msd-core/gsd-core/references/failing-direction.md

Check 8f — Stated Failing Direction (#3172)

Reference file for gsd-plan-checker agent. Loaded on-demand via @ reference.

Question: For each runnable <automated> command, does the plan say what output constitutes failure?

Checks 8a–8d ask whether an acceptance command is present, and Verify Command Path Resolvability asks whether its target resolves. This one asks whether the command is falsifiable at all. A command with no expressible failure mode is not an acceptance test — it reads as rigour and delivers none.

#3172: a planner emitted 21 <automated> commands that could not run. Cargo exited non-zero, so that instance failed loudly — luck, not design. The same class of error with a command that exits 0 on a no-op passes green and silently. Requiring a stated failing direction is the only shape that catches the silent case, because it forces the plan to name the failure signal rather than assume the command has one.

The contract

<verify>
  <automated>npm --prefix apps/api test -- auth.spec.ts</automated>
  <fails_when>non-zero exit, or "0 passed" in the summary line</fails_when>
</verify>

Within one <task>, each <fails_when> binds to the nearest preceding <automated>; a command's binding statement is the first one that follows it. N runnable commands need N statements.

Do not hand-reason this

gsd-core/workflows/plan-phase.md runs the deterministic probe before spawning this checker and interpolates the result into the verification prompt as {FAILING_DIRECTIONS}, inside a <failing_direction_probe> block. This check reads that already-supplied JSON — it never invokes gsd_run check verify-failure-directions itself. If {FAILING_DIRECTIONS} is absent from the prompt, treat this check as silent (nothing to check) rather than trying to run the probe.

The probe never executes command text (PLAN.md is untrusted, LLM-authored). It is a presence recognizer: it proves a statement exists and is not a placeholder. It does not judge whether the statement names the right signal — that judgment is yours, below.

Process — act on severity only

severity	status	Action
blocker	missing	BLOCKER — quote the command verbatim: it has no stated failing direction
blocker	empty	BLOCKER — a <fails_when> is present but blank
blocker	placeholder	BLOCKER — quote the placeholder text; TBD is not a failure signal
warning	orphan	WARNING — a <fails_when> that follows no command; it satisfies nothing
none	ok / sentinel	silent

Rules:

• Report, never prescribe. State which command has no stated failure mode. Do not author the statement for the planner. A prescribed statement is copied verbatim and carries zero information — that reproduces #3172 one level up, exactly as the #2401 probe refuses to prescribe a replacement path.
• status: sentinel is a MISSING — Wave 0 must create … placeholder command. It is not runnable, so it has no failure mode to state. Not a finding. Say nothing; checks 8a/8d own it.
• A non-empty readError means the probe could not look. Report that as a WARNING in its own words; it is not a clean bill of health.
• Your added judgment, on ok rows only: a statement that is present, non-empty and non-placeholder can still be vacuous — "the command fails", "it doesn't work", "an error occurs" restate the word "failure" without naming an observable signal. Raise those as a WARNING, naming what a usable statement looks like (an exit code, a string in the output, a missing line). Do not escalate a vacuous statement to BLOCKER: the deterministic layer owns the blockers so that a BLOCKER is always reproducible, and prose judgment stays advisory.
• Length is not a signal. <fails_when>non-zero exit</fails_when> is a complete failing direction. There is no minimum length, word count, or required keyword.

Not in scope

A command that runs successfully and asserts nothing (a test-name filter matching zero tests and exiting 0) is the adjacent vacuous pass problem. It is explicitly out of scope for this check — see the issue's "Out of scope". Do not report it here.