Add seeded buyer demo story#82
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
Note
Copilot couldn't run its full agentic review because no GitHub Actions runner was available. Make sure your repository has a runner available to run Copilot's review, or add a copilot-setup-steps.yml file specifying one with the runs-on attribute. See the docs for more details.
Adds a deterministic “Load demo story” seed to the buyer-demo root shell, backed by a static JSON fixture, to support repeatable screenshots/FigJam handoff without introducing backend or DB seeding.
Changes:
- Adds a
Load demo storybutton to the root shell UI and wires it to a newloadDemoData()flow indemo.js. - Introduces
demo-fixtures.jsonto seed session-history + KPI snapshot/export evidence, and updates tests to validate the new assets/hook. - Documents the seeded demo-story plan and verification evidence across diligence/QA/design docs.
Reviewed changes
Copilot reviewed 11 out of 15 changed files in this pull request and generated 6 comments.
Show a summary per file
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| src/test/java/com/clearfolio/viewer/controller/ViewerUiControllerTest.java | Extends UI/static-asset tests and adds a fixture-shape validation test. |
| src/main/resources/static/assets/viewer/demo.js | Implements fixture loading + seeded job detail rendering path. |
| src/main/resources/static/assets/viewer/demo-fixtures.json | Adds static seeded demo dataset (history + KPI snapshot/exports). |
| src/main/java/com/clearfolio/viewer/controller/ViewerUiController.java | Adds the Load demo story button to the root-shell HTML. |
| docs/superpowers/plans/2026-07-03-seeded-buyer-demo-story.md | Captures the plan/spec for the seeded demo story slice. |
| docs/qa/evidence/2026-07-02-krw2b-sale-readiness/seeded-demo-story-verification.md | Adds runnable verification + screenshot evidence writeup. |
| docs/qa/evidence/2026-07-02-krw2b-sale-readiness/README.md | Updates evidence index with seeded screenshot proof entry. |
| docs/plans/2026-07-02-krw2b-sale-readiness-execution-plan.md | Records seeded-demo progress items in the execution plan. |
| docs/diligence/2026-07-02-buyer-diligence-index.md | Updates diligence index to reference seeded demo story + screenshots. |
| docs/design/2026-07-02-buyer-demo-kpi-figjam-handoff.md | Documents FigJam additions + seeded demo story flow mermaid. |
| README.md | Updates top-level scope/claim boundary to include the seeded demo story. |
💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.
|
Follow-up update for KRW 2B sale-readiness work:
Local verification at head
|
|
Sale-readiness follow-up evidence for head 7dcb1ba:
Local verification on 2026-07-03 Asia/Seoul:
GitHub queued checks and review-required state remain external process state, not implementation blockers for this slice. |
|
Sale-readiness follow-up evidence for head
Fresh local verification on 2026-07-03 Asia/Seoul:
GitHub queued checks and review-required state remain external process state, not implementation blockers for this slice. |
|
Figma/FigJam follow-up for head
|
|
Attribution gate update for KRW 2B buyer-readiness slice:
Fresh verification on head
Current PR state after push: mergeable, review required, and GitHub checks |
|
Production auth readiness update for buyer-readiness slice:
Fresh verification on head
Current PR state after push: mergeable, review required, and GitHub checks |
|
Buyer data-room manifest gate update:
Fresh verification on head
Current PR state after push: mergeable, review required, and GitHub checks |
|
Added buyer-readiness scorecard gate in a6c2916. What changed:
Verification run locally:
Current PR state after push: head a6c2916, mergeable MERGEABLE, reviewDecision REVIEW_REQUIRED, queued checks coverage-evidence/scan-pr-queue/strix. Review process and queued GitHub checks are not treated as blockers for continuing the sale-readiness program. |
|
Added Figma Slides payload gate in 49bcc87. What changed:
Verification run locally:
Current PR state after push: head 49bcc87, mergeable MERGEABLE, reviewDecision REVIEW_REQUIRED, queued checks coverage-evidence/scan-pr-queue/strix. Review process and queued GitHub checks are not treated as blockers for continuing the sale-readiness program. |
Buyer manifest ready-gate hardening evidenceCommit: Implemented a tighter buyer data-room manifest gate: any readiness gate marked Figma / Product Design evidence:
Ponytail architecture decision:
TDD evidence:
Verification run locally:
Live PR state after push:
|
Buyer readiness scorecard integrity metric evidenceCommit: Added an explicit Data Analytics integrity metric to the generated buyer readiness scorecard: What changed:
TDD evidence:
Verification run locally after this commit:
Live PR state after push:
|
OpenCode Review Overview
Pull request overviewOpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass. Review outcome1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence
Coverage evidenceCoverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence. Changed-File Evidence Mapflowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Changed file (15 files)"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (15 files)"]
R1 --> V1["required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Docs (35 files)"]
S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs (35 files)"]
R2 --> V2["docs review"]
Evidence --> S3["Test (4 files)"]
S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test (4 files)"]
R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
|
![opencode-agent[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1549082?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
OpenCode reviewed the current-head bounded evidence and found no blocking issues.
Findings
No blocking findings.
Summary
Approval sufficiency: bounded evidence supplied affirmative approval evidence for changed files, coverage/docstring posture, risk surfaces, and current-head verification; approval is not based merely on the absence of known blockers.
Verification posture: CodeGraph evidence was initialized and bounded current-head evidence reviewed for changed-file evidence including AGENTS.md, README.md, docs/architecture.md, docs/deployment/2026-07-02-buyer-deployment-integration-playbook.md, docs/design/2026-07-02-buyer-demo-kpi-figjam-handoff.md, and 40 more.
Linter/static: workflow/static review evidence is bounded by the current-head GitHub Checks gate and changed-file evidence.
TDD/regression: coverage execution evidence and focused changed hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Coverage: coverage execution evidence reports supported repository test suites passed.
Docstring coverage: coverage execution evidence reports configured repository docstring gates passed or docstring coverage was advisory.
DAG: CodeGraph/source-backed behavior map connects AGENTS.md to the affected review, runtime, or workflow path and required checks.
PoC/execution: coverage-evidence job executed on the current head and reported PASS.
DDD/domain: workflow and repository-governance invariants were reviewed against changed files in bounded evidence.
CDD/context: CodeGraph evidence, changed-file history, and focused hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Similar issues: changed-file history evidence was reviewed for comparable local precedents.
Claim/concept check: bounded evidence, repository source, current-head workflow evidence, and, where numeric, scientific, statistical, or literature-backed claims are affected, original-paper/formula evidence and parameter-recovery expectations were used for claims.
Standards search: standards and external-source checks are delegated to configured OpenCode web_search/Context7/DeepWiki sources when applicable; no evidence-backed standards blocker is present in bounded evidence.
Compatibility/convention: changed workflow/script conventions, object naming, and reserved-word safety for schema/API/config/code surfaces were checked in bounded evidence.
Breaking-change/backcompat: deployment evidence and changed-file history were checked for backward-compatibility risk.
Performance: changed surfaces were checked for performance risk in bounded evidence.
Developer experience: changed automation, review, test, setup, and maintenance surfaces were checked for helpful or obstructive DX impact in bounded evidence.
User experience: connected user, operator, API, CLI, documentation, review-comment, status-check, rendering, and workflow-reader behavior was checked for contradictions against code, docs, and tests in bounded evidence.
Visual/DOM: Playwright visual, DOM locator, ARIA snapshot, console, and responsive evidence were checked when a web UI surface was present; for non-web surfaces, API/CLI/log/docs/workflow interaction evidence was reviewed instead.
Accessibility/i18n: accessibility, localization, and human-readable text surfaces were checked where UI, CLI, API message, docs, logs, or review text changed.
Supply-chain/license: dependency, package, model, container, and external-tool changes were checked in bounded evidence.
Packaging: package, build, test, lint, and security contracts were checked in bounded evidence.
Security/privacy: workflow-token, review-gate, and repository-automation security/privacy boundaries were checked in bounded evidence.
- Result: APPROVE
- Reason: All tests passed, no failed checks, and documentation changes are well-documented.
- Head SHA:
241fd05d7875764babaa078b66818a1f52166f7d - Workflow run: 28629460016
- Workflow attempt: 1
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Changed file (15 files)"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (15 files)"]
R1 --> V1["required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Docs (35 files)"]
S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs (35 files)"]
R2 --> V2["docs review"]
Evidence --> S3["Test (4 files)"]
S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test (4 files)"]
R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01RjGVapDZ3k7V7zKYk16P4C
종료 사유: main에 의해 대체됨 (superseded)이 PR( 증거
핵심: 이 PR이 추가하려는 "seeded buyer demo story" 기능은 이미 main에 존재합니다.
따라서 이 Java 뷰어용 시드 데모 PR을 현재 Python main에 병합하면 무관한 프로젝트 전체가 유입되며, 데모 스토리 기능 자체는 이미 main의 commercial demo/buyer 런타임으로 대체(superseded)되었습니다. 승인(APPROVED)·MERGEABLE 상태이나 대상 브랜치가 완전히 교체되어 병합 가치가 없으므로 종료합니다. |
Pull request was closed
|
재오픈(오판 정정): 직전 자동 정리에서 이 PR을 'unrelated histories로 superseded'라고 닫았으나, 이는 잘못된 레포의 main(contextual-orchestrator의 5ecb5b2, Python)과 비교한 오류였습니다. clearfolio의 실제 main은 Java(pom.xml 존재)이고 base는 7df3ac8b이며, 본 PR(codex/seeded-buyer-demo-story)은 APPROVED·MERGEABLE 상태의 정상 PR입니다. 근거 오류로 닫은 것을 취소하고 재오픈합니다. |
|
Reopened after verification. This PR was closed as "superseded", but that close was based on incorrect evidence (it described main as a Python |
![github-actions[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.
Review outcome
1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence
-
Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was
cancelled, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head. -
Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.
-
Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports
successwith required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence. -
Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking
needs.coverage-evidence.result == successbefore posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present. -
Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
-
Reason: coverage-evidence result was
cancelled, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head454865b8778a4e3e4be6f22be290d436fafdbe53. -
Head SHA:
454865b8778a4e3e4be6f22be290d436fafdbe53 -
Workflow run: 28865888729
-
Workflow attempt: 1
Coverage evidence
Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Changed file (15 files)"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (15 files)"]
R1 --> V1["required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Docs (35 files)"]
S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs (35 files)"]
R2 --> V2["docs review"]
Evidence --> S3["Test (4 files)"]
S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test (4 files)"]
R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
seonghobae
dismissed
github-actions[bot]’s stale review
Dismissing: this REQUEST_CHANGES was based on head 454865b where the coverage-evidence job result was 'cancelled'. On the current head the coverage-evidence check passes (test/JaCoCo evidence proven: classes=49, line_missed=0, branch_missed=0). The block was a stale, superseded-commit artifact, not a real coverage gap.
Summary
Load demo storyseed to the existing Clearfolio buyer-demo root shelldemo-fixtures.jsonFigJam: https://www.figma.com/board/114nJPcTcQzXvAEIS9T4gM (
Clearfolio Seeded Buyer Demo Story Flow)Scope decisions
Verification
mvn -Dtest=ViewerUiControllerTest test-> 7 tests, 0 failuresmvn -DskipTests compile-> build success, no compiler warnings emittedmvn test-> 336 tests, 0 failures, 0 errors, 0 skippedclasses=49 line_missed=0 branch_missed=0node --check src/main/resources/static/assets/viewer/demo.js-> exit 0mvn -q -DskipTests javadoc:javadoc-> exit 0npx markdownlint-cli2 ...-> 6 files, 0 errorsuvx semgrep --config p/java --metrics=off --error --json --output /tmp/clearfolio-seeded-demo-semgrep.json src/main/java src/test/java-> 53 files, 60 rules, 0 findingspython3 scripts/check_sbom_license_policy.py --sbom docs/qa/evidence/2026-07-02-krw2b-sale-readiness/sbom-cyclonedx.json --policy docs/security/2026-07-02-license-policy.json-> 142 components, 136 allowed, 6 review-required, 0 violationsgit diff --check-> exit 0Review process and queued GitHub checks are not treated as blockers for continuing the sale-readiness program.