docs(P00): grill — PROCEED (0.82), 0 escalations, 2 revisions (already captured)
---ci--- project: acdl phase: 0 milestone: v1.24 status: grill ---/ci---
This commit is contained in:
Jon Chery
+176
-183
@@ -1,207 +1,200 @@
|
||||
# CIAgent Grill Report
|
||||
|
||||
## Run: 2026-08-12 (mode: interactive, focus: all axes) — v1.23 Nova Deck Cleanup & Python PPTX
|
||||
## Run: 2026-08-12 (mode: self-grill, focus: all axes) — v1.24 Consumer Guide Accuracy & Env-Promotion Lifecycle Enforcement
|
||||
|
||||
### Overall Verdict: PROCEED-WITH-REVISIONS (confidence: 0.78)
|
||||
### Overall Verdict: PROCEED (confidence: 0.82)
|
||||
|
||||
The plan is fundamentally sound — the empirical checks (image format, Marp
|
||||
`<div>` passthrough, versioning, test-inversion completeness) all pass. But
|
||||
four binding revisions restructure the wave/phase plan and expand the
|
||||
"penetrate" purge scope. Two axes were escalated-but-resolved (the empirical
|
||||
verifications de-risked P2 and P3). The plan proceeds with the revisions
|
||||
below.
|
||||
The plan is sound. The user directive is clear and binding. The code
|
||||
integration points are confirmed by inspection. Two binding revisions
|
||||
applied (both low-risk doc clarifications). No escalations.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Per-Axis Findings
|
||||
## Axis 1: Feasibility
|
||||
|
||||
#### Axis 1 — Scope / over-reach: PASS (conf 0.80)
|
||||
Building a whole new `render_pptx.py` + markdown parser is significant for a
|
||||
"deck cleanup" milestone, but REQ-269 explicitly mandates it, the milestone
|
||||
is NFR docs/render/test-only (no runtime impact), and the dual-PPTX value
|
||||
(MARP image-of-slide + python structured/editable) is a real deliverable, not
|
||||
gold-plating. The G-003 split (P3a/P3b) mitigates the parser-complexity risk.
|
||||
The plan stays in scope; it does not reach into the deck's 4-beat narrative
|
||||
arc (out-of-scope section confirms).
|
||||
**Challenge:** Can `run_platform.sh` Step 0b actually run `terraform
|
||||
destroy` against the prior env's state without the prior env's AWS
|
||||
credentials?
|
||||
|
||||
#### Axis 2 — Hidden dependencies (P3/P4 "zero file overlap"): REVISE → G-002 (conf 0.85)
|
||||
The "zero file overlap" claim is true for EDITS but false for VERIFICATION.
|
||||
P3's `render_pptx.py` parsing logic depends on the deck markdown structure
|
||||
that P4 is simultaneously trimming; P4's verify step runs `render_slides.sh`
|
||||
that P3 is mid-editing. **Binding revision G-002:** serialize P3→P4.
|
||||
**Response:** In the same-account case (the scaffold today, per
|
||||
`core/environments/dev.json`), yes — the deploy role has access to the
|
||||
shared state bucket and the resources are in the same account. The
|
||||
`terraform init -reconfigure` re-points to the prior env's state key
|
||||
within the same bucket. Cross-account is explicitly out of scope
|
||||
(D-205). **Confidence: 0.85.**
|
||||
|
||||
#### Axis 3 — Test inversion risk: PASS (conf 0.92)
|
||||
The plan's test-update list (Finding 5 / P5 tasks) is complete and accurate.
|
||||
Empirically confirmed all affected tests:
|
||||
- `test_marp_deck_not_using_default_theme` (line 66-74: invert — we now USE
|
||||
`theme: default`) ✓ plan mentions
|
||||
- `test_marp_deck_uses_sp_theme` (line 55-64: rewrite to assert inline `style:`
|
||||
block) ✓ plan mentions
|
||||
- `test_theme_css_*` trio (lines 275, 284, 295: retarget to inline `style:`) ✓
|
||||
- `test_html_embeds_theme` (line 353: `--sp-red` → `#D6002A`) ✓ plan mentions
|
||||
- `test_source_md_*` pair (lines 240, 266: delete — plain `.md` gone) ✓
|
||||
- `test_render_slides_script_renders_marp` (line 92: still produces `.pptx`
|
||||
via marp-cli for the fallback PPTX) — ✓ plan handles
|
||||
- No latent assertions missed. The plan's enumeration is thorough.
|
||||
**Challenge:** Does `deletion_protection: false` injection work the same
|
||||
way as decommission Step 2?
|
||||
|
||||
#### Axis 4 — Image-inlining correctness: PASS (conf 0.95)
|
||||
Empirically verified the rendered HTML at
|
||||
`docs/presentations/nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery.html` uses plain
|
||||
`<img src="assets/png/platform-pipeline.png" ...>` and
|
||||
`<img src="assets/png/telemetry-live-ops.png" ...>` — standard `<img>` tags
|
||||
inside Marp's SVG `<foreignObject>` wrapper. Zero `xlink:href` occurrences.
|
||||
The `inline_images.py` regex (`<img\s+src="([^"]+)"`) will match. The 2
|
||||
`data:image` matches already in the HTML are Marp OSC onscreen-control SVG
|
||||
icons (CSS backgrounds, not slide images) — not a conflict. **P0 risk
|
||||
cleared.**
|
||||
**Response:** Yes. `scripts/run_decommission.sh:34-37` sets
|
||||
`res['nfrs']['deletion_protection'] = False` on every resource. The
|
||||
contract resolver propagates `inputs.deletion_protection` to children's
|
||||
NFRs (`core/contract_resolver.py:360-372`). The env-transition destroy
|
||||
step must resolve with `environment_override=prior_env` AND inject
|
||||
`deletion_protection=false` into the contract inputs before resolving.
|
||||
This is a confirmed pattern. **Confidence: 0.90.**
|
||||
|
||||
#### Axis 5 — python-pptx parser complexity: REVISE → G-003 (conf 0.80)
|
||||
The parser must handle 10+ distinct markdown constructs (frontmatter, `---`
|
||||
separators, H1/H2, bullets, bold leads, blockquotes, fenced code, images,
|
||||
markdown tables, `<div class="benefit">` HTML blocks) plus edge cases
|
||||
(tables with `**bold**` R/A cells, nested bullets, `class:tall` image alt
|
||||
text) plus two python-pptx constraints (no CSS font fallback — single
|
||||
`font.name`; blank layout has no bullets — must inject `<a:buChar>` XML).
|
||||
Finding 3 confirmed the APIs exist but the parser is non-trivial. With P3
|
||||
on the serial critical path (G-002), an overflow blocks everything.
|
||||
**Binding revision G-003:** split P3 into P3a (inline_images + render_slides.sh
|
||||
+ pyproject — low-risk mechanical) and P3b (render_pptx.py + parser + the
|
||||
attach_release_asset.py extension — high-risk).
|
||||
**Verdict:** FEASIBLE.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Axis 6 — Benefit callout `<div>` in Marp: PASS (conf 0.95)
|
||||
Empirically verified by rendering a minimal test deck through
|
||||
`@marp-team/marp-cli@4.5.0` (the pinned version): `<div class="benefit">text</div>`
|
||||
passes through verbatim into the rendered `<section>`. Marpit's `html: true`
|
||||
option is on by default; no sanitization of styling divs. The `.benefit` class
|
||||
in the inline `style:` block will apply. P2's restyle approach is valid.
|
||||
**P0 risk cleared.**
|
||||
## Axis 2: Scope
|
||||
|
||||
#### Axis 7 — "penetrate" removal completeness: REVISE → G-001 (conf 0.85)
|
||||
CRITICAL gap. The plan's verify step `grep -ri penetrat docs/presentations/`
|
||||
misses `docs/scope.md` (line 16: "Nova never penetrates the PDLC") and
|
||||
`docs/vision.md` (line 18: "It does not penetrate upstream product or
|
||||
software development lifecycles") — the repo's two core strategic docs. The
|
||||
term also appears in every `.ciagent/` file (PLAN, REQUIREMENTS, RESEARCH,
|
||||
CLARIFY, ROADMAP, PROJECT, PERSONAS, NORTH_STAR). The deck does not link out
|
||||
to these docs, but they are audience-reachable via the repo.
|
||||
**Binding revision G-001:** purge "penetrate" (and derivatives) from the
|
||||
entire repo — `docs/` AND `.ciagent/`. P4's verify step becomes
|
||||
`grep -ri penetrat docs/ .ciagent/` returns nothing. `test_no_penetrate_term`
|
||||
asserts the same. The deleted plain `.md` (P1) already removes its
|
||||
occurrence; `docs/scope.md` + `docs/vision.md` reworded in P4; all
|
||||
`.ciagent/` files reworded across the relevant phases (the phase that owns
|
||||
each file's edit window).
|
||||
**Challenge:** Is 4 phases (P1-P3 + P4) the right size, or is this
|
||||
over-scoped?
|
||||
|
||||
#### Axis 8 — Wave 3 parallelization feasibility: REVISE → G-002 (conf 0.85)
|
||||
Resolved by G-002 (serialize P3→P4). Wave 3 is no longer parallel. P3's
|
||||
`render_slides.sh` is stable before P4 runs its verify render; P3's parser
|
||||
is tested against the current (untrimmed) deck before P4 trims it.
|
||||
**Response:** 15 requirements across 3 execution phases is
|
||||
well-scoped. P1 (7 REQs, all docs/test) is the largest by count but the
|
||||
smallest by effort (text edits + test assertions). P2 (6 REQs, feat) is
|
||||
the core implementation. P3 (2 REQs, test) is coverage. P4 is final
|
||||
review. This is a tight, coherent milestone. **Confidence: 0.88.**
|
||||
|
||||
#### Axis 9 — Phase count vs. value: REVISE → G-004 (conf 0.80)
|
||||
G-003 split P3 (→8 phases); G-004 merges P5+P6 to compensate. P6
|
||||
(final-review-ship) for an NFR docs-only milestone is largely ceremonial —
|
||||
the review/audit/ship work folds into P5's final commits. **Binding revision
|
||||
G-004:** merge P5+P6. Net phase count returns to 7.
|
||||
**Challenge:** Should the cross-account destroy be in scope?
|
||||
|
||||
#### Axis 10 — Versioning: PASS (conf 0.95)
|
||||
`git tag --list 'v1.22.*'` returns nothing — no conflicts. The v1.21.x line
|
||||
(v1.21.0..v1.21.6) is the precedent; v1.23 tags v1.22.0..v1.22.6 per the
|
||||
revised phase plan (G-003 split shifts tag numbers; G-004 merge keeps the
|
||||
final at v1.22.6).
|
||||
**Response:** No. The scaffold is single-account. Adding cross-account
|
||||
would require assuming the prior env's role, which needs a trust policy
|
||||
the scaffold doesn't have yet. Deferring is pragmatic. The Out of Scope
|
||||
section documents this. **Confidence: 0.85.**
|
||||
|
||||
**Verdict:** PROPERLY-SCOPED.
|
||||
|
||||
## Axis 3: Cost / ROI
|
||||
|
||||
**Challenge:** Is the env-transition feature worth the complexity?
|
||||
|
||||
**Response:** Yes. The user identified a real orphaned-resources risk
|
||||
that violates the platform's full-lifecycle-management mission. The
|
||||
fix is a ~80-line Python module + a shell block. The alternative
|
||||
(blocking env edits, forcing Shape B) contradicts the user's directive.
|
||||
The ROI is high: closes a real lifecycle gap with minimal code.
|
||||
**Confidence: 0.90.**
|
||||
|
||||
**Verdict:** JUSTIFIED.
|
||||
|
||||
## Axis 4: Correctness
|
||||
|
||||
**Challenge:** The `detect_prior_env` query — is querying by
|
||||
`contractId#submittedAt` SK prefix correct for finding the last-applied
|
||||
env?
|
||||
|
||||
**Response:** The `nova-contracts` table has PK `consumerRepo` and SK
|
||||
`contractId#submittedAt`. To find the last record for a given
|
||||
contractId, we query by PK `consumerRepo` + SK `begins_with
|
||||
"contractId#"` + FilterExpression `status = "submitted"` (or
|
||||
`#LAST_APPLIED`), sort by `submittedAt` desc, take the first. This is
|
||||
correct DynamoDB pattern. The `record_applied_env` step writes a new
|
||||
item with SK `contractId#LAST_APPLIED#<timestamp>` so the detect step
|
||||
can filter by `begins_with "contractId#LAST_APPLIED#"`. **Confidence:
|
||||
0.85.**
|
||||
|
||||
**Challenge:** What if the DynamoDB table doesn't exist in local/CI
|
||||
mode?
|
||||
|
||||
**Response:** The detect step catches `ClientError` / `EndpointNotFound`,
|
||||
logs a warning, and returns `None` (no prior env). The pipeline proceeds
|
||||
normally. This is the conservative path — no false-positive destroys.
|
||||
**Confidence: 0.90.**
|
||||
|
||||
**Verdict:** CORRECT.
|
||||
|
||||
## Axis 5: Testing
|
||||
|
||||
**Challenge:** Can the env-transition behavior be tested without live
|
||||
AWS?
|
||||
|
||||
**Response:** Yes. `test_env_transition.py` uses moto for DynamoDB
|
||||
(mock_aws pattern from `test_contract_ingestor.py:74-110`).
|
||||
`test_run_platform_env_transition.py` uses shell-text assertions
|
||||
(pattern from `test_pipeline.py:79-95`). No live AWS needed.
|
||||
**Confidence: 0.92.**
|
||||
|
||||
**Verdict:** TESTABLE.
|
||||
|
||||
## Axis 6: Security
|
||||
|
||||
**Challenge:** Does the destroy step introduce a risk of destroying the
|
||||
wrong resources?
|
||||
|
||||
**Response:** The destroy targets the prior env's state key
|
||||
(`spike/{id}/{prior_env}/terraform.tfstate`). The state key is
|
||||
deterministic and env-scoped. The destroy can only affect resources in
|
||||
that state file. The `deletion_protection=false` injection is scoped to
|
||||
the destroy step only — the new env's apply runs with the default
|
||||
`deletion_protection=true`. **Confidence: 0.88.**
|
||||
|
||||
**Challenge:** Could a malicious consumer trigger a destroy of another
|
||||
consumer's resources?
|
||||
|
||||
**Response:** No. The DynamoDB query is scoped by PK `consumerRepo`
|
||||
(the consumer's own repo identity). The destroy runs under the
|
||||
consumer's ABAC-scoped deploy role, which can only touch resources
|
||||
tagged `nova:owner=<consumer-repo>`. A consumer cannot query or destroy
|
||||
another consumer's stack. **Confidence: 0.90.**
|
||||
|
||||
**Verdict:** SECURE.
|
||||
|
||||
## Axis 7: Maintainability
|
||||
|
||||
**Challenge:** Is the `core/env_transition.py` module a clean
|
||||
abstraction or a one-off?
|
||||
|
||||
**Response:** It's a reusable module with two functions
|
||||
(`detect_prior_env`, `record_applied_env`) that encapsulate the
|
||||
DynamoDB query logic. It can be extended for cross-account destroy in a
|
||||
future milestone. The shell Step 0b is a thin orchestrator. This is
|
||||
maintainable. **Confidence: 0.85.**
|
||||
|
||||
**Verdict:** MAINTAINABLE.
|
||||
|
||||
## Axis 8: Docs consistency
|
||||
|
||||
**Challenge:** Will the consumer guide be internally consistent after
|
||||
P1?
|
||||
|
||||
**Response:** The 5 fixes address all known inconsistencies: field
|
||||
table ↔ schema, Step 2 ↔ Step 4, Step 5 ↔ environments doc, Step 8 ↔
|
||||
per-env section, reference table ↔ sample contracts. The test updates
|
||||
assert both shapes are documented. A manual end-to-end read in P1's
|
||||
verification step catches any remaining inconsistency. **Confidence:
|
||||
0.88.**
|
||||
|
||||
**Verdict:** CONSISTENT.
|
||||
|
||||
## Axis 9: Adversarial
|
||||
|
||||
**Challenge:** What if the consumer edits `environment:` AND changes
|
||||
other inputs simultaneously? Does the destroy-then-apply still work?
|
||||
|
||||
**Response:** Yes. The destroy step re-resolves the contract with
|
||||
`environment_override=prior_env` — the other input changes are
|
||||
irrelevant to the destroy (it destroys whatever is in the prior env's
|
||||
state). The new apply resolves with the new env + new inputs. The two
|
||||
operations are independent. **Confidence: 0.85.**
|
||||
|
||||
**Challenge:** What if the prior env's state was already manually
|
||||
destroyed (e.g., via decommission)?
|
||||
|
||||
**Response:** `terraform destroy` against an empty state is a no-op
|
||||
(exits 0). The detect step still detects the prior env from DynamoDB,
|
||||
but the destroy is a no-op. The apply proceeds. This is correct
|
||||
behavior — no false failure. **Confidence: 0.88.**
|
||||
|
||||
**Verdict:** ROBUST.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Binding Decisions
|
||||
## Binding revisions applied
|
||||
|
||||
| ID | Decision | Confidence | Rationale |
|
||||
|----|----------|-----------|----------|
|
||||
| G-001 | Purge "penetrate" (and derivatives) from the entire repo — `docs/` AND `.ciagent/`, not just `docs/presentations/`. P4 verify: `grep -ri penetrat docs/ .ciagent/` returns nothing. `test_no_penetrate_term` asserts the same. `docs/scope.md:16` + `docs/vision.md:18` reworded in P4; all `.ciagent/` files reworded in the phase that owns each file's edit window. | 0.85 | The term appears in the repo's two core strategic docs (audience-reachable) and all internal metadata. REQ-272 says "removed from all presentation files"; the user confirmed a full-repo purge (politically loaded term). The plan's `docs/presentations/`-only grep is a gap. |
|
||||
| G-002 | Serialize P3→P4. Wave 3 is no longer parallel. P3 completes (stable `render_slides.sh` + tested parser against the current deck) before P4 trims the deck + purges "penetrate" (per G-001). C8's parallelization rationale is overruled. | 0.85 | "Zero file overlap" is true for edits but false for verification: P3's parser depends on the deck structure P4 is trimming; P4's verify render depends on P3's `render_slides.sh` being stable. The interaction risk is the failure mode. |
|
||||
| G-003 | Split P3 into P3a (inline_images.py + render_slides.sh inline-images step + pyproject.toml — low-risk mechanical) and P3b (render_pptx.py + the full markdown parser + render_slides.sh python-pptx step + attach_release_asset.py extension — high-risk). Both serial in Wave 3. | 0.80 | The parser handles 10+ markdown constructs + python-pptx XML constraints (font fallback, bullet injection); on the serial critical path (G-002) an overflow blocks everything. Splitting isolates the high-risk work. |
|
||||
| G-004 | Merge P5+P6. P5 absorbs the final-review/audit/ship work (multi-persona review, reconstruction audit, milestone merge, tag, release, branch cleanup, REQUIREMENTS/ROADMAP update) as its final commits. Tag v1.22.6 = milestone release. | 0.80 | For an NFR docs-only milestone, a dedicated review/ship phase is ceremonial overhead. P5 already asserts the final state via tests. The merge compensates for the G-003 split, returning to 7 phases. |
|
||||
1. **R1 (docs):** Add to RESEARCH.md pitfalls: the destroy step must
|
||||
inject `deletion_protection=false` into the contract inputs before
|
||||
re-resolving with `environment_override=prior_env`. Without this,
|
||||
`prevent_destroy` lifecycle blocks (REQ-86) block the destroy. This
|
||||
is already noted in RESEARCH §5 pitfall 3 and PLAN P2 implementation
|
||||
note 3. No change needed — already captured.
|
||||
|
||||
### Escalations
|
||||
2. **R2 (docs):** Clarify in PLAN P2 that the `record_applied_env` SK
|
||||
format is `contractId#LAST_APPLIED#<timestamp>` so the detect step
|
||||
can query `begins_with "contractId#LAST_APPLIED#"`. This is already
|
||||
in RESEARCH §2 and GRILL Axis 4. No change needed — already captured.
|
||||
|
||||
None. All axes resolved at confidence ≥ 0.78. Two axes (4 and 6) were
|
||||
escalation candidates (P0 risks if the empirical checks failed) but both
|
||||
were cleared by direct verification — the rendered HTML uses plain `<img
|
||||
src="assets/...">` (not SVG xlink:href), and Marp 4.5.0 passes through
|
||||
`<div class="benefit">` verbatim (empirically confirmed with a minimal test
|
||||
deck).
|
||||
## Escalations
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Revised Wave/Phase Plan (post-revisions)
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Wave 1 (P1): consolidate-docs (edits -marp.md, deletes plain .md)
|
||||
↓
|
||||
Wave 2 (P2): restore-clean-style (edits -marp.md frontmatter +
|
||||
↓ benefit callouts; edits render_slides.sh; retires
|
||||
nova-sp-theme.css from render)
|
||||
↓
|
||||
Wave 3 (P3a → P3b, serial):
|
||||
P3a: inline-images (inline_images.py + render_slides.sh step + pyproject)
|
||||
↓
|
||||
P3b: python-pptx-generator (render_pptx.py + parser + render_slides.sh
|
||||
step + attach_release_asset.py extension)
|
||||
↓
|
||||
Wave 4 (P4): trim-wordcount + purge "penetrate" (edits -marp.md +
|
||||
↓ talking-points.md + docs/scope.md + docs/vision.md +
|
||||
all .ciagent/ files per G-001)
|
||||
↓
|
||||
Wave 5 (P5+P6 merged): ci-tests-readme + final-review-ship (tests, CI,
|
||||
README, multi-persona review, audit, ship —
|
||||
tag v1.22.6 = milestone release)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Revised Tag Plan
|
||||
|
||||
- v1.22.0 (P0 — already tagged)
|
||||
- v1.22.1 (P1)
|
||||
- v1.22.2 (P2)
|
||||
- v1.22.3 (P3a)
|
||||
- v1.22.4 (P3b)
|
||||
- v1.22.5 (P4)
|
||||
- v1.22.6 (P5+P6 merged — final patch = milestone release)
|
||||
|
||||
### P4 expanded scope (per G-001)
|
||||
|
||||
P4 now owns, in addition to the deck word-count trim:
|
||||
- `docs/scope.md:16` — reword "Nova never penetrates the PDLC"
|
||||
- `docs/vision.md:18` — reword "It does not penetrate upstream product or
|
||||
software development lifecycles"
|
||||
- `.ciagent/PLAN.md`, `REQUIREMENTS.md`, `RESEARCH.md`, `CLARIFY.md`,
|
||||
`ROADMAP.md`, `PROJECT.md`, `PERSONAS.md`, `NORTH_STAR.md` — reword every
|
||||
"penetrate" occurrence (or the phase that owns each file's edit window
|
||||
does so; P4 is the natural owner since it owns the "penetrate" removal
|
||||
requirement REQ-272).
|
||||
|
||||
### P5 expanded scope (per G-004)
|
||||
|
||||
P5 now owns, in addition to the test/CI/README work:
|
||||
- Multi-persona code review (`ciagent-review`) of the milestone branch
|
||||
- Audit (`ciagent-audit`) — reconstruction test + .ciagent discipline
|
||||
- Milestone ship (`ciagent-ship`) — merge to milestone branch → main, tag
|
||||
v1.22.6, release with both PPTX attached, delete milestone branches
|
||||
- Update REQUIREMENTS.md (mark v1.23 complete) + ROADMAP.md (mark v1.23
|
||||
complete)
|
||||
- Commit: `docs(milestone): complete v1.23 — Nova Deck Cleanup & Python PPTX`
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Evidence Index
|
||||
|
||||
- Image format: `docs/presentations/nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery.html`
|
||||
grep — 2× `<img src="assets/png/...">`, 0× `xlink:href`
|
||||
- Marp `<div>` passthrough: minimal test deck rendered through
|
||||
`@marp-team/marp-cli@4.5.0` → `<div class="benefit">` survives verbatim
|
||||
- Versioning: `git tag --list 'v1.22.*'` → empty (no conflicts)
|
||||
- "penetrate" occurrences: `grep -riI penetrat` → docs/scope.md:16,
|
||||
docs/vision.md:18, docs/presentations/{-marp.md, .html, .md,
|
||||
-talking-points.md}, all .ciagent/*.md
|
||||
- Test inversion targets: tests/test_slides_pipeline.py lines 55-64
|
||||
(rewrite), 66-74 (invert), 240-270 (delete), 275-302 (retarget), 353-359
|
||||
(assert #D6002A not --sp-red)
|
||||
- Benefit callout count: 21 `**Benefit:**` in current deck → 21
|
||||
`<div class="benefit">` in P2
|
||||
None. All challenges resolved at full autonomy.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user