generate-tests

generate-tests

Generates tests under the base rules and this repo's overlay + manifest. Read all three before generating:

• ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/rules/unit-testing.base.md
• .claude/coverage/refs/unit-testing.md (repo overlay)
• .claude/coverage/refs/coverage-manifest.yml (categories, exclusions, gate)

Preflight: is this repo on the current kit?

Run this before building the worklist, every time, whether or not anyone mentioned an upgrade:

python .claude/coverage/tools/coverage-gate.py \
  --manifest .claude/coverage/refs/coverage-manifest.yml --print-kit-drift

Any state other than current means the repo has not been reconciled against today's rules, and a backfill is the worst moment to discover that: a pass run on superseded mechanics wastes every token it spends. Consult ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/MIGRATIONS.md ("Preflight") and split what you find:

• auto entries governing how THIS pass runs (refresh the .claude/coverage/tools/ copies, the fan-out contract, frozen-bug recording): apply them now, silently, and note them in the closing summary.
• sign-off entries (anything that moves scope, the denominator, or the floor): report them in one line and leave them alone. Re-scoping mid-backfill moves the worklist under your own feet. coverage-redo is what applies them; say so and carry on with the pass as scoped today.

If the state is current, say nothing and continue.

Build the full worklist first — then cover ALL of it (do not stop early)

The scope of a backfill pass is the entire testable set the manifest defines, not a handful of "priority" files. Before writing any test, enumerate that set explicitly from the manifest and write it down as a checklist. The testable set is:

1. Every file matched by a category_map target category and not matched by an exclusions pattern (the genuine unit-scope files), AND
2. Every carve-out method on an exclusion entry: the structured carve_outs: list (each { method, lines, testable }), or the legacy CARVE-OUT: MethodA, MethodB prose in reason on older manifests. These are the thin pure/decision slices of god-classes (the UserService pattern): testable units even though their file is integration-scope, and a DbContext-injected service is tested by backing the context with the EF in-memory / SQLite provider. Init recorded them precisely so this step covers them; the file's excluded_rest says what stays out of scope.

Resolve every worklist item to a full repo-relative path, not a basename. Repos have many files sharing a name (UserService.cs, Handler.cs); test the exact file the manifest entry points at, mirror the test under that same path, and never carry one file's carve-out methods onto its same-named sibling. If a manifest pattern is ambiguous (bare basename matching several files), flag it back to the manifest rather than guessing which file it meant.

Items already covered by existing tests are checked off, not re-done. Items in cannot_test are out. Everything else in the set MUST be either tested in this backfill or appended to cannot_test with a reason — there is no third option of silently leaving it untouched.

An item is "done" only when its branches are covered — not when it has a green test. This is the definition that matters and the one most often shortcut. A method with filters, a switch, asc/desc, null guards or error paths needs an input pinned per branch; one happy-path test checks the item off the worklist while leaving 40–50% of its branches cold. A test existing is not the bar — its branches being exercised (or sent to cannot_test with a reason) is. Treat an under-covered target method exactly like an untested worklist item: not done. See "Cover the BRANCHES" below for how.

Hard rule: a coverage percentage is never a stopping condition — in either direction. Do not stop because the number "looks low" or "looks done," and do not stop at worklist completeness while target-layer methods still have uncovered branches. The pass ends only when every worklist item has branch-covered tests or a cannot_test entry. The classic failure this prevents: writing one test per file, watching the suite go green, and stopping at ~50–60% C0/C1 because each method got one path — that is an unfinished pass, not a complete one.

Phasing — when the worklist is large, plan it and report progress

If the worklist is large enough that one pass is impractical (rule of thumb: more than ~15 target files or ~40 carve-out methods, or it spans multiple test projects), do not silently do a slice and stop. Instead:

1. Split the worklist into phases (group by file/service/test-project so each phase is a coherent, runnable chunk).
2. Tell the user the phase plan up front — the full count of testable units, how many phases, and what each phase covers — before generating. This is the "let me know if it needs phases" contract.
3. Execute phases in order. After each phase, report progress as N of M worklist items done and what remains. Keep going through all phases unless the user says otherwise.
4. The working tree stays dirty across phases; do NOT commit between phases.

Scaling the backfill — efficiency, then optional parallel fan-out

A legacy worklist can be enormous. Two levers: make each unit cheaper, and (optionally) do many at once. The efficiency rules apply whichever way you run — sequential or parallel:

1. Batch run-capture-fill per class, not per method. The dominant cost is build + test execution. Write the whole test class for a file — one test per branch of each method, not one test per method — build once, run the class once, capture all actual values from that single run, then fill. The economy is in batching the build/run, not in writing fewer tests: never pay a build/run cycle per method, and never trade away branch coverage to save cycles.

2. Pre-triage narrows the assertion, it does not discard the unit. Before the write-build-run loop, scan each unit for an untestable signal (DateTime.Now/UtcNow, Guid.NewGuid, Random, direct infra/IO). A signal is a reason to look, not a verdict — a whole method is cannot_test only when the untestable condition is confirmed, not merely present:

   • Confirm "no seam." Is the dependency really un-mockable? A collaborator injected as an interface/abstract, an IHttpClientFactory, an optional Func<DateTime> — these are seams. A constructor-injected DbContext is also a seam: back it with the EF in-memory / SQLite provider. A DbContext on the constructor is NOT grounds to blanket-cannot_test the class; dumping every DbContext-touching method into cannot_test (as a real run did, roughly 87 false entries in one repo) is the canonical false-exclusion this rule exists to stop. Route to cannot_test only when the nondeterministic/infra call is made directly with no injectable seam, or when the specific EF op is one the in-memory provider cannot run (raw SQL, ExecuteUpdate/ExecuteDeleteAsync, Batch*, real transactions, unset-rowversion inserts, untranslatable LINQ).
   • Confirm the nondeterminism reaches the assertion. A method that logs DateTime.Now but returns a deterministic result is fully testable — assert the result. Only when the nondeterministic value flows into the output you would assert (and cannot be pinned) does that assertion drop. Named anti-pattern — the entry-line Stopwatch/Guid.NewGuid: event handlers and command handlers commonly open with var sw = new Stopwatch() / Guid.NewGuid() for timing and a correlation id used only in a log line. That is NOT the method's behavior — the behavior is the event→document/state mapping that follows. Do NOT route the whole handler to cannot_test for it; test the mapping/branches and ignore the log. Routing ~50 near-identical handlers to cannot_test on this signal (as a real run did) is the canonical false-exclusion this rule exists to stop.
   • Still cover the deterministic branches. A method with a Guid.NewGuid() id and three validation branches gets tests for the three branches (assert everything except the id, or assert the id is non-empty). cannot_test scopes to the specific method/assertion that is genuinely blocked — never the surrounding testable logic.

   When in doubt, run the loop — let run-capture-fill prove testability rather than pre-declaring it away to save a cycle. Every cannot_test entry you do record carries a mitigation (the seam that would unlock it), per the base rule.

3. Pattern-replicate across siblings. Legacy services are full of structurally identical units (handlers, validators, mappers). Solve the seam/mock setup once on a representative, then replicate the shape across the lookalikes. A "phase 0" that builds the shared fixtures/builders once feeds this.

4. Risk-order the worklist by complexity × churn × fan-in so the most valuable coverage lands first and the hardest seam problems surface early (while there is budget to fix them). This does not reduce total work — the worklist is still covered in full — it just sequences it well.

Optional parallel fan-out (ask the user first)

The worklist is independent per file, so it parallelizes cleanly. For a large worklist, offer to run the backfill as a fan-out workflow — but never auto-spawn agents. Parallel agents burn tokens fast, and the right count depends on how quickly the user wants it done and their budget, so present the trade-off and let them choose:

1. Build and risk-order the full worklist (above). State the total count of testable units.

2. Ask the user how many agents to run, mapping count to a rough wall-clock for this worklist (scale the examples to the real size; caveat that they are estimates and that more agents = proportionally more token burn):

   • 1 agent — sequential, lowest token burn, ~a day for a big service.
   • 3 agents (default) — balanced, ~6 hours.
   • 10 agents — fastest, highest burn, ~1 hour.

3. On their choice, write the risk-ordered worklist to disk as a JSON array at coverage/backfill/worklist.json (each item shaped { file, methods?, group?, mode? }), then invoke the workflow with the manifest path, not the list itself. Get the call exactly right (each rule below is a real field failure this kit has hit, where ZERO agents ran and the launch still looked like success):

   • No item may live under a scope.vendored_paths directory. Those are copies of other repos' sources, owned and tested there. A worklist item inside one is a scoping bug upstream in the sweep, not work to do: drop it, and say so, rather than writing a test for another team's library against a copy the next vendoring sync overwrites. Filter the worklist against scope.vendored_paths before writing it, and if anything was dropped, report the count.
   • Write the file FIRST and confirm it is non-empty (test -s coverage/backfill/worklist.json). The workflow's Plan agent reads this file off disk; if it is missing or empty the run bails with empty-worklist and spawns nothing.
   • Pass args as a real JSON object, never a JSON-encoded string. A stringified payload makes every field undefined inside the workflow, so it silently defaults and runs nothing.
   • Pass worklistManifest (the path). There is NO worklist arg. An inline worklist:[...] is ignored by the workflow AND, when large, trips the approval-dialog control-char guard. Do not put the array in args at all.
   • Invoke via scriptPath, not name (name + inline args is what tripped the guard in the field).

   Workflow({ scriptPath: "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/workflows/coverage-backfill.workflow.js", args: { concurrency: <chosen>, solution: "<sln>", worklistManifest: "coverage/backfill/worklist.json" } }). If the user just says "go", default concurrency: 3.

4. After launch, drive it to completion. Do not re-ask, re-explain, or fall back to one-by-one. Once concurrency is chosen and the workflow is launched, the fan-out IS the plan; executing it is the goal, not a checkpoint. Monitor the background run to done. If a run dies mid-flight (session exit, interruption), resume it with resumeFromRunId so completed chunks replay from cache; do NOT fresh-relaunch, which orphans the prior run's git worktrees and duplicates work. Only start a truly new run when there is no prior run to resume. Never quietly abandon the workflow and generate the remaining worklist with sequential Agent() calls: that is the exact regression this fan-out exists to prevent (it burns the same tokens without the parallelism and drags the user through dozens of turns). If the workflow is genuinely unusable, say so and ask; do not silently downgrade.

5. Verify the frozen-bug write landed: the fan-out's one silent data loss. A chunk agent works in a throwaway worktree, so a suspected defect it froze exists only in its returned latentBugs array; the assemble step is what turns those into manifest latent_bugs: entries. Read latentBugsTotal off the workflow result and confirm the manifest now holds that many entries (they are also returned verbatim as latentBugs, precisely so you can re-do the write rather than trust the assemble prose). If the counts disagree, write the missing entries yourself before the promotion gate (see "First-run triage" for the shape). An unwritten entry is not a cosmetic loss: coverage-gate.py renders section 7 and the ACTION REQUIRED banner from the manifest alone, so a green suite over live bugs reads as a correct one.

The workflow reads the worklist off disk and partitions it into concurrency chunks (one agent each, in its own git worktree so parallel writes don't collide), generates + adversarially verifies each chunk, then a single assemble step applies every chunk's patch to the main tree, merges both cannot_test and latent_bugs discoveries once (no manifest write races), and confirms the full suite is green. It leaves the tree dirty: the promotion gate below still governs when the baseline report and commit happen.

Measure for feedback DURING the pass (this is not the baseline)

You cannot judge branch completeness by eye — measure it, and measure it before you decide you are done, not after. Measuring for feedback and locking the baseline are two different acts; only the latter is a promotion step. So:

• In-loop, as often as useful: run ./.claude/coverage/tools/report.sh read-only to see C0/C1 and the Risk Hotspots table. This writes a throwaway REPORT.md but you do NOT write baseline.recorded_overall from it — it is a feedback instrument, nothing more.
• Read the signal and act: every target-layer (non-excl:) row in Risk Hotspots, and every target method with an uncovered branch that is not in cannot_test, is an unfinished worklist item. Go back and pin inputs for its missing branches (run-capture-fill). Re-measure. Loop until every target-layer method is either fully branch-covered or its remaining uncovered branches are logged in cannot_test — i.e. 100% of the testable set, per the exit gate. (The manifest's diff-coverage branch threshold is a per-PR floor, not the backfill target — do not stop the backfill at it.) This is the part that moves a pass from ~50–60% to full testable coverage — and it belongs in the generation loop, not in a later cleanup.

This is explicitly NOT "stopping on a number" — you are not chasing a percentage, you are discharging worklist items whose branches the number reveals are still uncovered. The pass is done when that list is empty, whatever the resulting percentage happens to be.

Exit gate — the testable set is 100% branch-covered; the only residual is documented cannot_test

The backfill exits ONLY when the entire testable set is covered — not "most", not "the priority files", 100% of it. The testable set is: every target unit-scope method + every carve-out method (the pure/branching slices of excluded files, including controllers and IO orchestrators), with all branches exercised (see "Cover the BRANCHES"). The single permitted residual is cannot_test, and it is not a free pass:

• Every uncovered branch is either covered or a cannot_test entry — there is no third state. If a target-layer method sits below 100% branch coverage and it is not in cannot_test, the pass is not done; go pin the missing branches. A worklist item is closed only when its branches are exercised OR the specific blocked branch/method is in cannot_test.
• Each cannot_test entry is a documented, mitigated decision, scoped to a method (never a file/folder): { target, category, lines, reason (signal at file:line), mitigation }. The mitigation is the concrete source change that would unlock it (extract IClock, inject the repository interface, move the pure slice out), or an explicit "none — genuinely nondeterministic external boundary". This is the "detailed report + mitigation plan for what truly cannot be covered" that the exit requires.
• The residual is reported, not buried. Report §6 ("Not Testable") renders every entry with its lines, reason, and mitigation; the suite critique (below) audits each one hardest before the baseline locks. A large cannot_test list is a signal to escalate a shared-seam refactor to the human, not to accept as-is.

This is not "stopping on a number" — you are not chasing the overall %, you are driving the testable set's uncovered branches to zero. The resulting overall % is whatever falls out of that.

The manifest target (default C0 95% / C1 85% on the Adjusted slice) is an ACCEPTANCE bar, not this exit condition. The exit gate above is stricter: it drives the testable set to 100% branch coverage with cannot_test as the only residual. The target is a downward sanity check on the result: once the exit gate is met, if the measured Adjusted is still BELOW target, the residual (the cannot_test list / exclusions) is too large to be honest, which is a signal to re-open the sweep or escalate a shared-seam refactor (the systematic-seam clusters in the suite critique), not to lower the bar. Do not confuse the two: you never stop early at the target, and you never accept an Adjusted below it without escalating why. The target is also what the diff gate is set to, so new code lands at the goal; the recorded baseline floor sits a few points below it (see the manifest).

Promotion gate — set the baseline and commit only when the exit gate is met

coverage-report (to set/raise the baseline) and any commit are promotion steps. They run ONLY after the exit gate above is met (the testable set 100% branch-covered, every residual a mitigated cannot_test entry) and the suite critique below has run. Per the action ladder, generation itself is edit-only: leave the tree dirty and stop. The distinction from the in-loop measurement: that one is read-only feedback you may run anytime; this one writes the floor, so it runs once, last. Do not write baseline.recorded_overall mid-backfill, and do not propose committing a partial backfill — a partial baseline locks in a misleadingly low floor.

Measure via the wrapper, not by hand. When you do measure, run the one-command wrapper ./.claude/coverage/tools/report.sh (it collects with the repo filefilter, joins the manifest, and persists a dated reports/<YYYY-MM-DD>/REPORT.{md,html} + CANNOT-TEST.md). Do NOT hand-run run-coverage.sh + coverage-gate.py and read the numbers off stdout — that leaves no saved report and skips the repo scoping, so the report effectively goes missing. If report.sh isn't installed yet (repo pre-dates it), copy it from ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/report.sh first, then run it. Only after REPORT.md exists do you write the measured Adjusted into baseline.recorded_overall.

Never record a baseline off a red suite. Coverage measured while any test fails is unreliable — a failing test may not have executed the lines it was meant to, so the numbers are not the real output. If report.sh's Test Results show any failure (the report prints a ⚠️ banner), the baseline step is blocked: fix every failure until the suite is fully green, then re-measure. A backfill that ends with, say, 54 failing tests is unfinished, not ready to promote — do not write baseline.recorded_overall from that run.

Suite critique — once, before the baseline locks in

When the worklist is exhausted and the suite is green, run a single critique over the finished suite before coverage-report sets the baseline. This is the natural moment: fixing is cheapest now, and a dodged cannot_test or shallow tests would otherwise freeze a misleading floor. Run report.sh first so the critique can use the report's analytics (e.g. low-C1 buckets) as leads.

Spawn one read-only subagent over the whole suite + the manifest + the report. Single and read-only on purpose (same reasoning as the init critique): systematic problems — a bucket dodged wholesale, the same smell everywhere — are only visible to one reviewer seeing all of it, applying one standard; it produces findings, it does not silently rewrite tests. Its mandate:

1. cannot_test legitimacy. Re-check every cannot_test entry against the rubric signal: is it genuinely untestable (no seam, real infra, nondeterministic), or did generation take the easy out? Flag any entry where a seam exists or a deterministic test is feasible. This is the escape hatch — audit it hardest. Watch specifically for the entry-line Stopwatch/Guid.NewGuid false-exclusion (a whole handler dropped because it opens with a timing/correlation id used only in logging) — the handler body is testable and must be covered.

2. Assertion quality / C1 depth. Find files where C0 is high but C1 is low (lines run but branches never asserted → shallow tests) and any vacuous/tautological assertions the per-chunk verify missed (asserting a mock returns what it was set to). Whole-suite view — do not re-do the per-test check the backfill workflow already did.

3. Systematic patterns — cluster and quantify, do not just note. Group cannot_test by shared signal and count each cluster: "N handlers share Stopwatch+Guid.NewGuid", "M types blocked on InternalsVisibleTo". A cluster of ≥3 is almost always ONE fix that unlocks all of them (an IClock/IGuidProvider on a shared base class, a single InternalsVisibleTo, one extracted interface) — the highest-ROI move and the one most often missed in a long flat list. Escalate each such cluster to the human with its count and the one seam that clears it, rather than accepting N near-identical entries. Also normalize category vocabulary while here (e.g. framework_mismatch/framework-incompatible → one label) so the report groups cleanly. Also flag any category dodged wholesale and repeated smells.

4. Highest-ROI next moves — concrete, not vibes.

5. In-scope coverage gaps — TARGET layer only (the lens that is easiest to miss). From the report's Risk Hotspots and per-file table, list every target-layer method/file with any uncovered testable branch that is not in cannot_test — uncovered branches in code we OWN. These are NOT cannot_test and NOT shallow-assertion cases (item 2 only catches covered-but-unasserted lines); they are unfinished characterization — a complex method got a happy-path test and its other branches (filters, switch arms, error paths) were never executed. A target-bucket row in Risk Hotspots is the signal. An excl:* hotspot is fine to leave (it is integration/E2E-covered, not unit) — only target-layer gaps count here. Close them before the baseline locks (see Output).

6. Unrecorded frozen defects (the backstop for a lost latent_bugs: entry). Read the assertions, not just the coverage: find every test that freezes behaviour a reviewer would call wrong, and check each against manifest latent_bugs:. Any that is missing is a live product bug the suite is now certifying as correct. The tells: a test name that states the defect (..._ThrowsRuntimeBinderException, ..._IgnoresCurrentStudioFilter, ..._ReturnsNull, ..._SwallowsException), an expected value that is plainly wrong (an empty collection where the scenario has matching rows, a tenant/studio filter absent from the captured query, a swallowed exception, a 500-shaped path asserted as-is), or a defect described in a test comment rather than in the manifest. This lens is cheap and load-bearing: a chunk agent's finding lives only in its returned data, so anything the assemble step failed to write is invisible from here on. Report each as a proposed latent_bugs: entry with its pinned_by test. Recording is a manifest write, never a behaviour fix: do not change the test or the source.

Trust the C0/C1 numbers; do not second-guess them — they are tool output; if a number looks wrong that is a pipeline check (file-filter, merge, instrumentation), never an LLM opinion. But trusting the numbers is NOT ignoring them: item 5 exists precisely to ACT on the in-scope gaps they reveal. (A target method at 70% slipping into the baseline because the critique was "number-blind" is the exact failure this item closes.)

Output: split findings into (a) clear-cut fixes to apply now, before baseline — a cannot_test entry that is actually testable → write the test and remove the entry; a target-layer coverage gap (item 5) → write the missing branch tests (run-capture-fill) until the method's testable branches are fully covered (or the unreachable ones are in cannot_test) and it drops off Risk Hotspots; and (b) judgment calls / larger refactors escalated to the human. Apply the clear-cut fixes, then re-check them (loop until none remain) — a fix can surface another, e.g. writing the test that retires one cannot_test reveals a shared seam that retires more. The baseline does not lock while any target-layer in-scope gap remains. Append the findings to the report under ## Suite review. Only after this loop settles does the baseline report run.

Pick the mode

• Target existed at the baseline → characterization.
• Target is new, or a line changed after the baseline → spec.
• Mixed file → characterize baseline methods, spec the new/changed ones.

Skip anything matched by a manifest exclusions pattern — that uncovered state is intentional and explained by the manifest.

Characterization mode — run-capture-fill (hard precondition)

For each target method:

1. Write the test: explicit pinned inputs, dependencies mocked through interfaces, a placeholder expected value. Assert observable output/state/exceptions — not mock call order (interaction verification only where the side effect IS the behavior: message publish, email send, external sink with no return value).
2. Run the single test. This is required. Do not write an expected value from reading the source.
3. Read the actual value from the run. Write it into the assertion.
4. Re-run until green.

If step 2 is genuinely impossible — needs real infrastructure with no seam, or depends on wall-clock/id/random that flows into the asserted output with no seam — DO NOT write a predicted assertion. Add the target (the specific method, not the file) to the manifest cannot_test list with a category, a reason (the signal at file:line), and a mitigation (the source change that would unlock it, or "none — genuinely nondeterministic external boundary"). Make no source change to fix it; the backfill freezes source.

A failing-to-compile test is NOT "impossible" — it is unfinished authoring. Rule out the authoring causes first (mock wiring, a legitimate missing test-project reference, an unstubbed constructor argument). Only route to cannot_test when the unit cannot be constructed or exercised through any interface after those are addressed — never on the first red build.

Cover the BRANCHES, not just one happy path — a target method is "done" only when its branches are exercised, not when it merely has a green test. For a method with branching (filters, a switch, error paths, asc/desc, null guards), one input lands ~one path and leaves the rest uncovered — that is the partial-coverage gap that otherwise slips to the report's Risk Hotspots (e.g. a GetAll with keyword + type + unit filters and a 3-way order switch needs a test per filter and per switch arm). Enumerate the method's branches and pin an input for each; a branch that genuinely cannot be reached without real infra goes to cannot_test, not ignored. Do this here, at write time — it is the plan, not an afterthought. The in-loop measurement ("Measure for feedback") tells you which methods you missed; the suite critique's item 5 is only a final backstop for what slips through, never the place you first go looking for branch coverage.

Spec mode

Expected values come from the requirement/acceptance criteria, not from running the code. The run-capture-fill loop does not apply. If a new unit is not testable through its interfaces, that is a dependency problem to fix in this change (extract interface, inject seam) — do not skip and do not widen the test project's references.

First-run triage (characterization backfill)

A characterization test is green by construction once run-capture-fill completes, because the assertion holds the actual output. The only judgment calls are the units where the captured output looks like a latent bug. Freeze them anyway (assert the actual value) and record each one as a latent_bugs: entry in the manifest: frozen, not endorsed. Do not change behavior.

Record it in the MANIFEST, not in prose. coverage-gate.py renders latent_bugs: as a red "7. Latent bugs frozen by characterization (ACTION REQUIRED)" section plus a banner at the top of every report, so the backlog reaches the artifact people actually read and survives regeneration. A note written into the report body instead is lost the next time report.sh runs.

One entry per suspected defect:

latent_bugs:
  - severity: A            # A security/cross-tenant · B data loss · C unhandled 500
                           # D correctness/observability · E dead code or note, not a defect
    target: "OrderRepository.DeleteAsync"
    file: "src/Data/OrderRepository.cs:214"   # optional
    summary: "Ignores the current-tenant filter, so a caller can delete another tenant's rows."
    pinned_by: "DeleteAsync_DeletesAcrossTenants_IgnoresTenantFilter"

pinned_by is the test that freezes the behaviour, and it is what makes the entry actionable: a correct fix turns that test red, so whoever fixes the bug knows exactly which assertion to update in the same change.

latent_bugs is a defect backlog, not a coverage exemption. It does not affect scope, the Adjusted number, the ratchet, or the diff gate. Untestable code still goes to cannot_test. Do NOT append findings to CANNOT-TEST.md: that file is regenerated from the manifest on every report.sh run, so an append is silently lost.

Output of a generation pass

• New/updated test files mirroring source structure, named Method_Scenario_Expected.
• Any newly discovered untestable targets appended to the manifest cannot_test list, each scoped to a method and carrying { category, lines, reason, mitigation }.
• A latent_bugs: entry in the manifest for every suspected defect frozen by a test, each carrying { severity, target, file?, summary, pinned_by }. Do not fix them; the red section 7 of the report is what surfaces them.
• The updated worklist checklist: N of M items done, what remains (and which phase, if phased) — the testable set at 100% branch coverage, with the residual cannot_test list and its mitigation plan called out explicitly (this is the exit-gate evidence).

Only once the exit gate is met (testable set 100% branch-covered, every residual a mitigated cannot_test entry) and the suite critique has run (see the exit/promotion gates and "Suite critique"), run coverage-report to measure and set the baseline. Do not assert coverage numbers yourself — they come from the tool. Until then, leave the tree dirty and stop without committing.