# Test Plan: Dispatch Content Addition to SDD Skill

## The Iron Law applies to edits

This is an EDIT to an existing skill. Same rule: no change without a failing test first. I must observe baseline behavior BEFORE deploying, not validate the text I already wrote.

The change is a **technique** addition (how to construct a dispatch), not a discipline rule. So I test for **correct application** and **gap detection**, not pressure compliance. But there's a hidden discipline question buried inside it (will agents skip items under pressure?), which I'll test separately.

---

## RED Phase: Baseline (without the change)

**Goal:** See what dispatches agents actually write when given the current SDD skill (no five-item guidance). This tells me whether the addition solves a real problem and reveals which items agents naturally omit.

**Method:** Give subagents a realistic SDD execution scenario — a multi-task plan with task briefs already written, an interface produced by an earlier task, and one genuine ambiguity in the brief. Ask them to dispatch a subagent for one task. Capture the verbatim dispatch text.

**Sample size:** 7–10 baseline runs. Variation in dispatch content is high, so I need enough to see the distribution of what gets omitted.

**Scoring (per dispatch):** For each of the five proposed items, mark present / absent / partial. Record:
- Which items are spontaneously included
- Which are omitted (these are the items the change must justify)
- How the brief is introduced (does the agent already signal "this is your requirements"?)
- Whether agents over-stuff dispatches with content that belongs in the brief

**What I'm looking for:** If agents already include item N reliably, that item is redundant guidance. If they consistently omit an item AND the omission causes downstream failure, that item earns its place.

---

## GREEN Phase: With the change

**Method:** Same scenarios, same task, but the skill now contains the five-item guidance. Fresh subagents (no memory of baseline).

**Sample size:** 10 runs across at least 3 distinct scenario shapes:
- A task with NO upstream interface (item 3 should be absent — test they don't fabricate one)
- A task with NO ambiguity (item 4 should be absent — test they don't invent ambiguity to fill the slot)
- A task with both (all five items apply)

This variation matters: a checklist-style instruction risks agents mechanically emitting all five even when 3 and 4 don't apply.

**Controls:**
- Same model, same scenario prompts as baseline
- Subagents have no exposure to the addition's wording outside the skill
- Hold the scenario fixed between RED and GREEN; only the skill text changes

---

## Scoring rubric

Per dispatch, score these independently:

| Dimension | Pass condition |
|-----------|----------------|
| Completeness | All *applicable* items present |
| Suppression | Items 3/4 correctly absent when not applicable (no fabrication) |
| Brief framing | Brief introduced as authoritative requirements |
| No leakage | Requirements detail lives in brief, not duplicated/contradicted in dispatch |
| Downstream success | Receiving subagent produces correct output and writes report to the stated path |

**Critical control — the second-hop test:** Don't just score the dispatch text. Actually *run* the dispatched subagent on the dispatch the first agent produced. A dispatch can look complete and still fail to orient the receiver. This is the real acceptance signal: did the receiving agent build the right thing without re-asking?

---

## Acceptance criteria

Deploy only if ALL hold:

1. **Completeness:** ≥9/10 GREEN dispatches include all applicable items (baseline must have been materially worse — if baseline already hit 9/10, the change adds nothing and I reject it).
2. **No false items:** 0 cases of fabricated interfaces or invented ambiguity in scenarios where items 3/4 don't apply.
3. **Second-hop success:** ≥9/10 receiving subagents complete the task correctly and write to the report path without clarification requests.
4. **No regression:** GREEN dispatches are not longer/noisier than baseline in a way that buries requirements (brief remains the source of truth; dispatch stays a pointer).

If item-3 fabrication or checklist-padding shows up, that's a REFACTOR signal: reword from "your dispatch should contain" (implies always-all-five) to conditional phrasing ("include when present"), then re-test.

---

## Why this shape

- The addition is technique guidance, so the primary test is **application + gap detection**, not academic recall.
- The two highest risks for any numbered-list instruction are (a) mechanical inclusion of inapplicable items and (b) the dispatch ballooning until it competes with the brief. Both get explicit acceptance gates.
- The second-hop test is the only one that measures the actual goal: a dispatched agent that succeeds. Scoring dispatch text alone would be a proxy that can pass while the real outcome fails.