levnikolaevich/ln-633-test-value-auditor

Paths: File paths (references/, ../ln-*) are relative to this skill directory.

Portfolio Value Auditor (L3 Worker)

Type: L3 Worker

Specialized worker calculating portfolio value and maintenance cost for each test.

Purpose & Scope

• Audit Portfolio Value (Category 3: Critical Priority)
• Calculate Value Score = Impact x Probability, then adjust by uniqueness, regression history, and maintenance cost
• Make canonical KEEP, DELETE, MERGE, or REWRITE decisions
• Calculate compliance score (X/10)

Inputs

MANDATORY READ: Load references/audit_worker_core_contract.md.

Receives contextStore with: tech_stack, testFilesMetadata, codebase_root, output_dir.

Workflow

Detection policy: use two-layer detection (candidate scan, then context verification); load references/two_layer_detection.md only when the verification method is ambiguous.

1. Parse Context: Extract tech stack, Impact/Probability matrices, test file list, output_dir from contextStore
2. Calculate Scores (Layer 1): For each test: calculate Value Score = Impact x Probability, then annotate duplicate coverage, known regression guard, and maintenance cost 2b) Context Analysis (Layer 2 -- MANDATORY): Before finalizing DELETE or MERGE decisions, ask:
   • Is this a regression guard for a known past bug? -> KEEP regardless of Score
   • Does this test cover a critical business rule (payment, auth) even if Score<10? -> REWRITE, not DELETE, if assertions are weak
   • Is this the only test covering an edge case in a critical flow? -> KEEP
   • Does another test prove the same behavior with clearer assertions or lower cost? -> MERGE
3. Classify Decisions: KEEP, DELETE, MERGE, or REWRITE
4. Collect Findings: Record each REVIEW/REMOVE decision with severity, location (file:line), effort estimate (S/M/L), recommendation
5. Calculate Score: Count violations by severity, calculate compliance score (X/10)
6. Write Report: Build full markdown report in memory per references/templates/audit_worker_report_template.md, write to {output_dir}/ln-633--global.md in single Write call
7. Return Summary: Return minimal summary to coordinator (see Output Format)

Usefulness Score Calculation

Formula

Usefulness Score = Business Impact (1-5) x Failure Probability (1-5)

Impact Scoring (1-5)

| Score | Impact | Examples | |-------|--------|----------| | 5 | Critical | Money loss, security breach, data corruption | | 4 | High | Core flow breaks (checkout, login, registration) | | 3 | Medium | Feature partially broken, degraded UX | | 2 | Low | Minor UX issue, cosmetic bug | | 1 | Trivial | Cosmetic issue, no user impact |

Probability Scoring (1-5)

| Score | Probability | Indicators | |-------|-------------|------------| | 5 | Very High | Complex algorithm, new technology, many dependencies | | 4 | High | Multiple dependencies, concurrency, edge cases | | 3 | Medium | Standard CRUD, framework defaults, established patterns | | 2 | Low | Simple logic, well-established library, trivial operation | | 1 | Very Low | Trivial assignment, framework-generated, impossible to break |

Decision Thresholds

| Score Range | Decision | Action | |-------------|----------|--------| | >=15 | KEEP | Test is valuable, maintain it | | 10-14 | REWRITE | Keep only if assertions can prove unique product risk | | <10 | DELETE | Delete test, not worth maintenance cost. Exception: regression guards for known bugs -> KEEP |

Scoring Examples

Example 1: Payment Processing Test

Test: "processPayment calculates discount correctly"
Impact: 5 (Critical -- money calculation)
Probability: 4 (High -- complex algorithm, multiple payment gateways)
Usefulness Score = 5 x 4 = 20
Decision: KEEP

Example 2: Email Validation Test

Test: "validateEmail returns true for valid email"
Impact: 2 (Low -- minor UX issue if broken)
Probability: 2 (Low -- simple regex, well-tested library)
Usefulness Score = 2 x 2 = 4
Decision: DELETE (likely already covered by E2E registration test)

Example 3: Login Flow Test

Test: "login with valid credentials returns JWT"
Impact: 4 (High -- core flow)
Probability: 3 (Medium -- standard auth flow)
Usefulness Score = 4 x 3 = 12
Decision: REWRITE (if E2E covers the flow, merge/delete duplicate assertions; otherwise focus assertions on auth behavior)

Audit Rules

1. Calculate Score for Each Test

Process:

• Read test file, extract test name/description
• Analyze code under test (CUT)
• Determine Impact (1-5)
• Determine Probability (1-5)
• Calculate Usefulness Score

2. Classify Decisions

KEEP:

• High-value tests (money, security, data integrity)
• Core flows (checkout, login)
• Complex algorithms

MERGE:

• Duplicated tests proving the same behavior
• Fragmented assertions that should be one scenario
• Repeated setup with only cosmetic assertion differences

REWRITE:

• Medium-value tests with weak assertions
• Tests that need clearer product-risk oracle

DELETE:

• Low-value tests (cosmetic, trivial)
• Duplicates of E2E tests

3. Identify Patterns

Common low-value tests:

• Testing trivial getters/setters
• Testing constant values
• Testing type annotations
• Duplicate setup/assertion variants
• Tests whose maintenance cost exceeds confidence value

Scoring Algorithm

MANDATORY READ: Load references/audit_scoring.md.

Severity mapping by Value Score:

• Score <5 -> CRITICAL (test wastes significant maintenance effort)
• Score 5-9 -> HIGH (test likely wasteful)
• Score 10-14 -> MEDIUM (review needed)
• Score >=15 -> no issue (KEEP)

Output Format

MANDATORY READ: Load references/templates/audit_worker_report_template.md.

Write JSON summary per references/audit_summary_contract.md. In managed mode the caller passes both runId and summaryArtifactPath; in standalone mode the worker generates its own run-scoped artifact path per shared contract.

Write report to {output_dir}/ln-633--global.md with category: "Portfolio Value" and checks: value_score, delete_candidates, merge_candidates, rewrite_candidates. Findings must include canonical action as KEEP, DELETE, MERGE, or REWRITE.

Return summary per references/audit_summary_contract.md.

When summaryArtifactPath is absent, write the standalone runtime summary under .hex-skills/runtime-artifacts/runs/{run_id}/evaluation-worker/{worker}--{identifier}.json and optionally echo the same summary in structured output.

Report written: .hex-skills/runtime-artifacts/runs/{run_id}/audit-report/ln-633--global.md
Score: X.X/10 | Issues: N (C:N H:N M:N L:N)

Note: Tests with KEEP decisions are summarized as retained evidence, not findings. Findings contain only DELETE, MERGE, and REWRITE decisions.

Critical Rules

Apply the already-loaded references/audit_worker_core_contract.md.

• Do not auto-fix: Report only
• Unique angle: Own the final portfolio-value decision. Do not duplicate platform-behavior detection, critical coverage discovery, isolation, oracle-strength, or structure checks.
• Effort realism: S = <1h, M = 1-4h, L = >4h
• Score objectivity: Base Impact and Probability on code analysis, not assumptions
• KEEP tests not reported: Only DELETE, MERGE, and REWRITE decisions appear in findings
• Cross-reference E2E: REVIEW decisions depend on whether E2E already covers the scenario

Definition of Done

Apply the already-loaded references/audit_worker_core_contract.md.

• [ ] contextStore parsed successfully (including output_dir)
• [ ] Value Score calculated for each test (Impact x Probability plus uniqueness, regression, and maintenance context)
• [ ] Decisions classified: KEEP, DELETE, MERGE, REWRITE
• [ ] Findings collected with severity, location, effort, recommendation, and action
• [ ] Score calculated using penalty algorithm
• [ ] Report written to {output_dir}/ln-633--global.md (atomic single Write call)
• [ ] Summary written per contract

Reference Files

• Audit output schema: references/audit_output_schema.md

---

Version: 3.0.0 Last Updated: 2025-12-23