13 files changed, 946 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

M CHANGELOG.md
M VERSION
M retro/SKILL.md
M retro/SKILL.md.tmpl
M review/SKILL.md
M review/SKILL.md.tmpl
M scripts/resolvers/index.ts
M scripts/resolvers/review.ts
M scripts/resolvers/testing.ts
M ship/SKILL.md
M ship/SKILL.md.tmpl
M test/gen-skill-docs.test.ts
M test/helpers/touchfiles.ts

@@ 1,5 1,20 @@
 # Changelog
 
+## [0.11.18.0] - 2026-03-24 — Ship With Teeth
+
+`/ship` and `/review` now actually enforce the quality gates they've been talking about. Coverage audit becomes a real gate (not just a diagram), plan completion gets verified against the diff, and verification steps from your plan run automatically.
+
+### Added
+
+- **Test coverage gate in /ship.** AI-assessed coverage below 60% is a hard stop. 60-79% gets a prompt. 80%+ passes. Thresholds are configurable per-project via `## Test Coverage` in CLAUDE.md.
+- **Coverage warning in /review.** Low coverage is now flagged prominently before you reach the /ship gate, so you can write tests early.
+- **Plan completion audit.** /ship reads your plan file, extracts every actionable item, cross-references against the diff, and shows you a DONE/NOT DONE/PARTIAL/CHANGED checklist. Missing items are a shipping blocker (with override).
+- **Plan-aware scope drift detection.** /review's scope drift check now reads the plan file too — not just TODOS.md and PR description.
+- **Auto-verification via /qa-only.** /ship reads your plan's verification section and runs /qa-only inline to test it — if a dev server is running on localhost. No server, no problem — it skips gracefully.
+- **Shared plan file discovery.** Conversation context first, content-based grep fallback second. Used by plan completion, plan review reports, and verification.
+- **Ship metrics logging.** Coverage %, plan completion ratio, and verification results are logged to review JSONL for /retro to track trends.
+- **Plan completion in /retro.** Weekly retros now show plan completion rates across shipped branches.
+
 ## [0.11.17.0] - 2026-03-24 — Cleaner Skill Descriptions + Proactive Opt-Out
 
 ### Changed

@@ 1,1 1,1 @@
-0.11.17.0
+0.11.18.0

@@ 701,6 701,28 @@ Narrative covering:
 - If prior retro exists and has `test_health`: show delta "Test count: {last} → {now} (+{delta})"
 - If test ratio < 20%: flag as growth area — "100% test coverage is the goal. Tests make vibe coding safe."
 
+### Plan Completion
+Check review JSONL logs for plan completion data from /ship runs this period:
+
+```bash
+eval "$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null)"
+cat ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/*-reviews.jsonl 2>/dev/null | grep '"skill":"ship"' | grep '"plan_items_total"' || echo "NO_PLAN_DATA"
+```
+
+If plan completion data exists within the retro time window:
+- Count branches shipped with plans (entries that have `plan_items_total` > 0)
+- Compute average completion: sum of `plan_items_done` / sum of `plan_items_total`
+- Identify most-skipped item category if data supports it
+
+Output:
+```
+Plan Completion This Period:
+  {N} branches shipped with plans
+  Average completion: {X}% ({done}/{total} items)
+```
+
+If no plan data exists, skip this section silently.
+
 ### Focus & Highlights
 (from Step 8)
 - Focus score with interpretation

@@ 460,6 460,28 @@ Narrative covering:
 - If prior retro exists and has `test_health`: show delta "Test count: {last} → {now} (+{delta})"
 - If test ratio < 20%: flag as growth area — "100% test coverage is the goal. Tests make vibe coding safe."
 
+### Plan Completion
+Check review JSONL logs for plan completion data from /ship runs this period:
+
+```bash
+eval "$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null)"
+cat ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/*-reviews.jsonl 2>/dev/null | grep '"skill":"ship"' | grep '"plan_items_total"' || echo "NO_PLAN_DATA"
+```
+
+If plan completion data exists within the retro time window:
+- Count branches shipped with plans (entries that have `plan_items_total` > 0)
+- Compute average completion: sum of `plan_items_done` / sum of `plan_items_total`
+- Identify most-skipped item category if data supports it
+
+Output:
+```
+Plan Completion This Period:
+  {N} branches shipped with plans
+  Average completion: {X}% ({done}/{total} items)
+```
+
+If no plan data exists, skip this section silently.
+
 ### Focus & Highlights
 (from Step 8)
 - Focus score with interpretation

@@ 322,7 322,120 @@ Before reviewing code quality, check: **did they build what was requested — no
    **If no PR exists:** rely on commit messages and TODOS.md for stated intent — this is the common case since /review runs before /ship creates the PR.
 2. Identify the **stated intent** — what was this branch supposed to accomplish?
 3. Run `git diff origin/<base>...HEAD --stat` and compare the files changed against the stated intent.
-4. Evaluate with skepticism:
+
+### Plan File Discovery
+
+1. **Conversation context (primary):** Check if there is an active plan file in this conversation — Claude Code system messages include plan file paths when in plan mode. Look for references like `~/.claude/plans/*.md` in system messages. If found, use it directly — this is the most reliable signal.
+
+2. **Content-based search (fallback):** If no plan file is referenced in conversation context, search by content:
+
+```bash
+BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null | tr '/' '-')
+REPO=$(basename "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null)")
+# Try branch name match first (most specific)
+PLAN=$(ls -t ~/.claude/plans/*.md 2>/dev/null | xargs grep -l "$BRANCH" 2>/dev/null | head -1)
+# Fall back to repo name match
+[ -z "$PLAN" ] && PLAN=$(ls -t ~/.claude/plans/*.md 2>/dev/null | xargs grep -l "$REPO" 2>/dev/null | head -1)
+# Last resort: most recent plan modified in the last 24 hours
+[ -z "$PLAN" ] && PLAN=$(find ~/.claude/plans -name '*.md' -mmin -1440 -maxdepth 1 2>/dev/null | xargs ls -t 2>/dev/null | head -1)
+[ -n "$PLAN" ] && echo "PLAN_FILE: $PLAN" || echo "NO_PLAN_FILE"
+```
+
+3. **Validation:** If a plan file was found via content-based search (not conversation context), read the first 20 lines and verify it is relevant to the current branch's work. If it appears to be from a different project or feature, treat as "no plan file found."
+
+**Error handling:**
+- No plan file found → skip with "No plan file detected — skipping."
+- Plan file found but unreadable (permissions, encoding) → skip with "Plan file found but unreadable — skipping."
+
+### Actionable Item Extraction
+
+Read the plan file. Extract every actionable item — anything that describes work to be done. Look for:
+
+- **Checkbox items:** `- [ ] ...` or `- [x] ...`
+- **Numbered steps** under implementation headings: "1. Create ...", "2. Add ...", "3. Modify ..."
+- **Imperative statements:** "Add X to Y", "Create a Z service", "Modify the W controller"
+- **File-level specifications:** "New file: path/to/file.ts", "Modify path/to/existing.rb"
+- **Test requirements:** "Test that X", "Add test for Y", "Verify Z"
+- **Data model changes:** "Add column X to table Y", "Create migration for Z"
+
+**Ignore:**
+- Context/Background sections (`## Context`, `## Background`, `## Problem`)
+- Questions and open items (marked with ?, "TBD", "TODO: decide")
+- Review report sections (`## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT`)
+- Explicitly deferred items ("Future:", "Out of scope:", "NOT in scope:", "P2:", "P3:", "P4:")
+- CEO Review Decisions sections (these record choices, not work items)
+
+**Cap:** Extract at most 50 items. If the plan has more, note: "Showing top 50 of N plan items — full list in plan file."
+
+**No items found:** If the plan contains no extractable actionable items, skip with: "Plan file contains no actionable items — skipping completion audit."
+
+For each item, note:
+- The item text (verbatim or concise summary)
+- Its category: CODE | TEST | MIGRATION | CONFIG | DOCS
+
+### Cross-Reference Against Diff
+
+Run `git diff origin/<base>...HEAD` and `git log origin/<base>..HEAD --oneline` to understand what was implemented.
+
+For each extracted plan item, check the diff and classify:
+
+- **DONE** — Clear evidence in the diff that this item was implemented. Cite the specific file(s) changed.
+- **PARTIAL** — Some work toward this item exists in the diff but it's incomplete (e.g., model created but controller missing, function exists but edge cases not handled).
+- **NOT DONE** — No evidence in the diff that this item was addressed.
+- **CHANGED** — The item was implemented using a different approach than the plan described, but the same goal is achieved. Note the difference.
+
+**Be conservative with DONE** — require clear evidence in the diff. A file being touched is not enough; the specific functionality described must be present.
+**Be generous with CHANGED** — if the goal is met by different means, that counts as addressed.
+
+### Output Format
+
+```
+PLAN COMPLETION AUDIT
+═══════════════════════════════
+Plan: {plan file path}
+
+## Implementation Items
+  [DONE]      Create UserService — src/services/user_service.rb (+142 lines)
+  [PARTIAL]   Add validation — model validates but missing controller checks
+  [NOT DONE]  Add caching layer — no cache-related changes in diff
+  [CHANGED]   "Redis queue" → implemented with Sidekiq instead
+
+## Test Items
+  [DONE]      Unit tests for UserService — test/services/user_service_test.rb
+  [NOT DONE]  E2E test for signup flow
+
+## Migration Items
+  [DONE]      Create users table — db/migrate/20240315_create_users.rb
+
+─────────────────────────────────
+COMPLETION: 4/7 DONE, 1 PARTIAL, 1 NOT DONE, 1 CHANGED
+─────────────────────────────────
+```
+
+### Integration with Scope Drift Detection
+
+The plan completion results augment the existing Scope Drift Detection. If a plan file is found:
+
+- **NOT DONE items** become additional evidence for **MISSING REQUIREMENTS** in the scope drift report.
+- **Items in the diff that don't match any plan item** become evidence for **SCOPE CREEP** detection.
+
+This is **INFORMATIONAL** — does not block the review (consistent with existing scope drift behavior).
+
+Update the scope drift output to include plan file context:
+
+```
+Scope Check: [CLEAN / DRIFT DETECTED / REQUIREMENTS MISSING]
+Intent: <from plan file — 1-line summary>
+Plan: <plan file path>
+Delivered: <1-line summary of what the diff actually does>
+Plan items: N DONE, M PARTIAL, K NOT DONE
+[If NOT DONE: list each missing item]
+[If scope creep: list each out-of-scope change not in the plan]
+```
+
+**No plan file found:** Fall back to existing scope drift behavior (check TODOS.md and PR description only).
+
+4. Evaluate with skepticism (incorporating plan completion results if available):
 
    **SCOPE CREEP detection:**
    - Files changed that are unrelated to the stated intent


@@ 631,6 744,21 @@ If no test framework detected → include gaps as INFORMATIONAL findings only, n
 
 **Diff is test-only changes:** Skip Step 4.75 entirely: "No new application code paths to audit."
 
+### Coverage Warning
+
+After producing the coverage diagram, check the coverage percentage. Read CLAUDE.md for a `## Test Coverage` section with a `Minimum:` field. If not found, use default: 60%.
+
+If coverage is below the minimum threshold, output a prominent warning **before** the regular review findings:
+
+```
+⚠️ COVERAGE WARNING: AI-assessed coverage is {X}%. {N} code paths untested.
+Consider writing tests before running /ship.
+```
+
+This is INFORMATIONAL — does not block /review. But it makes low coverage visible early so the developer can address it before reaching the /ship coverage gate.
+
+If coverage percentage cannot be determined, skip the warning silently.
+
 This step subsumes the "Test Gaps" category from Pass 2 — do not duplicate findings between the checklist Test Gaps item and this coverage diagram. Include any coverage gaps alongside the findings from Step 4 and Step 4.5. They follow the same Fix-First flow — gaps are INFORMATIONAL findings.
 
 ---

@@ 46,7 46,10 @@ Before reviewing code quality, check: **did they build what was requested — no
    **If no PR exists:** rely on commit messages and TODOS.md for stated intent — this is the common case since /review runs before /ship creates the PR.
 2. Identify the **stated intent** — what was this branch supposed to accomplish?
 3. Run `git diff origin/<base>...HEAD --stat` and compare the files changed against the stated intent.
-4. Evaluate with skepticism:
+
+{{PLAN_COMPLETION_AUDIT_REVIEW}}
+
+4. Evaluate with skepticism (incorporating plan completion results if available):
 
    **SCOPE CREEP detection:**
    - Files changed that are unrelated to the stated intent

@@ 11,7 11,7 @@ import { generateTestFailureTriage } from './preamble';
 import { generateCommandReference, generateSnapshotFlags, generateBrowseSetup } from './browse';
 import { generateDesignMethodology, generateDesignHardRules, generateDesignOutsideVoices, generateDesignReviewLite, generateDesignSketch } from './design';
 import { generateTestBootstrap, generateTestCoverageAuditPlan, generateTestCoverageAuditShip, generateTestCoverageAuditReview } from './testing';
-import { generateReviewDashboard, generatePlanFileReviewReport, generateSpecReviewLoop, generateBenefitsFrom, generateCodexSecondOpinion, generateAdversarialStep, generateCodexPlanReview } from './review';
+import { generateReviewDashboard, generatePlanFileReviewReport, generateSpecReviewLoop, generateBenefitsFrom, generateCodexSecondOpinion, generateAdversarialStep, generateCodexPlanReview, generatePlanCompletionAuditShip, generatePlanCompletionAuditReview, generatePlanVerificationExec } from './review';
 import { generateSlugEval, generateSlugSetup, generateBaseBranchDetect, generateDeployBootstrap, generateQAMethodology } from './utility';
 
 export const RESOLVERS: Record<string, (ctx: TemplateContext) => string> = {


@@ 41,4 41,7 @@ export const RESOLVERS: Record<string, (ctx: TemplateContext) => string> = {
   ADVERSARIAL_STEP: generateAdversarialStep,
   DEPLOY_BOOTSTRAP: generateDeployBootstrap,
   CODEX_PLAN_REVIEW: generateCodexPlanReview,
+  PLAN_COMPLETION_AUDIT_SHIP: generatePlanCompletionAuditShip,
+  PLAN_COMPLETION_AUDIT_REVIEW: generatePlanCompletionAuditReview,
+  PLAN_VERIFICATION_EXEC: generatePlanVerificationExec,
 };

@@ 592,3 592,236 @@ SOURCE = "codex" if Codex ran, "claude" if subagent ran.
 
 ---`;
 }
+
+// ─── Plan File Discovery (shared helper) ──────────────────────────────
+
+function generatePlanFileDiscovery(): string {
+  return `### Plan File Discovery
+
+1. **Conversation context (primary):** Check if there is an active plan file in this conversation — Claude Code system messages include plan file paths when in plan mode. Look for references like \`~/.claude/plans/*.md\` in system messages. If found, use it directly — this is the most reliable signal.
+
+2. **Content-based search (fallback):** If no plan file is referenced in conversation context, search by content:
+
+\`\`\`bash
+BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null | tr '/' '-')
+REPO=$(basename "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null)")
+# Try branch name match first (most specific)
+PLAN=$(ls -t ~/.claude/plans/*.md 2>/dev/null | xargs grep -l "$BRANCH" 2>/dev/null | head -1)
+# Fall back to repo name match
+[ -z "$PLAN" ] && PLAN=$(ls -t ~/.claude/plans/*.md 2>/dev/null | xargs grep -l "$REPO" 2>/dev/null | head -1)
+# Last resort: most recent plan modified in the last 24 hours
+[ -z "$PLAN" ] && PLAN=$(find ~/.claude/plans -name '*.md' -mmin -1440 -maxdepth 1 2>/dev/null | xargs ls -t 2>/dev/null | head -1)
+[ -n "$PLAN" ] && echo "PLAN_FILE: $PLAN" || echo "NO_PLAN_FILE"
+\`\`\`
+
+3. **Validation:** If a plan file was found via content-based search (not conversation context), read the first 20 lines and verify it is relevant to the current branch's work. If it appears to be from a different project or feature, treat as "no plan file found."
+
+**Error handling:**
+- No plan file found → skip with "No plan file detected — skipping."
+- Plan file found but unreadable (permissions, encoding) → skip with "Plan file found but unreadable — skipping."`;
+}
+
+// ─── Plan Completion Audit ────────────────────────────────────────────
+
+type PlanCompletionMode = 'ship' | 'review';
+
+function generatePlanCompletionAuditInner(mode: PlanCompletionMode): string {
+  const sections: string[] = [];
+
+  // ── Plan file discovery (shared) ──
+  sections.push(generatePlanFileDiscovery());
+
+  // ── Item extraction ──
+  sections.push(`
+### Actionable Item Extraction
+
+Read the plan file. Extract every actionable item — anything that describes work to be done. Look for:
+
+- **Checkbox items:** \`- [ ] ...\` or \`- [x] ...\`
+- **Numbered steps** under implementation headings: "1. Create ...", "2. Add ...", "3. Modify ..."
+- **Imperative statements:** "Add X to Y", "Create a Z service", "Modify the W controller"
+- **File-level specifications:** "New file: path/to/file.ts", "Modify path/to/existing.rb"
+- **Test requirements:** "Test that X", "Add test for Y", "Verify Z"
+- **Data model changes:** "Add column X to table Y", "Create migration for Z"
+
+**Ignore:**
+- Context/Background sections (\`## Context\`, \`## Background\`, \`## Problem\`)
+- Questions and open items (marked with ?, "TBD", "TODO: decide")
+- Review report sections (\`## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT\`)
+- Explicitly deferred items ("Future:", "Out of scope:", "NOT in scope:", "P2:", "P3:", "P4:")
+- CEO Review Decisions sections (these record choices, not work items)
+
+**Cap:** Extract at most 50 items. If the plan has more, note: "Showing top 50 of N plan items — full list in plan file."
+
+**No items found:** If the plan contains no extractable actionable items, skip with: "Plan file contains no actionable items — skipping completion audit."
+
+For each item, note:
+- The item text (verbatim or concise summary)
+- Its category: CODE | TEST | MIGRATION | CONFIG | DOCS`);
+
+  // ── Cross-reference against diff ──
+  sections.push(`
+### Cross-Reference Against Diff
+
+Run \`git diff origin/<base>...HEAD\` and \`git log origin/<base>..HEAD --oneline\` to understand what was implemented.
+
+For each extracted plan item, check the diff and classify:
+
+- **DONE** — Clear evidence in the diff that this item was implemented. Cite the specific file(s) changed.
+- **PARTIAL** — Some work toward this item exists in the diff but it's incomplete (e.g., model created but controller missing, function exists but edge cases not handled).
+- **NOT DONE** — No evidence in the diff that this item was addressed.
+- **CHANGED** — The item was implemented using a different approach than the plan described, but the same goal is achieved. Note the difference.
+
+**Be conservative with DONE** — require clear evidence in the diff. A file being touched is not enough; the specific functionality described must be present.
+**Be generous with CHANGED** — if the goal is met by different means, that counts as addressed.`);
+
+  // ── Output format ──
+  sections.push(`
+### Output Format
+
+\`\`\`
+PLAN COMPLETION AUDIT
+═══════════════════════════════
+Plan: {plan file path}
+
+## Implementation Items
+  [DONE]      Create UserService — src/services/user_service.rb (+142 lines)
+  [PARTIAL]   Add validation — model validates but missing controller checks
+  [NOT DONE]  Add caching layer — no cache-related changes in diff
+  [CHANGED]   "Redis queue" → implemented with Sidekiq instead
+
+## Test Items
+  [DONE]      Unit tests for UserService — test/services/user_service_test.rb
+  [NOT DONE]  E2E test for signup flow
+
+## Migration Items
+  [DONE]      Create users table — db/migrate/20240315_create_users.rb
+
+─────────────────────────────────
+COMPLETION: 4/7 DONE, 1 PARTIAL, 1 NOT DONE, 1 CHANGED
+─────────────────────────────────
+\`\`\``);
+
+  // ── Gate logic (mode-specific) ──
+  if (mode === 'ship') {
+    sections.push(`
+### Gate Logic
+
+After producing the completion checklist:
+
+- **All DONE or CHANGED:** Pass. "Plan completion: PASS — all items addressed." Continue.
+- **Only PARTIAL items (no NOT DONE):** Continue with a note in the PR body. Not blocking.
+- **Any NOT DONE items:** Use AskUserQuestion:
+  - Show the completion checklist above
+  - "{N} items from the plan are NOT DONE. These were part of the original plan but are missing from the implementation."
+  - RECOMMENDATION: depends on item count and severity. If 1-2 minor items (docs, config), recommend B. If core functionality is missing, recommend A.
+  - Options:
+    A) Stop — implement the missing items before shipping
+    B) Ship anyway — defer these to a follow-up (will create P1 TODOs in Step 5.5)
+    C) These items were intentionally dropped — remove from scope
+  - If A: STOP. List the missing items for the user to implement.
+  - If B: Continue. For each NOT DONE item, create a P1 TODO in Step 5.5 with "Deferred from plan: {plan file path}".
+  - If C: Continue. Note in PR body: "Plan items intentionally dropped: {list}."
+
+**No plan file found:** Skip entirely. "No plan file detected — skipping plan completion audit."
+
+**Include in PR body (Step 8):** Add a \`## Plan Completion\` section with the checklist summary.`);
+  } else {
+    // review mode
+    sections.push(`
+### Integration with Scope Drift Detection
+
+The plan completion results augment the existing Scope Drift Detection. If a plan file is found:
+
+- **NOT DONE items** become additional evidence for **MISSING REQUIREMENTS** in the scope drift report.
+- **Items in the diff that don't match any plan item** become evidence for **SCOPE CREEP** detection.
+
+This is **INFORMATIONAL** — does not block the review (consistent with existing scope drift behavior).
+
+Update the scope drift output to include plan file context:
+
+\`\`\`
+Scope Check: [CLEAN / DRIFT DETECTED / REQUIREMENTS MISSING]
+Intent: <from plan file — 1-line summary>
+Plan: <plan file path>
+Delivered: <1-line summary of what the diff actually does>
+Plan items: N DONE, M PARTIAL, K NOT DONE
+[If NOT DONE: list each missing item]
+[If scope creep: list each out-of-scope change not in the plan]
+\`\`\`
+
+**No plan file found:** Fall back to existing scope drift behavior (check TODOS.md and PR description only).`);
+  }
+
+  return sections.join('\n');
+}
+
+export function generatePlanCompletionAuditShip(_ctx: TemplateContext): string {
+  return generatePlanCompletionAuditInner('ship');
+}
+
+export function generatePlanCompletionAuditReview(_ctx: TemplateContext): string {
+  return generatePlanCompletionAuditInner('review');
+}
+
+// ─── Plan Verification Execution ──────────────────────────────────────
+
+export function generatePlanVerificationExec(_ctx: TemplateContext): string {
+  return `## Step 3.47: Plan Verification
+
+Automatically verify the plan's testing/verification steps using the \`/qa-only\` skill.
+
+### 1. Check for verification section
+
+Using the plan file already discovered in Step 3.45, look for a verification section. Match any of these headings: \`## Verification\`, \`## Test plan\`, \`## Testing\`, \`## How to test\`, \`## Manual testing\`, or any section with verification-flavored items (URLs to visit, things to check visually, interactions to test).
+
+**If no verification section found:** Skip with "No verification steps found in plan — skipping auto-verification."
+**If no plan file was found in Step 3.45:** Skip (already handled).
+
+### 2. Check for running dev server
+
+Before invoking browse-based verification, check if a dev server is reachable:
+
+\`\`\`bash
+curl -s -o /dev/null -w '%{http_code}' http://localhost:3000 2>/dev/null || \\
+curl -s -o /dev/null -w '%{http_code}' http://localhost:8080 2>/dev/null || \\
+curl -s -o /dev/null -w '%{http_code}' http://localhost:5173 2>/dev/null || \\
+curl -s -o /dev/null -w '%{http_code}' http://localhost:4000 2>/dev/null || echo "NO_SERVER"
+\`\`\`
+
+**If NO_SERVER:** Skip with "No dev server detected — skipping plan verification. Run /qa separately after deploying."
+
+### 3. Invoke /qa-only inline
+
+Read the \`/qa-only\` skill from disk:
+
+\`\`\`bash
+cat \${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../qa-only/SKILL.md
+\`\`\`
+
+**If unreadable:** Skip with "Could not load /qa-only — skipping plan verification."
+
+Follow the /qa-only workflow with these modifications:
+- **Skip the preamble** (already handled by /ship)
+- **Use the plan's verification section as the primary test input** — treat each verification item as a test case
+- **Use the detected dev server URL** as the base URL
+- **Skip the fix loop** — this is report-only verification during /ship
+- **Cap at the verification items from the plan** — do not expand into general site QA
+
+### 4. Gate logic
+
+- **All verification items PASS:** Continue silently. "Plan verification: PASS."
+- **Any FAIL:** Use AskUserQuestion:
+  - Show the failures with screenshot evidence
+  - RECOMMENDATION: Choose A if failures indicate broken functionality. Choose B if cosmetic only.
+  - Options:
+    A) Fix the failures before shipping (recommended for functional issues)
+    B) Ship anyway — known issues (acceptable for cosmetic issues)
+- **No verification section / no server / unreadable skill:** Skip (non-blocking).
+
+### 5. Include in PR body
+
+Add a \`## Verification Results\` section to the PR body (Step 8):
+- If verification ran: summary of results (N PASS, M FAIL, K SKIPPED)
+- If skipped: reason for skipping (no plan, no server, no verification section)`;
+}

@@ 454,7 454,40 @@ find . -name '*.test.*' -o -name '*.spec.*' -o -name '*_test.*' -o -name '*_spec
 \`\`\`
 
 For PR body: \`Tests: {before} → {after} (+{delta} new)\`
-Coverage line: \`Test Coverage Audit: N new code paths. M covered (X%). K tests generated, J committed.\``);
+Coverage line: \`Test Coverage Audit: N new code paths. M covered (X%). K tests generated, J committed.\`
+
+**7. Coverage gate:**
+
+Before proceeding, check CLAUDE.md for a \`## Test Coverage\` section with \`Minimum:\` and \`Target:\` fields. If found, use those percentages. Otherwise use defaults: Minimum = 60%, Target = 80%.
+
+Using the coverage percentage from the diagram in substep 4 (the \`COVERAGE: X/Y (Z%)\` line):
+
+- **>= target:** Pass. "Coverage gate: PASS ({X}%)." Continue.
+- **>= minimum, < target:** Use AskUserQuestion:
+  - "AI-assessed coverage is {X}%. {N} code paths are untested. Target is {target}%."
+  - RECOMMENDATION: Choose A because untested code paths are where production bugs hide.
+  - Options:
+    A) Generate more tests for remaining gaps (recommended)
+    B) Ship anyway — I accept the coverage risk
+    C) These paths don't need tests — mark as intentionally uncovered
+  - If A: Loop back to substep 5 (generate tests) targeting the remaining gaps. After second pass, if still below target, present AskUserQuestion again with updated numbers. Maximum 2 generation passes total.
+  - If B: Continue. Include in PR body: "Coverage gate: {X}% — user accepted risk."
+  - If C: Continue. Include in PR body: "Coverage gate: {X}% — {N} paths intentionally uncovered."
+
+- **< minimum:** Use AskUserQuestion:
+  - "AI-assessed coverage is critically low ({X}%). {N} of {M} code paths have no tests. Minimum threshold is {minimum}%."
+  - RECOMMENDATION: Choose A because less than {minimum}% means more code is untested than tested.
+  - Options:
+    A) Generate tests for remaining gaps (recommended)
+    B) Override — ship with low coverage (I understand the risk)
+  - If A: Loop back to substep 5. Maximum 2 passes. If still below minimum after 2 passes, present the override choice again.
+  - If B: Continue. Include in PR body: "Coverage gate: OVERRIDDEN at {X}%."
+
+**Coverage percentage undetermined:** If the coverage diagram doesn't produce a clear numeric percentage (ambiguous output, parse error), **skip the gate** with: "Coverage gate: could not determine percentage — skipping." Do not default to 0% or block.
+
+**Test-only diffs:** Skip the gate (same as the existing fast-path).
+
+**100% coverage:** "Coverage gate: PASS (100%)." Continue.`);
 
     // ── Test plan artifact (ship mode) ──
     sections.push(`


@@ 504,7 537,22 @@ If test framework is detected and gaps were identified:
 
 If no test framework detected → include gaps as INFORMATIONAL findings only, no generation.
 
-**Diff is test-only changes:** Skip Step 4.75 entirely: "No new application code paths to audit."`);
+**Diff is test-only changes:** Skip Step 4.75 entirely: "No new application code paths to audit."
+
+### Coverage Warning
+
+After producing the coverage diagram, check the coverage percentage. Read CLAUDE.md for a \`## Test Coverage\` section with a \`Minimum:\` field. If not found, use default: 60%.
+
+If coverage is below the minimum threshold, output a prominent warning **before** the regular review findings:
+
+\`\`\`
+⚠️ COVERAGE WARNING: AI-assessed coverage is {X}%. {N} code paths untested.
+Consider writing tests before running /ship.
+\`\`\`
+
+This is INFORMATIONAL — does not block /review. But it makes low coverage visible early so the developer can address it before reaching the /ship coverage gate.
+
+If coverage percentage cannot be determined, skip the warning silently.`);
   }
 
   return sections.join('\n');

@@ 308,6 308,9 @@ You are running the `/ship` workflow. This is a **non-interactive, fully automat
 - Pre-landing review finds ASK items that need user judgment
 - MINOR or MAJOR version bump needed (ask — see Step 4)
 - Greptile review comments that need user decision (complex fixes, false positives)
+- AI-assessed coverage below minimum threshold (hard gate with user override — see Step 3.4)
+- Plan items NOT DONE with no user override (see Step 3.45)
+- Plan verification failures (see Step 3.47)
 - TODOS.md missing and user wants to create one (ask — see Step 5.5)
 - TODOS.md disorganized and user wants to reorganize (ask — see Step 5.5)
 


@@ 319,7 322,7 @@ You are running the `/ship` workflow. This is a **non-interactive, fully automat
 - Multi-file changesets (auto-split into bisectable commits)
 - TODOS.md completed-item detection (auto-mark)
 - Auto-fixable review findings (dead code, N+1, stale comments — fixed automatically)
-- Test coverage gaps (auto-generate and commit, or flag in PR body)
+- Test coverage gaps within target threshold (auto-generate and commit, or flag in PR body)
 
 ---
 


@@ 978,6 981,39 @@ find . -name '*.test.*' -o -name '*.spec.*' -o -name '*_test.*' -o -name '*_spec
 For PR body: `Tests: {before} → {after} (+{delta} new)`
 Coverage line: `Test Coverage Audit: N new code paths. M covered (X%). K tests generated, J committed.`
 
+**7. Coverage gate:**
+
+Before proceeding, check CLAUDE.md for a `## Test Coverage` section with `Minimum:` and `Target:` fields. If found, use those percentages. Otherwise use defaults: Minimum = 60%, Target = 80%.
+
+Using the coverage percentage from the diagram in substep 4 (the `COVERAGE: X/Y (Z%)` line):
+
+- **>= target:** Pass. "Coverage gate: PASS ({X}%)." Continue.
+- **>= minimum, < target:** Use AskUserQuestion:
+  - "AI-assessed coverage is {X}%. {N} code paths are untested. Target is {target}%."
+  - RECOMMENDATION: Choose A because untested code paths are where production bugs hide.
+  - Options:
+    A) Generate more tests for remaining gaps (recommended)
+    B) Ship anyway — I accept the coverage risk
+    C) These paths don't need tests — mark as intentionally uncovered
+  - If A: Loop back to substep 5 (generate tests) targeting the remaining gaps. After second pass, if still below target, present AskUserQuestion again with updated numbers. Maximum 2 generation passes total.
+  - If B: Continue. Include in PR body: "Coverage gate: {X}% — user accepted risk."
+  - If C: Continue. Include in PR body: "Coverage gate: {X}% — {N} paths intentionally uncovered."
+
+- **< minimum:** Use AskUserQuestion:
+  - "AI-assessed coverage is critically low ({X}%). {N} of {M} code paths have no tests. Minimum threshold is {minimum}%."
+  - RECOMMENDATION: Choose A because less than {minimum}% means more code is untested than tested.
+  - Options:
+    A) Generate tests for remaining gaps (recommended)
+    B) Override — ship with low coverage (I understand the risk)
+  - If A: Loop back to substep 5. Maximum 2 passes. If still below minimum after 2 passes, present the override choice again.
+  - If B: Continue. Include in PR body: "Coverage gate: OVERRIDDEN at {X}%."
+
+**Coverage percentage undetermined:** If the coverage diagram doesn't produce a clear numeric percentage (ambiguous output, parse error), **skip the gate** with: "Coverage gate: could not determine percentage — skipping." Do not default to 0% or block.
+
+**Test-only diffs:** Skip the gate (same as the existing fast-path).
+
+**100% coverage:** "Coverage gate: PASS (100%)." Continue.
+
 ### Test Plan Artifact
 
 After producing the coverage diagram, write a test plan artifact so `/qa` and `/qa-only` can consume it:


@@ 1011,6 1047,181 @@ Repo: {owner/repo}
 
 ---
 
+## Step 3.45: Plan Completion Audit
+
+### Plan File Discovery
+
+1. **Conversation context (primary):** Check if there is an active plan file in this conversation — Claude Code system messages include plan file paths when in plan mode. Look for references like `~/.claude/plans/*.md` in system messages. If found, use it directly — this is the most reliable signal.
+
+2. **Content-based search (fallback):** If no plan file is referenced in conversation context, search by content:
+
+```bash
+BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null | tr '/' '-')
+REPO=$(basename "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null)")
+# Try branch name match first (most specific)
+PLAN=$(ls -t ~/.claude/plans/*.md 2>/dev/null | xargs grep -l "$BRANCH" 2>/dev/null | head -1)
+# Fall back to repo name match
+[ -z "$PLAN" ] && PLAN=$(ls -t ~/.claude/plans/*.md 2>/dev/null | xargs grep -l "$REPO" 2>/dev/null | head -1)
+# Last resort: most recent plan modified in the last 24 hours
+[ -z "$PLAN" ] && PLAN=$(find ~/.claude/plans -name '*.md' -mmin -1440 -maxdepth 1 2>/dev/null | xargs ls -t 2>/dev/null | head -1)
+[ -n "$PLAN" ] && echo "PLAN_FILE: $PLAN" || echo "NO_PLAN_FILE"
+```
+
+3. **Validation:** If a plan file was found via content-based search (not conversation context), read the first 20 lines and verify it is relevant to the current branch's work. If it appears to be from a different project or feature, treat as "no plan file found."
+
+**Error handling:**
+- No plan file found → skip with "No plan file detected — skipping."
+- Plan file found but unreadable (permissions, encoding) → skip with "Plan file found but unreadable — skipping."
+
+### Actionable Item Extraction
+
+Read the plan file. Extract every actionable item — anything that describes work to be done. Look for:
+
+- **Checkbox items:** `- [ ] ...` or `- [x] ...`
+- **Numbered steps** under implementation headings: "1. Create ...", "2. Add ...", "3. Modify ..."
+- **Imperative statements:** "Add X to Y", "Create a Z service", "Modify the W controller"
+- **File-level specifications:** "New file: path/to/file.ts", "Modify path/to/existing.rb"
+- **Test requirements:** "Test that X", "Add test for Y", "Verify Z"
+- **Data model changes:** "Add column X to table Y", "Create migration for Z"
+
+**Ignore:**
+- Context/Background sections (`## Context`, `## Background`, `## Problem`)
+- Questions and open items (marked with ?, "TBD", "TODO: decide")
+- Review report sections (`## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT`)
+- Explicitly deferred items ("Future:", "Out of scope:", "NOT in scope:", "P2:", "P3:", "P4:")
+- CEO Review Decisions sections (these record choices, not work items)
+
+**Cap:** Extract at most 50 items. If the plan has more, note: "Showing top 50 of N plan items — full list in plan file."
+
+**No items found:** If the plan contains no extractable actionable items, skip with: "Plan file contains no actionable items — skipping completion audit."
+
+For each item, note:
+- The item text (verbatim or concise summary)
+- Its category: CODE | TEST | MIGRATION | CONFIG | DOCS
+
+### Cross-Reference Against Diff
+
+Run `git diff origin/<base>...HEAD` and `git log origin/<base>..HEAD --oneline` to understand what was implemented.
+
+For each extracted plan item, check the diff and classify:
+
+- **DONE** — Clear evidence in the diff that this item was implemented. Cite the specific file(s) changed.
+- **PARTIAL** — Some work toward this item exists in the diff but it's incomplete (e.g., model created but controller missing, function exists but edge cases not handled).
+- **NOT DONE** — No evidence in the diff that this item was addressed.
+- **CHANGED** — The item was implemented using a different approach than the plan described, but the same goal is achieved. Note the difference.
+
+**Be conservative with DONE** — require clear evidence in the diff. A file being touched is not enough; the specific functionality described must be present.
+**Be generous with CHANGED** — if the goal is met by different means, that counts as addressed.
+
+### Output Format
+
+```
+PLAN COMPLETION AUDIT
+═══════════════════════════════
+Plan: {plan file path}
+
+## Implementation Items
+  [DONE]      Create UserService — src/services/user_service.rb (+142 lines)
+  [PARTIAL]   Add validation — model validates but missing controller checks
+  [NOT DONE]  Add caching layer — no cache-related changes in diff
+  [CHANGED]   "Redis queue" → implemented with Sidekiq instead
+
+## Test Items
+  [DONE]      Unit tests for UserService — test/services/user_service_test.rb
+  [NOT DONE]  E2E test for signup flow
+
+## Migration Items
+  [DONE]      Create users table — db/migrate/20240315_create_users.rb
+
+─────────────────────────────────
+COMPLETION: 4/7 DONE, 1 PARTIAL, 1 NOT DONE, 1 CHANGED
+─────────────────────────────────
+```
+
+### Gate Logic
+
+After producing the completion checklist:
+
+- **All DONE or CHANGED:** Pass. "Plan completion: PASS — all items addressed." Continue.
+- **Only PARTIAL items (no NOT DONE):** Continue with a note in the PR body. Not blocking.
+- **Any NOT DONE items:** Use AskUserQuestion:
+  - Show the completion checklist above
+  - "{N} items from the plan are NOT DONE. These were part of the original plan but are missing from the implementation."
+  - RECOMMENDATION: depends on item count and severity. If 1-2 minor items (docs, config), recommend B. If core functionality is missing, recommend A.
+  - Options:
+    A) Stop — implement the missing items before shipping
+    B) Ship anyway — defer these to a follow-up (will create P1 TODOs in Step 5.5)
+    C) These items were intentionally dropped — remove from scope
+  - If A: STOP. List the missing items for the user to implement.
+  - If B: Continue. For each NOT DONE item, create a P1 TODO in Step 5.5 with "Deferred from plan: {plan file path}".
+  - If C: Continue. Note in PR body: "Plan items intentionally dropped: {list}."
+
+**No plan file found:** Skip entirely. "No plan file detected — skipping plan completion audit."
+
+**Include in PR body (Step 8):** Add a `## Plan Completion` section with the checklist summary.
+
+---
+
+## Step 3.47: Plan Verification
+
+Automatically verify the plan's testing/verification steps using the `/qa-only` skill.
+
+### 1. Check for verification section
+
+Using the plan file already discovered in Step 3.45, look for a verification section. Match any of these headings: `## Verification`, `## Test plan`, `## Testing`, `## How to test`, `## Manual testing`, or any section with verification-flavored items (URLs to visit, things to check visually, interactions to test).
+
+**If no verification section found:** Skip with "No verification steps found in plan — skipping auto-verification."
+**If no plan file was found in Step 3.45:** Skip (already handled).
+
+### 2. Check for running dev server
+
+Before invoking browse-based verification, check if a dev server is reachable:
+
+```bash
+curl -s -o /dev/null -w '%{http_code}' http://localhost:3000 2>/dev/null || \
+curl -s -o /dev/null -w '%{http_code}' http://localhost:8080 2>/dev/null || \
+curl -s -o /dev/null -w '%{http_code}' http://localhost:5173 2>/dev/null || \
+curl -s -o /dev/null -w '%{http_code}' http://localhost:4000 2>/dev/null || echo "NO_SERVER"
+```
+
+**If NO_SERVER:** Skip with "No dev server detected — skipping plan verification. Run /qa separately after deploying."
+
+### 3. Invoke /qa-only inline
+
+Read the `/qa-only` skill from disk:
+
+```bash
+cat ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../qa-only/SKILL.md
+```
+
+**If unreadable:** Skip with "Could not load /qa-only — skipping plan verification."
+
+Follow the /qa-only workflow with these modifications:
+- **Skip the preamble** (already handled by /ship)
+- **Use the plan's verification section as the primary test input** — treat each verification item as a test case
+- **Use the detected dev server URL** as the base URL
+- **Skip the fix loop** — this is report-only verification during /ship
+- **Cap at the verification items from the plan** — do not expand into general site QA
+
+### 4. Gate logic
+
+- **All verification items PASS:** Continue silently. "Plan verification: PASS."
+- **Any FAIL:** Use AskUserQuestion:
+  - Show the failures with screenshot evidence
+  - RECOMMENDATION: Choose A if failures indicate broken functionality. Choose B if cosmetic only.
+  - Options:
+    A) Fix the failures before shipping (recommended for functional issues)
+    B) Ship anyway — known issues (acceptable for cosmetic issues)
+- **No verification section / no server / unreadable skill:** Skip (non-blocking).
+
+### 5. Include in PR body
+
+Add a `## Verification Results` section to the PR body (Step 8):
+- If verification ran: summary of results (N PASS, M FAIL, K SKIPPED)
+- If skipped: reason for skipping (no plan, no server, no verification section)
+
+---
+
 ## Step 3.5: Pre-Landing Review
 
 Review the diff for structural issues that tests don't catch.


@@ 1473,6 1684,16 @@ gh pr create --base <base> --title "<type>: <summary>" --body "$(cat <<'EOF'
 <If no Greptile comments found: "No Greptile comments.">
 <If no PR existed during Step 3.75: omit this section entirely>
 
+## Plan Completion
+<If plan file found: completion checklist summary from Step 3.45>
+<If no plan file: "No plan file detected.">
+<If plan items deferred: list deferred items>
+
+## Verification Results
+<If verification ran: summary from Step 3.47 (N PASS, M FAIL, K SKIPPED)>
+<If skipped: reason (no plan, no server, no verification section)>
+<If not applicable: omit this section>
+
 ## TODOS
 <If items marked complete: bullet list of completed items with version>
 <If no items completed: "No TODO items completed in this PR.">


@@ 1513,6 1734,32 @@ doc updates — the user runs `/ship` and documentation stays current without a 
 
 ---
 
+## Step 8.75: Persist ship metrics
+
+Log coverage and plan completion data so `/retro` can track trends:
+
+```bash
+eval "$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null)" && mkdir -p ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG
+```
+
+Append to `~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/$BRANCH-reviews.jsonl`:
+
+```bash
+echo '{"skill":"ship","timestamp":"'"$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)"'","coverage_pct":COVERAGE_PCT,"plan_items_total":PLAN_TOTAL,"plan_items_done":PLAN_DONE,"verification_result":"VERIFY_RESULT","version":"VERSION","branch":"BRANCH"}' >> ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/$BRANCH-reviews.jsonl
+```
+
+Substitute from earlier steps:
+- **COVERAGE_PCT**: coverage percentage from Step 3.4 diagram (integer, or -1 if undetermined)
+- **PLAN_TOTAL**: total plan items extracted in Step 3.45 (0 if no plan file)
+- **PLAN_DONE**: count of DONE + CHANGED items from Step 3.45 (0 if no plan file)
+- **VERIFY_RESULT**: "pass", "fail", or "skipped" from Step 3.47
+- **VERSION**: from the VERSION file
+- **BRANCH**: current branch name
+
+This step is automatic — never skip it, never ask for confirmation.
+
+---
+
 ## Important Rules
 
 - **Never skip tests.** If tests fail, stop.

@@ 32,6 32,9 @@ You are running the `/ship` workflow. This is a **non-interactive, fully automat
 - Pre-landing review finds ASK items that need user judgment
 - MINOR or MAJOR version bump needed (ask — see Step 4)
 - Greptile review comments that need user decision (complex fixes, false positives)
+- AI-assessed coverage below minimum threshold (hard gate with user override — see Step 3.4)
+- Plan items NOT DONE with no user override (see Step 3.45)
+- Plan verification failures (see Step 3.47)
 - TODOS.md missing and user wants to create one (ask — see Step 5.5)
 - TODOS.md disorganized and user wants to reorganize (ask — see Step 5.5)
 


@@ 43,7 46,7 @@ You are running the `/ship` workflow. This is a **non-interactive, fully automat
 - Multi-file changesets (auto-split into bisectable commits)
 - TODOS.md completed-item detection (auto-mark)
 - Auto-fixable review findings (dead code, N+1, stale comments — fixed automatically)
-- Test coverage gaps (auto-generate and commit, or flag in PR body)
+- Test coverage gaps within target threshold (auto-generate and commit, or flag in PR body)
 
 ---
 


@@ 225,6 228,16 @@ If multiple suites need to run, run them sequentially (each needs a test lane). 
 
 ---
 
+## Step 3.45: Plan Completion Audit
+
+{{PLAN_COMPLETION_AUDIT_SHIP}}
+
+---
+
+{{PLAN_VERIFICATION_EXEC}}
+
+---
+
 ## Step 3.5: Pre-Landing Review
 
 Review the diff for structural issues that tests don't catch.


@@ 500,6 513,16 @@ gh pr create --base <base> --title "<type>: <summary>" --body "$(cat <<'EOF'
 <If no Greptile comments found: "No Greptile comments.">
 <If no PR existed during Step 3.75: omit this section entirely>
 
+## Plan Completion
+<If plan file found: completion checklist summary from Step 3.45>
+<If no plan file: "No plan file detected.">
+<If plan items deferred: list deferred items>
+
+## Verification Results
+<If verification ran: summary from Step 3.47 (N PASS, M FAIL, K SKIPPED)>
+<If skipped: reason (no plan, no server, no verification section)>
+<If not applicable: omit this section>
+
 ## TODOS
 <If items marked complete: bullet list of completed items with version>
 <If no items completed: "No TODO items completed in this PR.">


@@ 540,6 563,32 @@ doc updates — the user runs `/ship` and documentation stays current without a 
 
 ---
 
+## Step 8.75: Persist ship metrics
+
+Log coverage and plan completion data so `/retro` can track trends:
+
+```bash
+eval "$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null)" && mkdir -p ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG
+```
+
+Append to `~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/$BRANCH-reviews.jsonl`:
+
+```bash
+echo '{"skill":"ship","timestamp":"'"$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)"'","coverage_pct":COVERAGE_PCT,"plan_items_total":PLAN_TOTAL,"plan_items_done":PLAN_DONE,"verification_result":"VERIFY_RESULT","version":"VERSION","branch":"BRANCH"}' >> ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG/$BRANCH-reviews.jsonl
+```
+
+Substitute from earlier steps:
+- **COVERAGE_PCT**: coverage percentage from Step 3.4 diagram (integer, or -1 if undetermined)
+- **PLAN_TOTAL**: total plan items extracted in Step 3.45 (0 if no plan file)
+- **PLAN_DONE**: count of DONE + CHANGED items from Step 3.45 (0 if no plan file)
+- **VERIFY_RESULT**: "pass", "fail", or "skipped" from Step 3.47
+- **VERSION**: from the VERSION file
+- **BRANCH**: current branch name
+
+This step is automatic — never skip it, never ask for confirmation.
+
+---
+
 ## Important Rules
 
 - **Never skip tests.** If tests fail, stop.

@@ 677,6 677,168 @@ describe('PLAN_FILE_REVIEW_REPORT resolver', () => {
   });
 });
 
+// --- {{PLAN_COMPLETION_AUDIT}} resolver tests ---
+
+describe('PLAN_COMPLETION_AUDIT placeholders', () => {
+  const shipSkill = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'ship', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
+  const reviewSkill = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'review', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
+
+  test('ship SKILL.md contains plan completion audit step', () => {
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('Plan Completion Audit');
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('Step 3.45');
+  });
+
+  test('review SKILL.md contains plan completion in scope drift', () => {
+    expect(reviewSkill).toContain('Plan File Discovery');
+    expect(reviewSkill).toContain('Actionable Item Extraction');
+    expect(reviewSkill).toContain('Integration with Scope Drift Detection');
+  });
+
+  test('both modes share plan file discovery methodology', () => {
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('Plan File Discovery');
+    expect(reviewSkill).toContain('Plan File Discovery');
+    // Both should have conversation context first
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('Conversation context (primary)');
+    expect(reviewSkill).toContain('Conversation context (primary)');
+    // Both should have grep fallback
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('Content-based search (fallback)');
+    expect(reviewSkill).toContain('Content-based search (fallback)');
+  });
+
+  test('ship mode has gate logic for NOT DONE items', () => {
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('NOT DONE');
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('Stop — implement the missing items');
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('Ship anyway — defer');
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('intentionally dropped');
+  });
+
+  test('review mode is INFORMATIONAL only', () => {
+    expect(reviewSkill).toContain('INFORMATIONAL');
+    expect(reviewSkill).toContain('MISSING REQUIREMENTS');
+    expect(reviewSkill).toContain('SCOPE CREEP');
+  });
+
+  test('item extraction has 50-item cap', () => {
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('at most 50 items');
+  });
+
+  test('uses file-level traceability (not commit-level)', () => {
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('Cite the specific file');
+    expect(shipSkill).not.toContain('commit-level traceability');
+  });
+});
+
+// --- {{PLAN_VERIFICATION_EXEC}} resolver tests ---
+
+describe('PLAN_VERIFICATION_EXEC placeholder', () => {
+  const shipSkill = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'ship', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
+
+  test('ship SKILL.md contains plan verification step', () => {
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('Step 3.47');
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('Plan Verification');
+  });
+
+  test('references /qa-only invocation', () => {
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('qa-only/SKILL.md');
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('qa-only');
+  });
+
+  test('contains localhost reachability check', () => {
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('localhost:3000');
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('NO_SERVER');
+  });
+
+  test('skips gracefully when no verification section', () => {
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('No verification steps found in plan');
+  });
+
+  test('skips gracefully when no dev server', () => {
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('No dev server detected');
+  });
+});
+
+// --- Coverage gate tests ---
+
+describe('Coverage gate in ship', () => {
+  const shipSkill = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'ship', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
+  const reviewSkill = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'review', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
+
+  test('ship SKILL.md contains coverage gate with thresholds', () => {
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('Coverage gate');
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('>= target');
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('< minimum');
+  });
+
+  test('ship SKILL.md supports configurable thresholds via CLAUDE.md', () => {
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('## Test Coverage');
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('Minimum:');
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('Target:');
+  });
+
+  test('coverage gate skips on parse failure (not block)', () => {
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('could not determine percentage — skipping');
+  });
+
+  test('review SKILL.md contains coverage WARNING', () => {
+    expect(reviewSkill).toContain('COVERAGE WARNING');
+    expect(reviewSkill).toContain('Consider writing tests before running /ship');
+  });
+
+  test('review coverage warning is INFORMATIONAL', () => {
+    expect(reviewSkill).toContain('INFORMATIONAL');
+  });
+});
+
+// --- Ship metrics logging ---
+
+describe('Ship metrics logging', () => {
+  const shipSkill = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'ship', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
+
+  test('ship SKILL.md contains metrics persistence step', () => {
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('Step 8.75');
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('coverage_pct');
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('plan_items_total');
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('plan_items_done');
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('verification_result');
+  });
+});
+
+// --- Plan file discovery shared helper ---
+
+describe('Plan file discovery shared helper', () => {
+  // The shared helper should appear in ship (via PLAN_COMPLETION_AUDIT_SHIP)
+  // and in review (via PLAN_COMPLETION_AUDIT_REVIEW)
+  const shipSkill = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'ship', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
+  const reviewSkill = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'review', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
+
+  test('plan file discovery appears in both ship and review', () => {
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('Plan File Discovery');
+    expect(reviewSkill).toContain('Plan File Discovery');
+  });
+
+  test('both include conversation context first', () => {
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('Conversation context (primary)');
+    expect(reviewSkill).toContain('Conversation context (primary)');
+  });
+
+  test('both include content-based fallback', () => {
+    expect(shipSkill).toContain('Content-based search (fallback)');
+    expect(reviewSkill).toContain('Content-based search (fallback)');
+  });
+});
+
+// --- Retro plan completion ---
+
+describe('Retro plan completion section', () => {
+  const retroSkill = fs.readFileSync(path.join(ROOT, 'retro', 'SKILL.md'), 'utf-8');
+
+  test('retro SKILL.md contains plan completion section', () => {
+    expect(retroSkill).toContain('### Plan Completion');
+    expect(retroSkill).toContain('plan_items_total');
+    expect(retroSkill).toContain('Plan Completion This Period');
+  });
+});
+
 // --- Plan status footer in preamble ---
 
 describe('Plan status footer in preamble', () => {

@@ 107,12 107,17 @@ export const E2E_TOUCHFILES: Record<string, string[]> = {
   'gemini-review-findings': ['review/**', '.agents/skills/gstack-review/**', 'test/helpers/gemini-session-runner.ts', 'lib/worktree.ts'],
 
 
-  // Coverage audit (shared fixture) + triage
+  // Coverage audit (shared fixture) + triage + gates
   'ship-coverage-audit': ['ship/**', 'test/fixtures/coverage-audit-fixture.ts', 'bin/gstack-repo-mode'],
   'review-coverage-audit': ['review/**', 'test/fixtures/coverage-audit-fixture.ts'],
   'plan-eng-coverage-audit': ['plan-eng-review/**', 'test/fixtures/coverage-audit-fixture.ts'],
   'ship-triage': ['ship/**', 'bin/gstack-repo-mode'],
 
+  // Plan completion audit + verification
+  'ship-plan-completion': ['ship/**', 'scripts/gen-skill-docs.ts'],
+  'ship-plan-verification': ['ship/**', 'qa-only/**', 'scripts/gen-skill-docs.ts'],
+  'review-plan-completion': ['review/**', 'scripts/gen-skill-docs.ts'],
+
   // Design
   'design-consultation-core':       ['design-consultation/**', 'scripts/gen-skill-docs.ts', 'test/helpers/llm-judge.ts'],
   'design-consultation-existing':   ['design-consultation/**', 'scripts/gen-skill-docs.ts'],