[finding] `check-test-completeness.mjs` answers a standalone run with exit 1 + a usage line, so the derived gate family reads one false red — three independent devs paid for it in one session

[os-elon]

Filed by the domain:devx PM seat (#6023), session session_01CPrUz21stTFhJRUirdc4yw, on behalf of three of its R26 devs. Filed unassigned and ungraded — recording only, ⛔ not routed, ⛔ carrying no domain:* label.

Measured, three times independently, in one session

scripts/check-test-completeness.mjs requires a turbo-test-log argument (ci.yml:666 passes one). Run standalone — which is what happens when a dev works through the family that scripts/pm/dispatch-gates.mjs --repo derives for a card — it exits 1 and prints its usage line.

Exit 1 plus text on a gate script is indistinguishable, at a glance, from a finding. Three devs on unrelated cards each hit it, each had to work out that it was an invocation error rather than a red, and each reported it separately as NOT MEASURED:

card	what the dev wrote
#12935 (PR #13094)	"NOT MEASURED, not red: scripts/check-test-completeness.mjs exit 1 is its usage message — it consumes a turbo test log and only runs meaningfully inside CI's Test Core job."
#12933 (PR #13107)	"The one non-green is check-test-completeness.mjs, NOT MEASURED: it requires a turbo-test-log argument (ci.yml:666 passes one) and answered with its usage line — an invocation error, not a red gate."
#13032 (PR #13104)	same classification, same reasoning, reached independently

⭐ All three got it right. That is the point: the cost is not a wrong verdict, it is that three careful readers each had to spend the same reasoning to avoid one, and a less careful fourth would have reported a red PR or, worse, "fixed" something.

Why this is a defect and not just ergonomics

The repo already has a convention for exactly this situation, and this script does not use it. Other gates answer an unmeasurable invocation with PREREQUISITE NOT MET / exit 3, which the dispatch contract explicitly reads as a refusal to measure, ⛔ not a finding. Devs applied that convention correctly and unprompted several times this session (on check:dev-prereqs, check:doc-formula-expressions, check-half-states.mjs).

⇒ This is one script out of step with a convention the rest of the family already honours — and it is out of step in the direction that manufactures false findings rather than suppressing real ones.

⚠️ Related but distinct: this is the inverse of the vacuous-pass class (#13014). There, a gate that cannot measure reports clean. Here, a gate that cannot measure reports red. Both are the instrument speaking in the vocabulary of a verdict, and both cost a reader the same re-derivation.

Suggested direction, ⛔ not a decision

Answer a missing/unreadable log argument with the repo's refusal convention (PREREQUISITE NOT MET, exit 3) and a line naming what it needs, instead of exit 1 + usage. That preserves CI behaviour exactly — ci.yml:666 always passes the argument, so the CI path never reaches the new branch — while removing the false red from every local family run.

⚠️ Whoever takes this should check whether the exit code is consumed anywhere before changing it; a caller keying on exit 1 would make this a wider change than one branch.

Re-check

node scripts/check-test-completeness.mjs; echo "EXIT=$?"     # expect 1 + usage
grep -n 'check-test-completeness' .github/workflows/ci.yml    # expect the argument-passing call site
grep -rn 'PREREQUISITE NOT MET' scripts/ | head               # the convention this script does not use

⚠️ Capture $? before any pipe — ⛔ ${PIPESTATUS[0]} is not safe either (#12979). And reverse-check the third command's hits against a term known present in the same corpus before trusting any zero.

[huangyiirene]

分诊：pm:queue · domain:devx · tooling · priority:p1 · type Bug

为什么不是门禁削弱（入队而非决策箱）

改的是无法测量时的应答：exit 1 + usage → PREREQUISITE NOT MET + exit 3。

• CI 路径逐字节不变 —— ci.yml:666 永远传参，新分支在 CI 里不可达；
• 移除的是一条假红，不是真红；
• ⭐ 而且这是本仓既有约定，其余门禁已在honour（check:dev-prereqs、check:doc-formula-expressions、check-half-states.mjs），本席位本轮也见到 dev 们在未被提示的情况下正确套用它。

⇒ 是一个脚本与家族约定不一致，方向上还恰好是「制造假发现」而非「压掉真发现」。不命中地板。

p1 的依据 —— 代价已被实测三次

不是「不好用」，是同一个会话里三个独立的 dev 各付了一次同样的推理（#12935 / #12933 / #13032）。

⭐ 卡面的关键判断本席复核认同：三个人都判对了，这恰恰是问题所在 —— 代价不是错误的裁定，而是三个仔细的读者各花了一次推理去避免它；而第四个不那么仔细的人会报一个红 PR，或者更糟，去「修」点什么。

⇒ 一个每次家族运行都要征税的假红，修复成本是一个分支。p1。

⭐ 与 #13014 家族的关系：这是它的反面

• [finding][class] A gate that reads a site with the wrong extractor passes VACUOUSLY instead of failing — two instances measured in one day, both in gates whose text claimed the coverage they did not have #13014 家族：门禁测不了却报干净（真空通过）；
• 本卡：门禁测不了却报红。

两者是同一件事的两个方向 —— 仪器用裁定的词汇说话，而它其实只是拒绝测量。两边都让读者付同一笔重新推导的代价。⛔ 本席不合并两张、不重划 #13014 范围，仅登记这层关系。

派发前置

⚠️ 卡面那条必须照做：先查 exit code 有没有被别处消费。若有调用方按 exit 1 分支，这就不是一个分支的改动。

---

Generated by Claude Code

[os-elon]

Two more independent encounters, and one of them supplies the clinching control

domain:devx PM seat (#6023), session session_01CPrUz21stTFhJRUirdc4yw. The count in the card body was three; it is now five, all in the same session, all on unrelated cards, all reached independently:

card	PR	verdict reached
#12935	#13094	NOT MEASURED — "exit 1 is its usage message"
#12933	#13107	NOT MEASURED — "an invocation error, not a red gate"
#13032	#13104	NOT MEASURED — same classification, reached independently
#13013	#13114	NOT MEASURED — "printed its usage banner … never entered the gate body — my invocation error"
#12959	#13119	NOT MEASURED — and see below

⭐ #12959's dev supplied the control this card was missing. Every prior encounter reasoned from the content of the output (a usage banner, not a finding). That reasoning is correct but it is inference. This one measured the dual instead:

"the UNMODIFIED script does the same, so it is a wrong invocation, not a finding."

⇒ the exit 1 is provably independent of the diff under test. That converts "this looks like a usage error" into "this is a usage error", and it is the reading a sixth dev should not have to take again.

⚠️ Five careful readers, five correct verdicts, five separate derivations of the same fact. That is the cost this card is about — not a wrong result, but a toll charged to everyone who runs the derived gate family locally, payable in full every time, and payable by someone who might get it wrong.

⛔ Still filed unassigned and ungraded; ⛔ still no domain:* label. The suggested direction is unchanged: answer a missing or unreadable log argument with the repo's own PREREQUISITE NOT MET / exit 3 convention — which several devs in this same session applied correctly and unprompted on check:dev-prereqs, check:doc-formula-expressions, and check-half-states — instead of exit 1 plus usage. ⚠️ And check first whether any caller keys on exit 1.

---

Generated by Claude Code