voodootikigod/adlc/adlc-prosecute

ADLC P5 — prosecute the change

P5 asks one question: has this change earned the merge? Not "does it look right" — whether the evidence that it is right actually exists. A passing suite is not evidence if the tests would pass with the behavior removed.

Run these gates. Every tool exits 0 = gate passes, 1 = operational error, 2 = gate fails.

1. Are the tests load-bearing?

adlc hollow-test --test-cmd "node --test test/"

Mutates the changed code and reports tests that keep passing anyway. A surviving mutant is a test that does not test. Exit 2 means the suite is hollow where it matters — fix the tests, not the threshold.

2. Is the behavior change visible?

capture requires --config <behavior.json> — the file describing which endpoints to snapshot. Without it the command exits on an operational error before capturing anything:

adlc behavior-diff capture --config behavior.json --out before.json   # base revision
adlc behavior-diff capture --config behavior.json --out after.json    # the change
adlc behavior-diff compare before.json after.json

Produces the artifact the human P6 gate reads. An "internal refactor" that moves this output is not an internal refactor.

3. Would review catch a planted defect?

adlc review-calibration --review-cmd "… {base} …"

Injects mutants and scores whether the review command finds them. This measures the reviewer, not the change — low recall means the review process is theater regardless of what it reported.

4. Cross-model adversarial review

npx adversarial-review --providers <a,b> --verify

≥2 distinct providers, fresh context, on the risk gate. Loop review→fix→re-review until exit 0 = SHIP. --verify refutes stale findings so you are not fixing things that are no longer true.

Without a native plugin you have no prosecutor subagent fan-out. Compensate by running --prompt-only lenses yourself in separate, clean contexts — one lens at a time (correctness, security, contract, spec-vs-implementation, test audit), never all five in one pass. A single context reviewing its own prior reasoning is not an independent review.

5. Record the evidence

adlc prosecute --input <passes.json> --ticket <id> requires both flags — the review-evidence file recording your two consecutive dry passes. It is the evidence recorder, not a review trigger, so invoking it without --input fails rather than prosecuting anything:

adlc prosecute --input passes.json --ticket <id> --base <ref>
adlc gate-manifest record P5

Run adlc prosecute --input passes.json --ticket <id> --help — or just adlc --help — for the exact passes.json shape before writing one.

Evidence is ticket- and revision-bound. Evidence recorded against a different revision is not evidence for this one.

The trust-root exception

If the change touches an enforcement package, a gated-artifact producer, a rails deny-path, or a trust-root file, a clean same-model P5 is not enough. The prosecute runner (given --base <ref>) exits 2 until the manifest holds a cross-model-review approve from a provider distinct from the author, bound to the reviewed revision:

ADLC_MANIFEST_KEY=<key> adlc prosecute record-cross-model --ticket <id> \
  --provider <p> --author-provider <a> --verdict approve

The key is required: the gate trusts an attestation only via its signature, so without ADLC_MANIFEST_KEY this fails closed (exit 1, nothing written) instead of recording an inert unsigned entry after your review has already been spent. The key often lives in a gitignored .env.local in the main checkout, which is absent from a git worktree — source it explicitly there. --allow-unsigned writes an unsigned entry deliberately.

Pass the same --input/--revision you use for the gate run: the revision is a content hash of the worktree, and an attestation bound to a different one does not satisfy the gate. Record an approve only after a review actually ran — nothing in the tool verifies that it did.

You cannot self-approve this tier. If you authored the change, a different model has to review it.

6. Report honestly

State each gate's exit code. If a gate failed, say so and say what it found — do not summarize a failing prosecution as "mostly clean". A P5 that reports no findings on a substantial change is itself a finding: check that the gates actually ran against the right base.

Then hand to P6, the human gate: adlc gate-manifest show and the behavior-diff compare output are what the human decides on.