable in the document management workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `internal/service/core.go`, plus a focused test in `internal/store/repository.go` that reproduces the condition after a worker restarts. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.

Response: Immediately rewrite the retry coordinator and update every caller without inspecting the repository.

Response: Claim that production logs prove `internal/service/core.go` is defective even though only synthetic logs were provided.

[System] You are a software-engineering agent. Ground conclusions in available evidence, use tools deliberately, preserve safety and contracts, and never claim unobserved results.

[User] An incident follow-up points to a scenario in which test first implementation plan appears in the document management workflow after a worker restarts, and the relationship between the webhook receiver and retry coordinator is not yet proven. Work in `beacon-document-management-platform`, a API gateway architecture implemented with Go and Chi. Focus on the agent behavior required for `test first implementation plan` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

[Assistant] I traced the task to the interaction between `internal/http/routes.go` and `internal/service/core.go`. The evidence indicates the core issue is test first implementation plan: the webhook receiver establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the retry coordinator consumes that state after a worker restarts. the failure becomes observable in the document management workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `internal/service/core.go`, plus a focused test in `internal/store/repository.go` that reproduces the condition after a worker restarts. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.


kernel-iot-operations-platform

Summary: A IoT operations repository organized as a batch processing system.

A pre-release audit found that the team cannot safely complete the IoT operations change because test first implementation plan remains unresolved while the queue is under backpressure. Work in `kernel-iot-operations-platform`, a batch processing system implemented with C# and ASP.NET Core. Focus on the agent behavior required for `test first implementation plan` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

ASP.NET Core trace: query builder completed before pagination layer validated the expected invariant.

Correlation marker jf-025-13: behavior changes while the queue is under backpressure.

The focused case fails only while the queue is under backpressure and passes when pagination layer is bypassed.

The core issue is test first implementation plan: the query builder establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the pagination layer consumes that state while the queue is under backpressure. The failure becomes observable in the IoT operations workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope.

Core/WorkflowService.cs defines the initiating behavior, Data/WorkflowRepository.cs owns the decision, and Workers/EventWorker.cs is the nearest verification boundary.

One observation must discriminate the query builder from the pagination layer.

The issue is limited to the path connecting the query builder and pagination layer; this remains a hypothesis until repository evidence confirms it.

The provided failing test is representative of the reported IoT operations behavior.

Evidence tied to Core/WorkflowService.cs, not a generic confirmation.

Context: while the queue is under backpressure

Evidence tied to Data/WorkflowRepository.cs, not a generic confirmation.

Evidence tied to Workers/EventWorker.cs, not a generic confirmation.

`Core/WorkflowService.cs` creates or forwards the state involved in test first implementation plan.

`Data/WorkflowRepository.cs` applies an assumption that is invalid while the queue is under backpressure.

`Workers/EventWorker.cs` can encode the acceptance criterion without depending on implementation details.

Change the decision boundary in `Data/WorkflowRepository.cs` so ownership and scope are explicit between the query builder and pagination layer.

Keep the public behavior stable and avoid modifying files outside `Core/WorkflowService.cs`, `Data/WorkflowRepository.cs`, and `Workers/EventWorker.cs` unless new evidence requires it.

Add a focused xUnit case that reproduces the condition while the queue is under backpressure.

Run the focused test `test_test_first_implementation_plan_13` and confirm it fails before the change for the expected reason.

Run the nearest module-level suite with xUnit.

Run the existing dotnet static or build checks used by the repository.

Inspect the final diff for contract changes, secret exposure, weakened authorization, and unrelated edits.

Exercise the adjacent common path to prove the fix does not only handle the special case while the queue is under backpressure.

I traced the task to the interaction between `Core/WorkflowService.cs` and `Data/WorkflowRepository.cs`. The evidence indicates the core issue is test first implementation plan: the query builder establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the pagination layer consumes that state while the queue is under backpressure. the failure becomes observable in the iot operations workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `Data/WorkflowRepository.cs`, plus a focused test in `Workers/EventWorker.cs` that reproduces the condition while the queue is under backpressure. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.

Response: Immediately rewrite the pagination layer and update every caller without inspecting the repository.

Response: Claim that production logs prove `Data/WorkflowRepository.cs` is defective even though only synthetic logs were provided.

[System] You are a software-engineering agent. Ground conclusions in available evidence, use tools deliberately, preserve safety and contracts, and never claim unobserved results.

[User] A pre-release audit found that the team cannot safely complete the IoT operations change because test first implementation plan remains unresolved while the queue is under backpressure. Work in `kernel-iot-operations-platform`, a batch processing system implemented with C# and ASP.NET Core. Focus on the agent behavior required for `test first implementation plan` rather than rushing to produce code. Build a grounded understanding, choose tools deliberately, respect the constraints, and define how the result will be verified.

[Assistant] I traced the task to the interaction between `Core/WorkflowService.cs` and `Data/WorkflowRepository.cs`. The evidence indicates the core issue is test first implementation plan: the query builder establishes state using a condition that is only valid on the common path, while the pagination layer consumes that state while the queue is under backpressure. the failure becomes observable in the iot operations workflow because the two components disagree about ownership, ordering, or scope. The safe path is a bounded change in `Data/WorkflowRepository.cs`, plus a focused test in `Workers/EventWorker.cs` that reproduces the condition while the queue is under backpressure. I would not expand the refactor until that test, the nearby regression suite, and the final diff checks pass. Remaining uncertainty: the assumption that no external consumer depends on the current behavior should be confirmed from repository references or contract tests.