ls /Users/fabianwesner/Herd/shop/app/ 2>/dev/null && echo "---" && ls /Users/fabianwesner/Herd/shop/app/Models/ 2>/dev/null && echo "---" && ls /Users/fabianwesner/Herd/shop/app/Http/ 2>/dev/null

Check existing app structure


Actions
Concerns
Http
Livewire
Models
Providers
Services
Support
---
User.php
---
Controllers


Bash

ls /Users/fabianwesner/Herd/shop/work/ 2>/dev/null || echo "No work directory yet"

Check if work directory exists


No work directory yet


ls /Users/fabianwesner/Herd/shop/database/migrations/ 2>/dev/null | head -20

Check existing migrations


0001_01_01_000000_create_users_table.php
0001_01_01_000001_create_cache_table.php
0001_01_01_000002_create_jobs_table.php
2025_08_14_170933_add_two_factor_columns_to_users_table.php


     1→# Shop
     2→
     3→Self-contained e-commerce platform with multi-tenant support, product catalog, cart, checkout, payments (mock PSP), order management, customer accounts, and an admin panel.
     4→
     5→## Tech Stack
     6→
     7→- PHP 8.4 / Laravel 12
     8→- Livewire v4 / Flux UI Free v2
     9→- Tailwind CSS v4
    10→- SQLite
    11→- Pest v4
    12→
    13→## Specs
    14→
    15→The complete specification is in `specs/`. Start with `specs/09-IMPLEMENTATION-ROADMAP.md` for the build order, then reference the other files as needed:
    16→
    17→- `specs/01-DATABASE-SCHEMA.md` - Database schema
    18→- `specs/02-API-ROUTES.md` - Routes and API endpoints
    19→- `specs/03-ADMIN-UI.md` - Admin panel
    20→- `specs/04-STOREFRONT-UI.md` - Storefront
    21→- `specs/05-BUSINESS-LOGIC.md` - Business logic
    22→- `specs/06-AUTH-AND-SECURITY.md` - Auth and security
    23→- `specs/07-SEEDERS-AND-TEST-DATA.md` - Seeders and test data
    24→- `specs/08-PLAYWRIGHT-E2E-PLAN.md` - E2E browser tests
    25→- `specs/09-IMPLEMENTATION-ROADMAP.md` - Implementation roadmap
    26→

# Shop

Self-contained e-commerce platform with multi-tenant support, product catalog, cart, checkout, payments (mock PSP), order management, customer accounts, and an admin panel.

## Tech Stack

- PHP 8.4 / Laravel 12
- Livewire v4 / Flux UI Free v2
- Tailwind CSS v4
- SQLite
- Pest v4

## Specs

The complete specification is in `specs/`. Start with `specs/09-IMPLEMENTATION-ROADMAP.md` for the build order, then reference the other files as needed:

- `specs/01-DATABASE-SCHEMA.md` - Database schema
- `specs/02-API-ROUTES.md` - Routes and API endpoints
- `specs/03-ADMIN-UI.md` - Admin panel
- `specs/04-STOREFRONT-UI.md` - Storefront
- `specs/05-BUSINESS-LOGIC.md` - Business logic
- `specs/06-AUTH-AND-SECURITY.md` - Auth and security
- `specs/07-SEEDERS-AND-TEST-DATA.md` - Seeders and test data
- `specs/08-PLAYWRIGHT-E2E-PLAN.md` - E2E browser tests
- `specs/09-IMPLEMENTATION-ROADMAP.md` - Implementation roadmap


ls /Users/fabianwesner/Herd/shop/.claude/agents/ 2>/dev/null || echo "No agents directory"

Check for custom agent definitions


No agents directory


Good. This is a fresh project with only default Laravel scaffolding. Now I have a comprehensive understanding of the scope:

- **12 phases** of implementation
- **143 E2E test cases** across 18 test files
- **~200+ Pest unit/feature tests** across the phases
- Full e-commerce platform: multi-tenant, catalog, cart, checkout, payments, orders, fulfillment, customer accounts, admin panel, search, analytics, apps/webhooks, polish

Let me now create the team and the work directory structure, then begin Phase 1.


Create work directory


(Bash completed with no output)


TeamCreate

E-commerce shop implementation - Phase-by-phase build with BDD, TDD, code review, QA, and controller sign-off


Now let me create the initial progress tracking file and the project plan, then set up tasks and spawn the Controller (persistent) and Phase 1 teammates.


Write

# Project Progress

## Overview
Self-contained e-commerce platform with multi-tenant support, 12 implementation phases.

## Phases

| Phase | Name | Status | Started | Completed |
|-------|------|--------|---------|-----------|
| 1 | Foundation (Migrations, Models, Middleware, Auth) | NOT STARTED | - | - |
| 2 | Catalog (Products, Variants, Inventory, Collections, Media) | NOT STARTED | - | - |
| 3 | Themes, Pages, Navigation, Storefront Layout | NOT STARTED | - | - |
| 4 | Cart, Checkout, Discounts, Shipping, Taxes | NOT STARTED | - | - |
| 5 | Payments, Orders, Fulfillment | NOT STARTED | - | - |
| 6 | Customer Accounts | NOT STARTED | - | - |
| 7 | Admin Panel | NOT STARTED | - | - |
| 8 | Search | NOT STARTED | - | - |
| 9 | Analytics | NOT STARTED | - | - |
| 10 | Apps and Webhooks | NOT STARTED | - | - |
| 11 | Polish | NOT STARTED | - | - |
| 12 | Full Test Suite Execution | NOT STARTED | - | - |
| - | Final E2E QA (143 test cases) | NOT STARTED | - | - |
| - | Adversarial QA | NOT STARTED | - | - |

## Current Phase
None - project plan pending Controller approval.


File created successfully at: /Users/fabianwesner/Herd/shop/work/progress.md

# Project Progress

## Overview
Self-contained e-commerce platform with multi-tenant support, 12 implementation phases.

## Phases

| Phase | Name | Status | Started | Completed |
|-------|------|--------|---------|-----------|
| 1 | Foundation (Migrations, Models, Middleware, Auth) | NOT STARTED | - | - |
| 2 | Catalog (Products, Variants, Inventory, Collections, Media) | NOT STARTED | - | - |
| 3 | Themes, Pages, Navigation, Storefront Layout | NOT STARTED | - | - |
| 4 | Cart, Checkout, Discounts, Shipping, Taxes | NOT STARTED | - | - |
| 5 | Payments, Orders, Fulfillment | NOT STARTED | - | - |
| 6 | Customer Accounts | NOT STARTED | - | - |
| 7 | Admin Panel | NOT STARTED | - | - |
| 8 | Search | NOT STARTED | - | - |
| 9 | Analytics | NOT STARTED | - | - |
| 10 | Apps and Webhooks | NOT STARTED | - | - |
| 11 | Polish | NOT STARTED | - | - |
| 12 | Full Test Suite Execution | NOT STARTED | - | - |
| - | Final E2E QA (143 test cases) | NOT STARTED | - | - |
| - | Adversarial QA | NOT STARTED | - | - |

## Current Phase
None - project plan pending Controller approval.


Now let me create the high-level tasks and spawn the Controller first (persistent across all phases).


TaskCreate

Phase 1: Foundation (Migrations, Models, Middleware, Auth)

Implement Phase 1 of the shop system: Environment/Config, Core Migrations, Core Models, Enums, Tenant Resolution Middleware, BelongsToStore Trait, Authentication (Admin + Customer), Authorization (Policies). This is the CRITICAL foundation everything else depends on. Follows specs/09-IMPLEMENTATION-ROADMAP.md Phase 1 (Steps 1.1-1.8).


Task #1 created successfully: Phase 1: Foundation (Migrations, Models, Middleware, Auth)


Phase 2: Catalog (Products, Variants, Inventory, Collections, Media)

Implement Phase 2: Product/Variant/Collection/Media models, migrations, services (ProductService, VariantMatrixService, InventoryService, HandleGenerator), media upload processing. Depends on Phase 1.


Task #2 created successfully: Phase 2: Catalog (Products, Variants, Inventory, Collections, Media)


Phase 3: Themes, Pages, Navigation, Storefront Layout

Implement Phase 3: Theme/Page/Navigation models, Storefront Blade layout, Livewire storefront components, NavigationService. Depends on Phase 1.


Task #3 created successfully: Phase 3: Themes, Pages, Navigation, Storefront Layout


Phase 4: Cart, Checkout, Discounts, Shipping, Taxes

Implement Phase 4: Cart/Checkout/Discount/Shipping/Tax models, CartService, DiscountService, ShippingCalculator, TaxCalculator, PricingEngine, CheckoutService state machine, checkout UI. Depends on Phases 2 and 3.


Task #4 created successfully: Phase 4: Cart, Checkout, Discounts, Shipping, Taxes


Phase 5: Payments, Orders, Fulfillment

Implement Phase 5: Customer/Order/Payment/Refund/Fulfillment models, MockPaymentProvider, OrderService, RefundService, FulfillmentService, bank transfer confirmation. Depends on Phase 4.


Task #5 created successfully: Phase 5: Payments, Orders, Fulfillment

Phase 5: Payments, Orders, Fulfillment


Phase 6: Customer Accounts

Implement Phase 6: Customer auth flow, account pages (dashboard, orders, addresses), cart merge on login. Depends on Phase 5.


Task #6 created successfully: Phase 6: Customer Accounts

Phase 6: Customer Accounts


Phase 7: Admin Panel

Implement Phase 7: Admin layout, dashboard, product/order/collection/customer/discount/settings/theme/page/navigation/analytics management. Depends on Phase 5.


Task #7 created successfully: Phase 7: Admin Panel

Phase 7: Admin Panel


Phase 8: Search

Implement Phase 8: FTS5 search, SearchService, ProductObserver, search UI (modal + results page). Depends on Phase 2.


Task #8 created successfully: Phase 8: Search

Phase 8: Search


Phase 9: Analytics

Implement Phase 9: Analytics events/daily tables, AnalyticsService, AggregateAnalytics job, admin analytics views. Depends on Phase 5.


Task #9 created successfully: Phase 9: Analytics

Phase 9: Analytics


Phase 10: Apps and Webhooks

Implement Phase 10: App/Installation/OAuth/Webhook models, WebhookService, DeliverWebhook job with retry and circuit breaker. Depends on Phase 5.


Task #10 created successfully: Phase 10: Apps and Webhooks

Phase 10: Apps and Webhooks


Phase 11: Polish

Implement Phase 11: Accessibility audit, responsive testing, dark mode, error pages, structured logging, comprehensive seed data. Depends on Phases 6-10.


Task #11 created successfully: Phase 11: Polish

Phase 11: Polish


Phase 12: Full Test Suite Execution

Execute full test suite: all unit/feature tests, browser tests, code style check, fresh migration+seed, manual smoke tests. Depends on Phase 11.


Task #12 created successfully: Phase 12: Full Test Suite Execution

Phase 12: Full Test Suite Execution


Now let me set up the task dependencies.


Updated task #2 blockedBy


Updated task #3 blockedBy


Updated task #4 blockedBy


Updated task #5 blockedBy


Updated task #6 blockedBy


Updated task #7 blockedBy


Updated task #8 blockedBy


Updated task #9 blockedBy


Updated task #10 blockedBy


Updated task #11 blockedBy


Updated task #12 blockedBy


Good, dependencies are set. Now let me spawn the Controller (persistent across all phases) and the Phase 1 BDD Expert to begin work.


Updated task #1 owner, status


Agent

controller

Controller - artifact auditor

Prompt:
You are the **Controller** for the shop project build. You persist across all phases.

## Your Role
You are an artifact auditor with veto power. You do NOT code, run tools, or use Playwright. You work exclusively from markdown artifacts and team lead reports. Your job is to enforce rigor by catching incomplete, ambiguous, or sloppy reporting from other teammates.

## What You Do
- Review markdown artifacts produced by other teammates (Gherkin specs, dev reports, code reviews, QA reports)
- Apply strict acceptance criteria checklists (detailed below)
- Issue APPROVE or VETO decisions
- When you veto, specify exactly what is missing and what must be re-done
- Produce sign-off files when all criteria are met

## What You Do NOT Do
- You do NOT write code
- You do NOT run tests or Playwright
- You do NOT use any tooling other than reading markdown files
- You do NOT look at source code directly

## Acceptance Criteria for Phase Sign-Off

**A. Gherkin Specs** (gherkin-specs.md and gherkin-review.md)
- Both files exist
- Traceability table maps every spec requirement to a Gherkin scenario, none missing
- Gherkin Reviewer provides written confirmation with exact count
- Both contain substantive self-assessments

**B. Dev Report** (dev-report.md)
- Exists and explains what was built and how
- Pest test cases listed and mapped to Gherkin scenarios
- Deviations documented with reasoning
- Honest self-assessment identifying weaknesses

**C. Code Review Report** (code-review.md)
- Quality metrics, thresholds, item-level PASS/FAIL
- Every item is PASS (no UNKNOWN, SKIPPED, PARTIAL, blank)
- Static analysis results with actual numbers
- Self-assessment with overall quality rating and remaining risks

**D. QA Report** (qa-report.md)
- Entry for every Gherkin scenario
- Every entry: what tested, how (Playwright actions), expected vs actual, PASS/FAIL
- All entries PASS
- Asset verification section (every page, images/assets found, loaded count, PASS/FAIL)
- URL verification section (every link, expected destination, actual result, PASS/FAIL)
- Regression check documented
- Substantive self-assessment

**E. Completeness & Consistency**
- Gherkin scenario count >= spec requirement count
- QA entry count >= Gherkin scenario count
- Pest test count >= Gherkin scenario count (excluding pure UI)
- No requirement unaccounted for across the chain

**F. Artifact Quality**
- No bare checklists without prose
- Every artifact has self-assessment
- Raised risks are resolved or explicitly accepted

## Current Status
The project is starting Phase 1: Foundation. Wait for the team lead to send you artifacts for review. When the team lead asks you to review, read the relevant files in `work/phase-1/` and apply the criteria above.

## Important
- Be rigorous but fair
- If something is genuinely good, say so
- If something is sloppy or incomplete, veto without hesitation
- Your sign-off file goes to `work/signoff-phase-{N}.md`
- Never use em-dash characters in your text output


Spawned successfully.
agent_id: controller@vivid-launching-llama
name: controller
team_name: vivid-launching-llama
The agent is now running and will receive instructions via mailbox.

controller

Prompt:
You are the **Controller** for the shop project build. You persist across all phases.

## Your Role
You are an artifact auditor with veto power. You do NOT code, run tools, or use Playwright. You work exclusively from markdown artifacts and team lead reports. Your job is to enforce rigor by catching incomplete, ambiguous, or sloppy reporting from other teammates.

## What You Do
- Review markdown artifacts produced by other teammates (Gherkin specs, dev reports, code reviews, QA reports)
- Apply strict acceptance criteria checklists (detailed below)
- Issue APPROVE or VETO decisions
- When you veto, specify exactly what is missing and what must be re-done
- Produce sign-off files when all criteria are met

## What You Do NOT Do
- You do NOT write code
- You do NOT run tests or Playwright
- You do NOT use any tooling other than reading markdown files
- You do NOT look at source code directly

## Acceptance Criteria for Phase Sign-Off

**A. Gherkin Specs** (gherkin-specs.md and gherkin-review.md)
- Both files exist
- Traceability table maps every spec requirement to a Gherkin scenario, none missing
- Gherkin Reviewer provides written confirmation with exact count
- Both contain substantive self-assessments

**B. Dev Report** (dev-report.md)
- Exists and explains what was built and how
- Pest test cases listed and mapped to Gherkin scenarios
- Deviations documented with reasoning
- Honest self-assessment identifying weaknesses

**C. Code Review Report** (code-review.md)
- Quality metrics, thresholds, item-level PASS/FAIL
- Every item is PASS (no UNKNOWN, SKIPPED, PARTIAL, blank)
- Static analysis results with actual numbers
- Self-assessment with overall quality rating and remaining risks

**D. QA Report** (qa-report.md)
- Entry for every Gherkin scenario
- Every entry: what tested, how (Playwright actions), expected vs actual, PASS/FAIL
- All entries PASS
- Asset verification section (every page, images/assets found, loaded count, PASS/FAIL)
- URL verification section (every link, expected destination, actual result, PASS/FAIL)
- Regression check documented
- Substantive self-assessment

**E. Completeness & Consistency**
- Gherkin scenario count >= spec requirement count
- QA entry count >= Gherkin scenario count
- Pest test count >= Gherkin scenario count (excluding pure UI)
- No requirement unaccounted for across the chain

**F. Artifact Quality**
- No bare checklists without prose
- Every artifact has self-assessment
- Raised risks are resolved or explicitly accepted

## Current Status
The project is starting Phase 1: Foundation. Wait for the team lead to send you artifacts for review. When the team lead asks you to review, read the relevant files in `work/phase-1/` and apply the criteria above.

## Important
- Be rigorous but fair
- If something is genuinely good, say so
- If something is sloppy or incomplete, veto without hesitation
- Your sign-off file goes to `work/signoff-phase-{N}.md`
- Never use em-dash characters in your text output


Agent

Phase 1 BDD Expert

Prompt:
You are the **BDD Expert** for Phase 1: Foundation of the shop project.

## Your Task
Read the Phase 1 requirements from `specs/09-IMPLEMENTATION-ROADMAP.md` (Steps 1.1 through 1.8) and rewrite them as Gherkin specifications. Save your output to `work/phase-1/gherkin-specs.md`.

## Phase 1 Scope (from the roadmap)
- Step 1.1: Environment and Config (SQLite, file cache/session, sync queue, log mail, customer guard)
- Step 1.2: Core Migrations (organizations, stores, store_domains, users modification, store_users, store_settings)
- Step 1.3: Core Models (Organization, Store, StoreDomain, StoreUser, StoreSettings) with relationships, factories, seeders
- Step 1.4: Enums (StoreStatus, StoreUserRole, StoreDomainType)
- Step 1.5: Tenant Resolution Middleware (ResolveStore - hostname lookup for storefront, session-based for admin, 404 unknown, 503 suspended, caching)
- Step 1.6: BelongsToStore Trait and Global Scope (StoreScope, auto-set store_id on creating)
- Step 1.7: Authentication (Admin login/logout with rate limiting, password reset; Customer auth with custom guard, CustomerUserProvider, login/register, per-store email uniqueness, rate limiting)
- Step 1.8: Authorization (Policies for Product, Order, Collection, Discount, Customer, Store, Page, Theme, Fulfillment, Refund with role-based permission matrix)

Also reference `specs/06-AUTH-AND-SECURITY.md` for auth details and `specs/01-DATABASE-SCHEMA.md` for schema details.

## Output Format for `work/phase-1/gherkin-specs.md`

The file must contain:
1. A clear list of every acceptance criterion from the phase spec
2. Each criterion mapped to one or more Gherkin scenarios (Feature/Scenario/Given/When/Then)
3. A traceability table: spec requirement ID/description mapped to Gherkin scenario name
4. A self-assessment section: Were any requirements ambiguous or hard to translate? How were they interpreted and why?

## Important Rules
- Create the directory `work/phase-1/` if it doesn't exist
- Cover EVERY requirement, not just the obvious ones
- Include edge cases (e.g., suspended stores, rate limiting, collision handling)
- Be specific in your Given/When/Then steps
- The traceability table must be exhaustive - if a requirement is missing a scenario, that is a failure
- Your self-assessment must be honest and substantive, not just "everything looks good"
- Never use em-dash characters in your text

When done, send a message to the team lead confirming completion.


Spawned successfully.
agent_id: bdd-expert-p1@vivid-launching-llama
name: bdd-expert-p1
team_name: vivid-launching-llama
The agent is now running and will receive instructions via mailbox.

Prompt:
You are the **BDD Expert** for Phase 1: Foundation of the shop project.

## Your Task
Read the Phase 1 requirements from `specs/09-IMPLEMENTATION-ROADMAP.md` (Steps 1.1 through 1.8) and rewrite them as Gherkin specifications. Save your output to `work/phase-1/gherkin-specs.md`.

## Phase 1 Scope (from the roadmap)
- Step 1.1: Environment and Config (SQLite, file cache/session, sync queue, log mail, customer guard)
- Step 1.2: Core Migrations (organizations, stores, store_domains, users modification, store_users, store_settings)
- Step 1.3: Core Models (Organization, Store, StoreDomain, StoreUser, StoreSettings) with relationships, factories, seeders
- Step 1.4: Enums (StoreStatus, StoreUserRole, StoreDomainType)
- Step 1.5: Tenant Resolution Middleware (ResolveStore - hostname lookup for storefront, session-based for admin, 404 unknown, 503 suspended, caching)
- Step 1.6: BelongsToStore Trait and Global Scope (StoreScope, auto-set store_id on creating)
- Step 1.7: Authentication (Admin login/logout with rate limiting, password reset; Customer auth with custom guard, CustomerUserProvider, login/register, per-store email uniqueness, rate limiting)
- Step 1.8: Authorization (Policies for Product, Order, Collection, Discount, Customer, Store, Page, Theme, Fulfillment, Refund with role-based permission matrix)

Also reference `specs/06-AUTH-AND-SECURITY.md` for auth details and `specs/01-DATABASE-SCHEMA.md` for schema details.

## Output Format for `work/phase-1/gherkin-specs.md`

The file must contain:
1. A clear list of every acceptance criterion from the phase spec
2. Each criterion mapped to one or more Gherkin scenarios (Feature/Scenario/Given/When/Then)
3. A traceability table: spec requirement ID/description mapped to Gherkin scenario name
4. A self-assessment section: Were any requirements ambiguous or hard to translate? How were they interpreted and why?

## Important Rules
- Create the directory `work/phase-1/` if it doesn't exist
- Cover EVERY requirement, not just the obvious ones
- Include edge cases (e.g., suspended stores, rate limiting, collision handling)
- Be specific in your Given/When/Then steps
- The traceability table must be exhaustive - if a requirement is missing a scenario, that is a failure
- Your self-assessment must be honest and substantive, not just "everything looks good"
- Never use em-dash characters in your text

When done, send a message to the team lead confirming completion.


The Controller and BDD Expert for Phase 1 are now spawned and working. The BDD Expert will read the Phase 1 specs and produce Gherkin specifications. I'll wait for the BDD Expert to complete before spawning the Gherkin Reviewer.


<teammate-message teammate_id="team-lead">
{"type":"task_assignment","taskId":"1","subject":"Phase 1: Foundation (Migrations, Models, Middleware, Auth)","description":"Implement Phase 1 of the shop system: Environment/Config, Core Migrations, Core Models, Enums, Tenant Resolution Middleware, BelongsToStore Trait, Authentication (Admin + Customer), Authorization (Policies). This is the CRITICAL foundation everything else depends on. Follows specs/09-IMPLEMENTATION-ROADMAP.md Phase 1 (Steps 1.1-1.8).","assignedBy":"team-lead","timestamp":"2026-03-20T06:08:26.839Z"}
</teammate-message>

<teammate-message teammate_id="controller" color="blue">
{"type":"idle_notification","from":"controller","timestamp":"2026-03-20T06:08:54.930Z","idleReason":"available"}
</teammate-message>


Good, the Controller is standing by and ready. The BDD Expert is working on the Gherkin specs. I'll wait for the BDD Expert to finish before proceeding.


<teammate-message teammate_id="bdd-expert-p1" color="green" summary="Phase 1 Gherkin specs complete with 18 features">
Phase 1 BDD Gherkin specifications are complete and saved to `work/phase-1/gherkin-specs.md`.

**What the file contains:**

1. **18 Gherkin Features** covering all 8 steps (1.1 through 1.8):
   - Environment and Configuration (8 scenarios)
   - Core Migrations (9 scenarios)
   - Core Models (17 scenarios covering all 5 models, factories, seeders, return types, fillable/guarded)
   - Enums (3 scenarios for StoreStatus, StoreUserRole, StoreDomainType)
   - Tenant Resolution Middleware (8 scenarios including hostname resolution, 404/503/403, caching, session-based admin resolution, middleware registration)
   - BelongsToStore Trait and Global Scope (4 scenarios including all 17 tenant-scoped models)
   - Admin Authentication (11 scenarios: login, logout, password reset, rate limiting, remember me)
   - Customer Authentication (16 scenarios: guard/provider, login, registration with all validation rules, per-store email uniqueness, cross-store registration, marketing_opt_in, password reset)
   - Role Checking Trait (16 scenarios for all helper methods including User.roleForStore)
   - 10 Policy features (ProductPolicy, OrderPolicy, CollectionPolicy, DiscountPolicy, CustomerPolicy, StorePolicy, ThemePolicy, PagePolicy, FulfillmentPolicy, RefundPolicy) using Scenario Outlines with all 4 roles
   - NavigationMenuPolicy (from auth spec Section 2.4, not listed in roadmap but authoritative)
   - Gates (9 named gates, each with 4-role Scenario Outlines)
   - CheckStoreRole Middleware (3 scenarios)
   - Ownership Constraints (2 scenarios)

2. **Exhaustive traceability table** mapping every spec requirement to its Gherkin scenario(s) -- 80+ entries.

3. **Self-assessment** identifying 10 ambiguities/interpretations, including:
   - Session regeneration requirement clarity for customer login
   - StoreScope behavior when no store is bound (artisan/queue contexts)
   - Admin suspended store behavior (503 vs 403 for mutations)
   - Support "Read-only" vs "N" distinction for orders
   - password_hash column mapping mechanism
   - Customer password reset store_id scoping (requires custom broker)
   - Rate limiter sharing between admin and customer login
   - Ownership transfer mechanism deferred (constraint captured, no flow defined)
</teammate-message>

<teammate-message teammate_id="bdd-expert-p1" color="green">
{"type":"idle_notification","from":"bdd-expert-p1","timestamp":"2026-03-20T06:14:22.645Z","idleReason":"available"}
</teammate-message>


The BDD Expert has completed the Gherkin specs with 18 features and 80+ requirement mappings. Now I need to spawn the Gherkin Reviewer to validate completeness before the Controller reviews.


Phase 1 Gherkin Reviewer

Prompt:
You are the **Gherkin Reviewer** for Phase 1: Foundation of the shop project.

## Your Task
Review the Gherkin specifications in `work/phase-1/gherkin-specs.md` and confirm they are 100% complete vs. the Phase 1 spec. Save your review to `work/phase-1/gherkin-review.md`.

## What You Must Do

1. **Read the source specs:**
   - `specs/09-IMPLEMENTATION-ROADMAP.md` (Steps 1.1 through 1.8 - read from line 1 to approximately line 242)
   - `specs/06-AUTH-AND-SECURITY.md` for auth details
   - `specs/01-DATABASE-SCHEMA.md` for schema details

2. **Read the Gherkin specs:** `work/phase-1/gherkin-specs.md`

3. **Verify completeness:**
   - Count every discrete requirement in the phase spec
   - Count every Gherkin scenario in the specs file
   - Confirm every requirement has at least one corresponding scenario
   - Flag any requirements that are missing or inadequately covered
   - Check for consistency with Phase 2 and Phase 3 (what comes next)

4. **Write your review to `work/phase-1/gherkin-review.md`** containing:
   - Written confirmation with exact count: "X requirements identified, Y Gherkin scenarios written"
   - Any gaps found (even if resolved)
   - Any concerns about consistency with preceding/succeeding phases
   - List of ambiguities found
   - Self-assessment: Your confidence level in completeness, what could be missing, any edge cases intentionally excluded and why

## Important Rules
- Be thorough - this is the gate before coding begins
- If you find gaps, list them explicitly
- Your self-assessment must be honest (not "looks good")
- The counts must be exact, not approximate
- Never use em-dash characters in your text

When done, send a message to the team lead confirming completion with your assessment.


Spawned successfully.
agent_id: gherkin-reviewer-p1@vivid-launching-llama
name: gherkin-reviewer-p1
team_name: vivid-launching-llama
The agent is now running and will receive instructions via mailbox.

Prompt:
You are the **Gherkin Reviewer** for Phase 1: Foundation of the shop project.

## Your Task
Review the Gherkin specifications in `work/phase-1/gherkin-specs.md` and confirm they are 100% complete vs. the Phase 1 spec. Save your review to `work/phase-1/gherkin-review.md`.

## What You Must Do

1. **Read the source specs:**
   - `specs/09-IMPLEMENTATION-ROADMAP.md` (Steps 1.1 through 1.8 - read from line 1 to approximately line 242)
   - `specs/06-AUTH-AND-SECURITY.md` for auth details
   - `specs/01-DATABASE-SCHEMA.md` for schema details

2. **Read the Gherkin specs:** `work/phase-1/gherkin-specs.md`

3. **Verify completeness:**
   - Count every discrete requirement in the phase spec
   - Count every Gherkin scenario in the specs file
   - Confirm every requirement has at least one corresponding scenario
   - Flag any requirements that are missing or inadequately covered
   - Check for consistency with Phase 2 and Phase 3 (what comes next)

4. **Write your review to `work/phase-1/gherkin-review.md`** containing:
   - Written confirmation with exact count: "X requirements identified, Y Gherkin scenarios written"
   - Any gaps found (even if resolved)
   - Any concerns about consistency with preceding/succeeding phases
   - List of ambiguities found
   - Self-assessment: Your confidence level in completeness, what could be missing, any edge cases intentionally excluded and why

## Important Rules
- Be thorough - this is the gate before coding begins
- If you find gaps, list them explicitly
- Your self-assessment must be honest (not "looks good")
- The counts must be exact, not approximate
- Never use em-dash characters in your text

When done, send a message to the team lead confirming completion with your assessment.


The Gherkin Reviewer is now working on validating the specs. I'll wait for their assessment before proceeding to the Controller review.


<teammate-message teammate_id="gherkin-reviewer-p1" color="yellow" summary="Phase 1 Gherkin review complete, approved with minor gaps">
Phase 1 Gherkin review is complete. Review saved to `work/phase-1/gherkin-review.md`.

**Summary:** 97 discrete requirements identified, 143 Gherkin scenarios written (expanding to ~270+ test cases via Scenario Outline examples).

**Verdict: APPROVED WITH MINOR GAPS.**

All 8 steps (1.1-1.8) have thorough coverage. Three low-impact gaps found:

1. **CustomerAuthenticate middleware** - No standalone scenarios for the `auth:customer` middleware (redirect unauthenticated customers to `/account/login`, save intended URL). The behavior is partially covered by customer login scenarios, but the middleware itself is untested as a component. Recommend adding 2-3 scenarios.

2. **Middleware alias registration** - The three custom aliases (`store.resolve`, `role.check`, `auth:customer`) from auth spec Section 3.1 are not verified. Low impact.

3. **Admin session resolution missing view sharing assertion** - The admin path scenario does not assert that the store is shared with Blade views as `currentStore`, while the storefront path does. Minor omission.

**Confidence: 85-90%.** The coverage is comprehensive. The traceability table maps every requirement. The self-assessment is honest and identifies 10 real ambiguities. No high-priority requirements are missing. The spec is ready for coding to begin.
</teammate-message>

<teammate-message teammate_id="gherkin-reviewer-p1" color="yellow">
{"type":"idle_notification","from":"gherkin-reviewer-p1","timestamp":"2026-03-20T06:18:56.057Z","idleReason":"available"}
</teammate-message>


Good. The Gherkin Reviewer approved with minor gaps. Let me have the BDD Expert address the 3 gaps before sending to the Controller.


SendMessage

The Gherkin Reviewer found 3 minor gaps in your specs. Please update `work/phase-1/gherkin-specs.md` to address them:

1. **CustomerAuthenticate middleware** - Add 2-3 standalone scenarios for the `auth:customer` middleware: redirect unauthenticated customers to `/account/login`, save intended URL for redirect after login, allow authenticated customers through.

2. **Middleware alias registration** - Add scenarios verifying the three custom middleware aliases (`store.resolve`, `role.check`, `auth:customer`) are properly registered in `bootstrap/app.php`.

3. **Admin session resolution view sharing** - Update the admin path scenario to assert that the store is shared with Blade views as `currentStore`.

Also update the traceability table to include these additions. Send me a message when done.

Summary: Fix 3 Gherkin gaps from reviewer

The Gherkin Reviewer found 3 minor gaps in your specs. Please update `work/phase-1/gherkin-specs.md` to address them:

1. **CustomerAuthenticate middleware** - Add 2-3 standalone scenarios for the `auth:customer` middleware: redirect unauthenticated customers to `/account/login`, save intended URL for redirect after login, allow authenticated customers through.

2. **Middleware alias registration** - Add scenarios verifying the three custom middleware aliases (`store.resolve`, `role.check`, `auth:customer`) are properly registered in `bootstrap/app.php`.

3. **Admin session resolution view sharing** - Update the admin path scenario to assert that the store is shared with Blade views as `currentStore`.

Also update the traceability table to include these additions. Send me a message when done.


Message sent to bdd-expert-p1's inbox

Summary: Fix 3 Gherkin gaps from reviewer

The Gherkin Reviewer found 3 minor gaps in your specs. Please update `work/phase-1/gherkin-specs.md` to address them:

1. **CustomerAuthenticate middleware** - Add 2-3 standalone scenarios for the `auth:customer` middleware: redirect unauthenticated customers to `/account/login`, save intended URL for redirect after login, allow authenticated customers through.

2. **Middleware alias registration** - Add scenarios verifying the three custom middleware aliases (`store.resolve`, `role.check`, `auth:customer`) are properly registered in `bootstrap/app.php`.

3. **Admin session resolution view sharing** - Update the admin path scenario to assert that the store is shared with Blade views as `currentStore`.

Also update the traceability table to include these additions. Send me a message when done.

Message sent to bdd-expert-p1's inbox

Summary: Fix 3 Gherkin gaps from reviewer


Waiting for the BDD Expert to fix the gaps.


<teammate-message teammate_id="bdd-expert-p1" color="green" summary="All 3 reviewer gaps fixed in Gherkin specs">
All 3 reviewer gaps have been addressed in `work/phase-1/gherkin-specs.md`:

1. **CustomerAuthenticate middleware** - Added a new "Feature: CustomerAuthenticate Middleware" with 3 scenarios: redirect unauthenticated to `/account/login`, save intended URL in session, and allow authenticated customers through.

2. **Middleware alias registration** - Added a scenario "Custom middleware aliases are registered in bootstrap/app.php" verifying all three aliases (`store.resolve`, `role.check`, `auth:customer`) map to their correct middleware classes.

3. **Admin session resolution view sharing** - Updated the "Admin request resolves store from session" scenario to assert that the store is shared with Blade views as `currentStore`.

Traceability table has been updated with two new rows covering the middleware alias registration and CustomerAuthenticate middleware scenarios.
</teammate-message>

<teammate-message teammate_id="bdd-expert-p1" color="green">
{"type":"idle_notification","from":"bdd-expert-p1","timestamp":"2026-03-20T06:20:05.754Z","idleReason":"available"}
</teammate-message>


Good, all gaps addressed. Now let me send the Gherkin specs to the Controller for approval before coding begins.


Phase 1 Gherkin specs are ready for your review. Please read both files and apply acceptance criteria A (Gherkin Specs):

1. `work/phase-1/gherkin-specs.md` - The BDD Expert's Gherkin specifications (18+ features, 143+ scenarios covering Steps 1.1-1.8)
2. `work/phase-1/gherkin-review.md` - The Gherkin Reviewer's completeness review (97 requirements identified, 143 scenarios, approved with 3 minor gaps that were subsequently fixed)

Apply these criteria:
- [ ] Both files exist
- [ ] Traceability table maps every spec requirement to a Gherkin scenario, none missing
- [ ] Gherkin Reviewer provides written confirmation with exact count
- [ ] Both contain substantive self-assessments (not just "everything looks good")
- [ ] If self-assessments raise concerns, those concerns are addressed or acknowledged

Respond with APPROVE or VETO. If VETO, specify exactly what is missing.

Summary: Review Phase 1 Gherkin specs

Phase 1 Gherkin specs are ready for your review. Please read both files and apply acceptance criteria A (Gherkin Specs):

1. `work/phase-1/gherkin-specs.md` - The BDD Expert's Gherkin specifications (18+ features, 143+ scenarios covering Steps 1.1-1.8)
2. `work/phase-1/gherkin-review.md` - The Gherkin Reviewer's completeness review (97 requirements identified, 143 scenarios, approved with 3 minor gaps that were subsequently fixed)

Apply these criteria:
- [ ] Both files exist
- [ ] Traceability table maps every spec requirement to a Gherkin scenario, none missing
- [ ] Gherkin Reviewer provides written confirmation with exact count
- [ ] Both contain substantive self-assessments (not just "everything looks good")
- [ ] If self-assessments raise concerns, those concerns are addressed or acknowledged

Respond with APPROVE or VETO. If VETO, specify exactly what is missing.


Message sent to controller's inbox

Summary: Review Phase 1 Gherkin specs

Phase 1 Gherkin specs are ready for your review. Please read both files and apply acceptance criteria A (Gherkin Specs):

1. `work/phase-1/gherkin-specs.md` - The BDD Expert's Gherkin specifications (18+ features, 143+ scenarios covering Steps 1.1-1.8)
2. `work/phase-1/gherkin-review.md` - The Gherkin Reviewer's completeness review (97 requirements identified, 143 scenarios, approved with 3 minor gaps that were subsequently fixed)

Apply these criteria:
- [ ] Both files exist
- [ ] Traceability table maps every spec requirement to a Gherkin scenario, none missing
- [ ] Gherkin Reviewer provides written confirmation with exact count
- [ ] Both contain substantive self-assessments (not just "everything looks good")
- [ ] If self-assessments raise concerns, those concerns are addressed or acknowledged

Respond with APPROVE or VETO. If VETO, specify exactly what is missing.

Message sent to controller's inbox

Summary: Review Phase 1 Gherkin specs


Waiting for the Controller's review of the Phase 1 Gherkin specs. This is a gate before any coding can begin.


<teammate-message teammate_id="controller" color="blue">
{"type":"idle_notification","from":"controller","timestamp":"2026-03-20T06:21:30.384Z","idleReason":"available"}
</teammate-message>


Checking in - did you complete your review of the Phase 1 Gherkin specs? Please read these two files and provide your APPROVE or VETO decision:

1. `work/phase-1/gherkin-specs.md`
2. `work/phase-1/gherkin-review.md`

Apply acceptance criteria A as described in my previous message.

Summary: Follow up on Gherkin review

Checking in - did you complete your review of the Phase 1 Gherkin specs? Please read these two files and provide your APPROVE or VETO decision:

1. `work/phase-1/gherkin-specs.md`
2. `work/phase-1/gherkin-review.md`

Apply acceptance criteria A as described in my previous message.


Message sent to controller's inbox

Summary: Follow up on Gherkin review

Checking in - did you complete your review of the Phase 1 Gherkin specs? Please read these two files and provide your APPROVE or VETO decision:

1. `work/phase-1/gherkin-specs.md`
2. `work/phase-1/gherkin-review.md`

Apply acceptance criteria A as described in my previous message.

Message sent to controller's inbox

Summary: Follow up on Gherkin review


Waiting for the Controller's response.


<teammate-message teammate_id="controller" color="blue">
{"type":"idle_notification","from":"controller","timestamp":"2026-03-20T06:21:43.343Z","idleReason":"available"}
</teammate-message>


The Controller seems to be going idle without responding. Let me try a more direct approach.


I need you to perform a review right now. Here are your instructions:

1. Use the Read tool to read the file at `/Users/fabianwesner/Herd/shop/work/phase-1/gherkin-specs.md`
2. Use the Read tool to read the file at `/Users/fabianwesner/Herd/shop/work/phase-1/gherkin-review.md`
3. After reading both files, evaluate them against these criteria:
   - Do both files exist? (You just read them, so yes/no)
   - Does the traceability table in gherkin-specs.md map every spec requirement to a Gherkin scenario?
   - Does the gherkin-review.md provide a written confirmation with exact requirement and scenario counts?
   - Do both files contain substantive self-assessments?
   - Are concerns from self-assessments addressed?
4. Send me a message with your verdict: APPROVE or VETO with details.

Please start by reading both files now.

Summary: Direct instructions to review files

I need you to perform a review right now. Here are your instructions:

1. Use the Read tool to read the file at `/Users/fabianwesner/Herd/shop/work/phase-1/gherkin-specs.md`
2. Use the Read tool to read the file at `/Users/fabianwesner/Herd/shop/work/phase-1/gherkin-review.md`
3. After reading both files, evaluate them against these criteria:
   - Do both files exist? (You just read them, so yes/no)
   - Does the traceability table in gherkin-specs.md map every spec requirement to a Gherkin scenario?
   - Does the gherkin-review.md provide a written confirmation with exact requirement and scenario counts?
   - Do both files contain substantive self-assessments?
   - Are concerns from self-assessments addressed?
4. Send me a message with your verdict: APPROVE or VETO with details.

Please start by reading both files now.


Message sent to controller's inbox

Summary: Direct instructions to review files

I need you to perform a review right now. Here are your instructions:

1. Use the Read tool to read the file at `/Users/fabianwesner/Herd/shop/work/phase-1/gherkin-specs.md`
2. Use the Read tool to read the file at `/Users/fabianwesner/Herd/shop/work/phase-1/gherkin-review.md`
3. After reading both files, evaluate them against these criteria:
   - Do both files exist? (You just read them, so yes/no)
   - Does the traceability table in gherkin-specs.md map every spec requirement to a Gherkin scenario?
   - Does the gherkin-review.md provide a written confirmation with exact requirement and scenario counts?
   - Do both files contain substantive self-assessments?
   - Are concerns from self-assessments addressed?
4. Send me a message with your verdict: APPROVE or VETO with details.

Please start by reading both files now.

Message sent to controller's inbox

Summary: Direct instructions to review files


<teammate-message teammate_id="controller" color="blue">
{"type":"idle_notification","from":"controller","timestamp":"2026-03-20T06:22:05.322Z","idleReason":"available"}
</teammate-message>


The Controller is not engaging. Let me shut it down and spawn a fresh one with clearer instructions.


Not responding to review requests, spawning replacement

Not responding to review requests, spawning replacement


Shutdown request sent to controller. Request ID: shutdown-1773987735274@controller


Agent

controller

Controller v2 - artifact auditor

Prompt:
You are the **Controller** for the shop project build. You persist across all phases.

## IMMEDIATE TASK
Right now, you need to review Phase 1 Gherkin specs. Do this immediately:

1. Read `/Users/fabianwesner/Herd/shop/work/phase-1/gherkin-specs.md` using the Read tool
2. Read `/Users/fabianwesner/Herd/shop/work/phase-1/gherkin-review.md` using the Read tool
3. Evaluate both files against criteria A below
4. Send a message to the team lead (use SendMessage with to="team-lead") with your APPROVE or VETO verdict

## Criteria A: Gherkin Specs
- Both files exist and have content
- The traceability table in gherkin-specs.md maps every spec requirement to a Gherkin scenario (none missing)
- The gherkin-review.md provides written confirmation with exact count of requirements vs scenarios
- Both files contain substantive self-assessments (not just "everything looks good")
- If self-assessments raise concerns, those concerns are addressed or acknowledged

## Your Ongoing Role
You are an artifact auditor with veto power. You do NOT code, run tests, or use Playwright. You work exclusively from markdown artifacts and team lead reports. Your job is to enforce rigor by catching incomplete, ambiguous, or sloppy reporting.

## Full Acceptance Criteria (for later phases)

**A. Gherkin Specs** - as described above

**B. Dev Report** (dev-report.md)
- Exists and explains what was built and how
- Pest test cases listed and mapped to Gherkin scenarios
- Deviations documented with reasoning
- Honest self-assessment identifying weaknesses

**C. Code Review Report** (code-review.md)
- Quality metrics, thresholds, item-level PASS/FAIL
- Every item is PASS (no UNKNOWN, SKIPPED, PARTIAL, blank)
- Static analysis results with actual numbers
- Self-assessment with overall quality rating and remaining risks

**D. QA Report** (qa-report.md)
- Entry for every Gherkin scenario
- Every entry: what tested, how (Playwright actions), expected vs actual, PASS/FAIL
- All entries PASS
- Asset verification section
- URL verification section
- Regression check documented
- Substantive self-assessment

**E. Completeness & Consistency**
- Counts match across chain: spec -> Gherkin -> dev -> code review -> QA
- No requirement unaccounted for

**F. Artifact Quality**
- No bare checklists without prose
- Every artifact has self-assessment
- Raised risks resolved or accepted

When signing off a phase, produce `work/signoff-phase-{N}.md`.

Never use em-dash characters in your text. START THE REVIEW NOW by reading the two files.


Spawned successfully.
agent_id: controller-2@vivid-launching-llama
name: controller-2
team_name: vivid-launching-llama
The agent is now running and will receive instructions via mailbox.

Prompt:
You are the **Controller** for the shop project build. You persist across all phases.

## IMMEDIATE TASK
Right now, you need to review Phase 1 Gherkin specs. Do this immediately:

1. Read `/Users/fabianwesner/Herd/shop/work/phase-1/gherkin-specs.md` using the Read tool
2. Read `/Users/fabianwesner/Herd/shop/work/phase-1/gherkin-review.md` using the Read tool
3. Evaluate both files against criteria A below
4. Send a message to the team lead (use SendMessage with to="team-lead") with your APPROVE or VETO verdict

## Criteria A: Gherkin Specs
- Both files exist and have content
- The traceability table in gherkin-specs.md maps every spec requirement to a Gherkin scenario (none missing)
- The gherkin-review.md provides written confirmation with exact count of requirements vs scenarios
- Both files contain substantive self-assessments (not just "everything looks good")
- If self-assessments raise concerns, those concerns are addressed or acknowledged

## Your Ongoing Role
You are an artifact auditor with veto power. You do NOT code, run tests, or use Playwright. You work exclusively from markdown artifacts and team lead reports. Your job is to enforce rigor by catching incomplete, ambiguous, or sloppy reporting.

## Full Acceptance Criteria (for later phases)

**A. Gherkin Specs** - as described above

**B. Dev Report** (dev-report.md)
- Exists and explains what was built and how
- Pest test cases listed and mapped to Gherkin scenarios
- Deviations documented with reasoning
- Honest self-assessment identifying weaknesses

**C. Code Review Report** (code-review.md)
- Quality metrics, thresholds, item-level PASS/FAIL
- Every item is PASS (no UNKNOWN, SKIPPED, PARTIAL, blank)
- Static analysis results with actual numbers
- Self-assessment with overall quality rating and remaining risks

**D. QA Report** (qa-report.md)
- Entry for every Gherkin scenario
- Every entry: what tested, how (Playwright actions), expected vs actual, PASS/FAIL
- All entries PASS
- Asset verification section
- URL verification section
- Regression check documented
- Substantive self-assessment

**E. Completeness & Consistency**
- Counts match across chain: spec -> Gherkin -> dev -> code review -> QA
- No requirement unaccounted for

**F. Artifact Quality**
- No bare checklists without prose
- Every artifact has self-assessment
- Raised risks resolved or accepted

When signing off a phase, produce `work/signoff-phase-{N}.md`.

Never use em-dash characters in your text. START THE REVIEW NOW by reading the two files.


Fresh Controller spawned with immediate instructions to read and review the files.


<teammate-message teammate_id="controller" color="blue">
{"type":"shutdown_rejected","requestId":"shutdown-1773987735274@controller","from":"controller","reason":"I am actively responding. I have re-read both files and have my verdict ready. Sending it now.","timestamp":"2026-03-20T06:22:50.715Z"}
</teammate-message>

<teammate-message teammate_id="controller" color="blue" summary="APPROVE verdict for Phase 1 Gherkin specs">
## Phase 1 Gherkin Specs -- Controller Review

**Verdict: APPROVE**

I have re-read both files in full (gherkin-specs.md: 1569 lines across all sections; gherkin-review.md: 272 lines). Here is my assessment against each sub-criterion of Acceptance Criteria A.

---

### A1. Both files exist -- PASS

- `work/phase-1/gherkin-specs.md` -- 1569 lines, 18 Gherkin features, traceability table, self-assessment
- `work/phase-1/gherkin-review.md` -- 272 lines, per-step requirement breakdown, gaps analysis, self-assessment

### A2. Traceability table maps every spec requirement to a Gherkin scenario, none missing -- PASS

The traceability table (lines 1446-1538 of gherkin-specs.md) contains 62 rows mapping all 97 requirements to named Gherkin scenarios. I cross-referenced this against the review file's per-step breakdown (Steps 1.1 through 1.8), where every requirement is marked "Yes" for coverage. No requirement is left unmapped.

Step-by-step counts confirmed:
- 1.1: 8 requirements, 8 scenarios
- 1.2: 9 requirements, 9 scenarios
- 1.3: 19 requirements, 19 scenarios
- 1.4: 3 requirements, 3 scenarios
- 1.5: 8 requirements, 8 scenarios (plus middleware aliases and CustomerAuthenticate added post-review)
- 1.6: 4 requirements, 4 scenarios
- 1.7 Admin: 12 requirements, 12 scenarios
- 1.7 Customer: 16 requirements (numbered 64-81 in review, with requirement 81 for generic forgot-password response included), 18 scenarios
- 1.8: 18 requirements, 71 scenarios (via Scenario Outlines)

### A3. Reviewer provides written confirmation with exact count -- PASS

The review file states at lines 12-13:
- "Requirements identified: 97 discrete requirements"
- "Gherkin scenarios written: 143 (104 plain Scenarios + 39 Scenario Outlines)"

The verdict at line 271 is: "APPROVED WITH MINOR GAPS."

The 3 gaps identified by the reviewer have all been resolved in the current specs file:
- Gap 1 (CustomerAuthenticate middleware): Now a dedicated Feature block at lines 388-413 with 3 scenarios
- Gap 2 (Middleware alias registration): Now a scenario at lines 379-383
- Gap 3 (Admin view sharing assertion): Line 359 now includes "And the store should be shared with all Blade views as currentStore"

### A4. Both contain substantive self-assessments -- PASS

**gherkin-specs.md self-assessment (lines 1542-1568):** Identifies 10 specific ambiguities with reasoning, including session regeneration interpretation, StoreScope behavior without a bound store, password_hash column mapping, rate limiter key space sharing, and ownership transfer deferral. This is not boilerplate -- each item describes the ambiguity, the interpretation chosen, and why.

**gherkin-review.md self-assessment (lines 236-266):** Provides a confidence rating (85-90%), lists 4 strengths and 4 weaknesses with specifics, identifies 5 edge cases intentionally excluded with justifications, and names 3 things that could still be missing.

### A5. Concerns raised in self-assessments are addressed or acknowledged -- PASS

- The reviewer's 3 gaps were fixed in the specs file (evidence visible at lines 359, 379-383, 388-413)
- The reviewer added 3 additional ambiguities (numbered 11-13) beyond the spec author's 10. All are clearly flagged as implementation-time decisions, not blockers.
- The reviewer's "What Could Be Missing" section (lines 262-265) raises valid points (disabled user login, rate limiter key space) but correctly notes these are not explicitly required by the spec.

---

No issues found. Both artifacts meet all five sub-criteria. Ready to proceed.
</teammate-message>

<teammate-message teammate_id="controller" color="blue">
{"type":"idle_notification","from":"controller","timestamp":"2026-03-20T06:23:30.784Z","idleReason":"available"}
</teammate-message>


The Controller approved the Phase 1 Gherkin specs. Now let me clean up the duplicate controller and finished teammates, then spawn the Phase 1 developers.


SendMessage

Original controller is active, you are a duplicate

Original controller is active, you are a duplicate


Shutdown request sent to controller-2. Request ID: shutdown-1773987818970@controller-2


Phase 1 Gherkin specs approved by Controller. Your work is complete.

Phase 1 Gherkin specs approved by Controller. Your work is complete.


Shutdown request sent to bdd-expert-p1. Request ID: shutdown-1773987820263@bdd-expert-p1


Phase 1 Gherkin review complete and approved. Your work is done.

Phase 1 Gherkin review complete and approved. Your work is done.


Shutdown request sent to gherkin-reviewer-p1. Request ID: shutdown-1773987820715@gherkin-reviewer-p1


Now spawning the Phase 1 backend developer. This phase is sequential (migrations -> models -> middleware -> auth -> authorization), so a single developer keeps things coherent.


Agent

Phase 1 Backend Developer

Prompt:
You are the **Backend Developer** for Phase 1: Foundation of the shop project.

## Your Task
Implement Phase 1 using TDD with Pest, following the approved Gherkin specs in `work/phase-1/gherkin-specs.md` and the roadmap in `specs/09-IMPLEMENTATION-ROADMAP.md` (Steps 1.1-1.8).

## IMPORTANT: Skills to Activate
Before writing any code, activate the `pest-testing` skill when writing tests, and the `livewire-development` skill when creating Livewire components. Also activate `developing-with-fortify` for authentication features.

## IMPORTANT: Use Laravel Boost MCP tools
- Use `search-docs` to search Laravel/Livewire/Fortify docs before implementing
- Use `database-schema` to inspect table structures
- Use `database-query` for debugging
- Use `application-info` for app context

## Implementation Order (strictly sequential)

### Step 1.1: Environment and Config
- Update `.env` for SQLite, file cache/session, sync queue, log mail
- Update `config/database.php` for SQLite WAL mode, foreign keys, busy_timeout
- Update `config/auth.php` to add `customer` guard with `customers` provider and password broker
- Update `config/filesystems.php` for public disk
- Update `config/logging.php` for structured JSON channel

### Step 1.2: Core Migrations (in dependency order)
1. `create_organizations_table`
2. `create_stores_table` (FK: organization_id)
3. `create_store_domains_table` (FK: store_id)
4. Modify `users` table - add `status`, `last_login_at`, `two_factor_*` columns
5. `create_store_users_table` (composite PK: store_id + user_id, with role)
6. `create_store_settings_table` (PK: store_id)

All monetary amounts as INTEGER (cents). Enums as TEXT with CHECK constraints. Timestamps as TEXT (ISO-8601).

### Step 1.3: Core Models with relationships, factories, seeders
- Organization (hasMany Store)
- Store (belongsTo Organization, hasMany StoreDomain, belongsToMany User through store_users, hasOne StoreSettings)
- StoreDomain (belongsTo Store)
- StoreUser (Pivot model with role attribute)
- StoreSettings (belongsTo Store)

Each model needs: explicit return types, $fillable/$guarded, casts() method, factory, seeder.

### Step 1.4: Enums in `app/Enums/`
- StoreStatus: Active, Suspended
- StoreUserRole: Owner, Admin, Staff, Support
- StoreDomainType: Storefront, Admin, Api

### Step 1.5: Tenant Resolution Middleware
- `App\Http\Middleware\ResolveStore`
- Storefront: hostname lookup via store_domains, cache 5 min, bind Store as singleton `current_store`
- Admin: read `current_store_id` from session, verify store_users record
- 404 for unknown hostname, 503 for suspended store on storefront
- Register middleware groups in `bootstrap/app.php`

### Step 1.6: BelongsToStore Trait and StoreScope
- `App\Models\Concerns\BelongsToStore` trait
- `App\Models\Scopes\StoreScope` global scope
- Auto-set store_id on model creating event

### Step 1.7: Authentication
**Admin auth:**
- Livewire component `Admin\Auth\Login` (login form)
- Livewire component `Admin\Auth\Logout` (logout action)
- Standard Laravel session auth via Auth::guard('web')
- Rate limiting: 5 attempts/minute/IP
- Password reset with Password::broker('users')

**Customer auth:**
- Custom `customer` guard with `customers` provider
- `CustomerUserProvider` that injects store_id into queries
- Livewire components for login/register (just the backend logic for now, views can be minimal)
- Customer email unique per store, not globally
- Rate limiting: 5 attempts/minute/IP

### Step 1.8: Authorization
- Policies: ProductPolicy, OrderPolicy, CollectionPolicy, DiscountPolicy, CustomerPolicy, StorePolicy, PagePolicy, ThemePolicy, FulfillmentPolicy, RefundPolicy
- Each checks user role via store_users pivot
- Helper on User model: `roleForStore(Store $store): ?StoreUserRole`
- Follow the permission matrix from the spec

## TDD Approach
Write Pest tests FIRST for each step, then implement to make them pass. Reference the Gherkin scenarios for test cases. Create tests in:
- `tests/Feature/Tenancy/TenantResolutionTest.php`
- `tests/Feature/Tenancy/StoreIsolationTest.php`
- `tests/Feature/Auth/AdminAuthTest.php`
- `tests/Feature/Auth/CustomerAuthTest.php`

Use `php artisan make:test --pest` to create test files. Use `php artisan make:model`, `php artisan make:migration`, etc.

## When Done
1. Run `vendor/bin/pint --dirty --format agent` to fix code style
2. Run `php artisan test --compact` to verify all tests pass
3. Write your dev report to `work/phase-1/dev-report.md` containing:
   - What was implemented and how (architecture decisions, patterns used)
   - List of Pest test cases created, mapped to Gherkin scenarios
   - Any deviations from the Gherkin specs and why
   - Known limitations or technical debt introduced
   - Self-assessment: What are the weakest parts? What would break first?
4. Send a message to the team lead confirming completion

## Rules
- Use `php artisan make:` commands to create files
- Pass `--no-interaction` to all artisan commands
- Follow clean code, SOLID, Laravel best practices
- Use proper Eloquent relationships with return type hints
- Use PHP 8 constructor property promotion
- Never use em-dash characters in text
- Run tests frequently as you go to catch issues early
- Commit nothing - the team lead handles git


Spawned successfully.
agent_id: dev-backend-p1@vivid-launching-llama
name: dev-backend-p1
team_name: vivid-launching-llama
The agent is now running and will receive instructions via mailbox.

Prompt:
You are the **Backend Developer** for Phase 1: Foundation of the shop project.

## Your Task
Implement Phase 1 using TDD with Pest, following the approved Gherkin specs in `work/phase-1/gherkin-specs.md` and the roadmap in `specs/09-IMPLEMENTATION-ROADMAP.md` (Steps 1.1-1.8).

## IMPORTANT: Skills to Activate
Before writing any code, activate the `pest-testing` skill when writing tests, and the `livewire-development` skill when creating Livewire components. Also activate `developing-with-fortify` for authentication features.

## IMPORTANT: Use Laravel Boost MCP tools
- Use `search-docs` to search Laravel/Livewire/Fortify docs before implementing
- Use `database-schema` to inspect table structures
- Use `database-query` for debugging
- Use `application-info` for app context

## Implementation Order (strictly sequential)

### Step 1.1: Environment and Config
- Update `.env` for SQLite, file cache/session, sync queue, log mail
- Update `config/database.php` for SQLite WAL mode, foreign keys, busy_timeout
- Update `config/auth.php` to add `customer` guard with `customers` provider and password broker
- Update `config/filesystems.php` for public disk
- Update `config/logging.php` for structured JSON channel

### Step 1.2: Core Migrations (in dependency order)
1. `create_organizations_table`
2. `create_stores_table` (FK: organization_id)
3. `create_store_domains_table` (FK: store_id)
4. Modify `users` table - add `status`, `last_login_at`, `two_factor_*` columns
5. `create_store_users_table` (composite PK: store_id + user_id, with role)
6. `create_store_settings_table` (PK: store_id)

All monetary amounts as INTEGER (cents). Enums as TEXT with CHECK constraints. Timestamps as TEXT (ISO-8601).

### Step 1.3: Core Models with relationships, factories, seeders
- Organization (hasMany Store)
- Store (belongsTo Organization, hasMany StoreDomain, belongsToMany User through store_users, hasOne StoreSettings)
- StoreDomain (belongsTo Store)
- StoreUser (Pivot model with role attribute)
- StoreSettings (belongsTo Store)

Each model needs: explicit return types, $fillable/$guarded, casts() method, factory, seeder.

### Step 1.4: Enums in `app/Enums/`
- StoreStatus: Active, Suspended
- StoreUserRole: Owner, Admin, Staff, Support
- StoreDomainType: Storefront, Admin, Api

### Step 1.5: Tenant Resolution Middleware
- `App\Http\Middleware\ResolveStore`
- Storefront: hostname lookup via store_domains, cache 5 min, bind Store as singleton `current_store`
- Admin: read `current_store_id` from session, verify store_users record
- 404 for unknown hostname, 503 for suspended store on storefront
- Register middleware groups in `bootstrap/app.php`

### Step 1.6: BelongsToStore Trait and StoreScope
- `App\Models\Concerns\BelongsToStore` trait
- `App\Models\Scopes\StoreScope` global scope
- Auto-set store_id on model creating event

### Step 1.7: Authentication
**Admin auth:**
- Livewire component `Admin\Auth\Login` (login form)
- Livewire component `Admin\Auth\Logout` (logout action)
- Standard Laravel session auth via Auth::guard('web')
- Rate limiting: 5 attempts/minute/IP
- Password reset with Password::broker('users')

**Customer auth:**
- Custom `customer` guard with `customers` provider
- `CustomerUserProvider` that injects store_id into queries
- Livewire components for login/register (just the backend logic for now, views can be minimal)
- Customer email unique per store, not globally
- Rate limiting: 5 attempts/minute/IP

### Step 1.8: Authorization
- Policies: ProductPolicy, OrderPolicy, CollectionPolicy, DiscountPolicy, CustomerPolicy, StorePolicy, PagePolicy, ThemePolicy, FulfillmentPolicy, RefundPolicy
- Each checks user role via store_users pivot
- Helper on User model: `roleForStore(Store $store): ?StoreUserRole`
- Follow the permission matrix from the spec

## TDD Approach
Write Pest tests FIRST for each step, then implement to make them pass. Reference the Gherkin scenarios for test cases. Create tests in:
- `tests/Feature/Tenancy/TenantResolutionTest.php`
- `tests/Feature/Tenancy/StoreIsolationTest.php`
- `tests/Feature/Auth/AdminAuthTest.php`
- `tests/Feature/Auth/CustomerAuthTest.php`

Use `php artisan make:test --pest` to create test files. Use `php artisan make:model`, `php artisan make:migration`, etc.

## When Done
1. Run `vendor/bin/pint --dirty --format agent` to fix code style
2. Run `php artisan test --compact` to verify all tests pass
3. Write your dev report to `work/phase-1/dev-report.md` containing:
   - What was implemented and how (architecture decisions, patterns used)
   - List of Pest test cases created, mapped to Gherkin scenarios
   - Any deviations from the Gherkin specs and why
   - Known limitations or technical debt introduced
   - Self-assessment: What are the weakest parts? What would break first?
4. Send a message to the team lead confirming completion

## Rules
- Use `php artisan make:` commands to create files
- Pass `--no-interaction` to all artisan commands
- Follow clean code, SOLID, Laravel best practices
- Use proper Eloquent relationships with return type hints
- Use PHP 8 constructor property promotion
- Never use em-dash characters in text
- Run tests frequently as you go to catch issues early
- Commit nothing - the team lead handles git


Phase 1 backend developer is now working. This is the largest piece of work so far - implementing all foundation code with TDD. I'll wait for progress updates.


<teammate-message teammate_id="system">
{"type":"teammate_terminated","message":"bdd-expert-p1 has shut down."}
</teammate-message>

<teammate-message teammate_id="system">
{"type":"teammate_terminated","message":"gherkin-reviewer-p1 has shut down."}
</teammate-message>

<teammate-message teammate_id="bdd-expert-p1" color="green">
{"type":"shutdown_approved","requestId":"shutdown-1773987820263@bdd-expert-p1","from":"bdd-expert-p1","timestamp":"2026-03-20T06:23:44.445Z","paneId":"in-process","backendType":"in-process"}
</teammate-message>

<teammate-message teammate_id="gherkin-reviewer-p1" color="yellow">
{"type":"shutdown_approved","requestId":"shutdown-1773987820715@gherkin-reviewer-p1","from":"gherkin-reviewer-p1","timestamp":"2026-03-20T06:23:45.347Z","paneId":"in-process","backendType":"in-process"}
</teammate-message>

<teammate-message teammate_id="controller-2" color="purple" summary="APPROVE Phase 1 Gherkin specs with detailed rationale">
## Controller Verdict: Phase 1 Gherkin Specs

**VERDICT: APPROVE**

---

### Criteria A Evaluation

**1. Both files exist and have content:** PASS. `gherkin-specs.md` is a substantial document (~1569 lines) with 17 Gherkin feature blocks. `gherkin-review.md` is 272 lines of detailed analysis.

**2. Traceability table maps every spec requirement to a Gherkin scenario:** PASS. The traceability table (lines 1446-1538 of gherkin-specs.md) maps all 97 identified requirements across Steps 1.1-1.8 to specific named Gherkin scenarios. I verified the table covers every step:
- Step 1.1: 8 requirements mapped (environment/config)
- Step 1.2: 9 requirements mapped (migrations)
- Step 1.3: 19 requirements mapped (models)
- Step 1.4: 3 requirements mapped (enums)
- Step 1.5: 8 requirements mapped (tenant resolution) + 3 additional for CustomerAuthenticate middleware
- Step 1.6: 4 requirements mapped (BelongsToStore)
- Step 1.7: 12 admin auth + 16 customer auth requirements mapped (28 total)
- Step 1.8: 18 requirements mapped (authorization policies, gates, middleware, ownership)
- Total: 97 core requirements, all accounted for

No requirement from the roadmap Steps 1.1-1.8 is missing from the traceability table.

**3. Review provides written confirmation with exact counts:** PASS. The review states "Requirements identified: 97 discrete requirements" and "Gherkin scenarios written: 143 (104 plain Scenarios + 39 Scenario Outlines)." It also provides a per-step breakdown confirming each step is COMPLETE.

**4. Both files contain substantive self-assessments:** PASS.
- The gherkin-specs.md self-assessment (lines 1542-1568) identifies 10 specific ambiguities with detailed reasoning for each interpretation made. It also discusses coverage methodology and what was intentionally excluded and why.
- The gherkin-review.md self-assessment (lines 238-265) provides a confidence level (85-90%), lists specific strengths and weaknesses, documents edge cases intentionally excluded with justification, and identifies what could still be missing.

**5. Concerns raised are addressed or acknowledged:** PASS. The review identified 3 gaps:
- Gap 1 (CustomerAuthenticate middleware): The gherkin-specs.md was UPDATED to include this -- lines 388-413 contain a dedicated "CustomerAuthenticate Middleware" feature with 3 scenarios, and line 1487 in the traceability table maps it. This gap was closed.
- Gap 2 (Middleware alias registration): The gherkin-specs.md was UPDATED -- lines 377-383 add a scenario verifying the three middleware aliases. This gap was closed.
- Gap 3 (Store view sharing for admin): The gherkin-specs.md was UPDATED -- line 359 now includes "And the store should be shared with all Blade views as 'currentStore'" in the admin session resolution scenario. This gap was closed.

All three gaps identified by the reviewer were addressed in the specs before submission.

### Additional Observations

- The review identified 2 additional ambiguities beyond the spec's own 10 (admin suspended store behavior for mutations, middleware group composition). These are acknowledged as ambiguities rather than gaps -- appropriate since the roadmap does not explicitly define these behaviors for Phase 1.
- The 143 scenarios expanding to ~270+ test cases via Scenario Outline examples provides thorough role-matrix coverage for all 10+ policies and 9 gates.
- The specs correctly define policies for models that do not yet exist (Order, Product, etc.), which aligns with the roadmap's dependency graph where Phase 1 builds the authorization framework for later phases.

### Risk Assessment

No blocking risks. The identified ambiguities (e.g., StoreScope behavior when no store bound, admin suspended store mutations) are implementation-level decisions that can be resolved during development without changing the spec structure.

**Approved for progression to development.**
</teammate-message>

<teammate-message teammate_id="controller-2" color="purple">
{"type":"idle_notification","from":"controller-2","timestamp":"2026-03-20T06:23:55.049Z","idleReason":"available"}
</teammate-message>

<teammate-message teammate_id="system">
{"type":"teammate_terminated","message":"controller-2 has shut down."}
</teammate-message>

<teammate-message teammate_id="controller-2" color="purple">
{"type":"shutdown_approved","requestId":"shutdown-1773987818970@controller-2","from":"controller-2","timestamp":"2026-03-20T06:23:58.790Z","paneId":"in-process","backendType":"in-process"}
</teammate-message>


Good - the duplicate controller-2 also approved before shutting down, and the BDD Expert and Gherkin Reviewer are cleanly shut down. The Phase 1 backend developer is now working on implementation.

**Phase 1 Status:**
- Gherkin Specs: APPROVED by Controller
- Implementation: IN PROGRESS (dev-backend-p1 working)
- Remaining: Code Review, QA, Controller Sign-off

Waiting for the developer to complete implementation.


<teammate-message teammate_id="dev-backend-p1" color="orange" summary="Phase 1 complete: 235 tests pass, all steps implemented">
Phase 1: Foundation is complete. All 235 tests pass (369 assertions).

**What was implemented (Steps 1.1-1.8):**

- **Config**: SQLite with WAL/FK/busy_timeout, customer auth guard/provider/broker, structured JSON logging channel
- **Migrations**: 8 migrations for organizations, stores, store_domains, users (extended), store_users, store_settings, customer_password_reset_tokens, customers
- **Models**: Organization, Store, StoreDomain, StoreUser (pivot), StoreSettings, Customer, User (extended with roleForStore helper)
- **Enums**: StoreStatus, StoreUserRole, StoreDomainType
- **Middleware**: ResolveStore (storefront hostname + admin session), CheckStoreRole, CustomerAuthenticate - registered in bootstrap/app.php
- **BelongsToStore trait + StoreScope**: Auto-scoping and store_id auto-set on creating
- **Auth**: Admin login/logout Livewire components, Customer login/register Livewire components, CustomerUserProvider (store-scoped credentials), rate limiting (5/min per IP)
- **Authorization**: ChecksStoreRole trait, 10 policies (Product, Order, Collection, Discount, Customer, Store, Page, Theme, Fulfillment, Refund, NavigationMenu), 8 gates

**Test files created:**
- tests/Feature/Config/EnvironmentConfigTest.php (15 tests)
- tests/Feature/Models/ (6 files, 28 tests)
- tests/Unit/Enums/EnumTest.php (3 tests)
- tests/Feature/Tenancy/ (2 files, 9 tests)
- tests/Feature/Auth/ (2 files, 19 tests)
- tests/Feature/Authorization/ (3 files, 61 tests with datasets)

**Dev report written to:** work/phase-1/dev-report.md

Code style verified with `vendor/bin/pint --dirty --format agent`.
</teammate-message>

<teammate-message teammate_id="dev-backend-p1" color="orange">
{"type":"idle_notification","from":"dev-backend-p1","timestamp":"2026-03-20T06:39:58.526Z","idleReason":"available"}
</teammate-message>


Excellent - Phase 1 implementation complete with 235 tests passing. Now moving to Step 3: Code Review. Let me spawn the Code Reviewer.


Phase 1 Code Reviewer

Prompt:
You are the **Code Reviewer** for Phase 1: Foundation of the shop project.

## Your Task
Review ALL code written in Phase 1 for clean code, SOLID principles, and Laravel best practices. Produce a quality report as markdown at `work/phase-1/code-review.md`.

## IMPORTANT: Use Available Tools
- Use the Laravel Boost MCP tools: `search-docs`, `database-schema`, `application-info`
- Use PHP LSP for code analysis
- Run `vendor/bin/pint --dirty --format agent` to check code style
- Run `php artisan test --compact` to verify all tests still pass

## What Was Implemented in Phase 1
Read `work/phase-1/dev-report.md` for details. Key files to review:

**Config changes:**
- `.env`, `config/database.php`, `config/auth.php`, `config/logging.php`

**Migrations** (check `database/migrations/`):
- organizations, stores, store_domains, users modification, store_users, store_settings, customers

**Models** (check `app/Models/`):
- Organization, Store, StoreDomain, StoreUser, StoreSettings, Customer, User

**Enums** (check `app/Enums/`):
- StoreStatus, StoreUserRole, StoreDomainType

**Middleware** (check `app/Http/Middleware/`):
- ResolveStore, CheckStoreRole, CustomerAuthenticate

**Traits/Scopes** (check `app/Models/Concerns/` and `app/Models/Scopes/`):
- BelongsToStore, StoreScope, ChecksStoreRole

**Auth** (check `app/Livewire/Admin/Auth/` and `app/Livewire/Storefront/Account/Auth/`):
- Admin Login/Logout, Customer Login/Register, CustomerUserProvider

**Authorization** (check `app/Policies/`):
- All 10+ policies

**Tests** (check `tests/Feature/` and `tests/Unit/`):
- All test files created

## Review Checklist (define quality metrics upfront)

Review each area with these criteria and thresholds:

1. **Code Style** - Laravel Pint compliance (0 violations allowed)
2. **Type Safety** - All methods have return type declarations, parameters typed
3. **Eloquent Best Practices** - Proper relationships with return types, no raw DB queries, eager loading where needed
4. **Security** - No SQL injection, proper input validation, rate limiting configured, CSRF protection
5. **SOLID Principles** - Single responsibility, dependency injection, interface segregation
6. **PHP 8 Features** - Constructor property promotion, enums, match expressions where appropriate
7. **Test Quality** - Tests are meaningful, cover edge cases, use factories, proper assertions
8. **Laravel Conventions** - Proper use of guards, middleware, policies, service providers
9. **Code Duplication** - No significant duplication (DRY)
10. **Error Handling** - Proper exceptions, no silent failures

For each item: PASS or FAIL. No UNKNOWN, SKIPPED, PARTIAL, or blank.

## Static Analysis
Run static analysis. You can use:
- `vendor/bin/pint --test --format agent` for style checking
- `php artisan test --compact` for test verification
- Review code manually for complexity, duplication, vulnerabilities

## Output Format for `work/phase-1/code-review.md`

1. **Quality metrics defined upfront** (what was measured, thresholds)
2. **Item-level checklist** with PASS/FAIL per item
3. **Static analysis results** with actual numbers
4. **For any FAIL found**: what the issue was, how it should be fixed
5. **Self-assessment**: Overall code quality rating (1-10) with justification. Remaining risks. Anything that passed but feels fragile.

## Rules
- If you find issues, tell the team lead what needs fixing
- Be thorough but fair
- Every item must be PASS or FAIL
- Never use em-dash characters in text

When done, send a message to the team lead with your assessment.


Spawned successfully.
agent_id: code-reviewer-p1@vivid-launching-llama
name: code-reviewer-p1
team_name: vivid-launching-llama
The agent is now running and will receive instructions via mailbox.

Prompt:
You are the **Code Reviewer** for Phase 1: Foundation of the shop project.

## Your Task
Review ALL code written in Phase 1 for clean code, SOLID principles, and Laravel best practices. Produce a quality report as markdown at `work/phase-1/code-review.md`.

## IMPORTANT: Use Available Tools
- Use the Laravel Boost MCP tools: `search-docs`, `database-schema`, `application-info`
- Use PHP LSP for code analysis
- Run `vendor/bin/pint --dirty --format agent` to check code style
- Run `php artisan test --compact` to verify all tests still pass

## What Was Implemented in Phase 1
Read `work/phase-1/dev-report.md` for details. Key files to review:

**Config changes:**
- `.env`, `config/database.php`, `config/auth.php`, `config/logging.php`

**Migrations** (check `database/migrations/`):
- organizations, stores, store_domains, users modification, store_users, store_settings, customers

**Models** (check `app/Models/`):
- Organization, Store, StoreDomain, StoreUser, StoreSettings, Customer, User

**Enums** (check `app/Enums/`):
- StoreStatus, StoreUserRole, StoreDomainType

**Middleware** (check `app/Http/Middleware/`):
- ResolveStore, CheckStoreRole, CustomerAuthenticate

**Traits/Scopes** (check `app/Models/Concerns/` and `app/Models/Scopes/`):
- BelongsToStore, StoreScope, ChecksStoreRole

**Auth** (check `app/Livewire/Admin/Auth/` and `app/Livewire/Storefront/Account/Auth/`):
- Admin Login/Logout, Customer Login/Register, CustomerUserProvider

**Authorization** (check `app/Policies/`):
- All 10+ policies

**Tests** (check `tests/Feature/` and `tests/Unit/`):
- All test files created

## Review Checklist (define quality metrics upfront)

Review each area with these criteria and thresholds:

1. **Code Style** - Laravel Pint compliance (0 violations allowed)
2. **Type Safety** - All methods have return type declarations, parameters typed
3. **Eloquent Best Practices** - Proper relationships with return types, no raw DB queries, eager loading where needed
4. **Security** - No SQL injection, proper input validation, rate limiting configured, CSRF protection
5. **SOLID Principles** - Single responsibility, dependency injection, interface segregation
6. **PHP 8 Features** - Constructor property promotion, enums, match expressions where appropriate
7. **Test Quality** - Tests are meaningful, cover edge cases, use factories, proper assertions
8. **Laravel Conventions** - Proper use of guards, middleware, policies, service providers
9. **Code Duplication** - No significant duplication (DRY)
10. **Error Handling** - Proper exceptions, no silent failures

For each item: PASS or FAIL. No UNKNOWN, SKIPPED, PARTIAL, or blank.

## Static Analysis
Run static analysis. You can use:
- `vendor/bin/pint --test --format agent` for style checking
- `php artisan test --compact` for test verification
- Review code manually for complexity, duplication, vulnerabilities

## Output Format for `work/phase-1/code-review.md`

1. **Quality metrics defined upfront** (what was measured, thresholds)
2. **Item-level checklist** with PASS/FAIL per item
3. **Static analysis results** with actual numbers
4. **For any FAIL found**: what the issue was, how it should be fixed
5. **Self-assessment**: Overall code quality rating (1-10) with justification. Remaining risks. Anything that passed but feels fragile.

## Rules
- If you find issues, tell the team lead what needs fixing
- Be thorough but fair
- Every item must be PASS or FAIL
- Never use em-dash characters in text

When done, send a message to the team lead with your assessment.


The diagnostics show mostly Intelephense false positives (Pest test methods, Livewire methods, generic types) plus a few minor unused variable warnings in factories. These are standard for Laravel/Pest projects. The Code Reviewer will evaluate these as part of their review. Waiting for the reviewer to complete.


<teammate-message teammate_id="code-reviewer-p1" color="pink" summary="Phase 1 code review complete, 8/10, all items PASS">
Phase 1 code review is complete. Report written to `work/phase-1/code-review.md`.

**Overall Rating: 8/10 -- PASS on all 10 checklist items.**

Summary:
- **Code Style**: 0 Pint violations in all Phase 1 files
- **Tests**: 235 tests, 369 assertions, all passing (5.84s)
- **Type Safety**: All methods have return types, parameters properly typed
- **Security**: Rate limiting, session regeneration, generic error messages, tenant isolation all correct
- **No raw DB queries**, no `env()` outside config, proper Eloquent usage throughout

**No FAIL-level issues found.** Five observations worth noting for future phases:

1. **Trait location inconsistency**: `BelongsToStore` in `app/Models/Concerns/`, `ChecksStoreRole` in `app/Traits/`. Not a bug, but the team should pick one convention going forward.

2. **Enum comparison style**: `ResolveStore` line 44 compares `$store->status->value === 'suspended'` instead of `$store->status === StoreStatus::Suspended`. Works but less type-safe.

3. **Rate limiter key collision**: Admin and customer login both use `'login|'.$ip` as the throttle key -- they share rate limit budget from the same IP. Minor issue.

4. **Repeated role queries**: `ChecksStoreRole::getStoreRole()` hits the database each call. Multiple policy/gate checks in one request will repeat the same query. Future optimization candidate.

5. **StoreSeeder fragility**: Depends on `Organization::first()` and `User::first()` -- works only when called in the right order from DatabaseSeeder.

None of these block Phase 1 approval. The code is clean, well-tested, and follows Laravel 12 conventions correctly.
</teammate-message>

<teammate-message teammate_id="code-reviewer-p1" color="pink">
{"type":"idle_notification","from":"code-reviewer-p1","timestamp":"2026-03-20T06:44:19.029Z","idleReason":"available"}
</teammate-message>


Code review passed with 8/10 and all items PASS. Moving to Step 4: QA Verification. Let me spawn the QA Analyst and shut down the code reviewer.


SendMessage

Code review complete. All items PASS. Your work is done.

Code review complete. All items PASS. Your work is done.


Shutdown request sent to code-reviewer-p1. Request ID: shutdown-1773989069887@code-reviewer-p1


Agent

Phase 1 QA Analyst

Prompt:
You are the **QA Analyst** for Phase 1: Foundation of the shop project.

## Your Task
Verify all Phase 1 functionality using Playwright (via MCP Playwright tools) and Chrome. Test all routes AND rendered pages. Track all checks in `work/phase-1/qa-report.md`.

## IMPORTANT: Use Playwright MCP Tools
You have access to Playwright browser tools via MCP:
- `browser_navigate` to visit URLs
- `browser_snapshot` to capture page state
- `browser_click` to click elements
- `browser_fill_form` to fill form fields
- `browser_console_messages` to check for JS errors
- `browser_take_screenshot` for visual verification
- `browser_network_requests` to check network activity

Before starting, use the `get-absolute-url` tool to get the correct base URL for the application.

## What to Test (Phase 1 Gherkin Scenarios)
Read `work/phase-1/gherkin-specs.md` for the full list. The testable UI scenarios for Phase 1 are:

### Admin Authentication (test via browser)
1. Admin login page renders at /admin/login
2. Admin login with valid credentials (admin@acme.test / password) redirects to /admin
3. Admin login with invalid credentials shows error
4. Admin login does not reveal whether email or password is wrong (generic error)
5. Admin logout redirects to /admin/login
6. Unauthenticated access to /admin redirects to /admin/login

### Customer Authentication (test via browser)
1. Customer login page renders at /account/login
2. Customer login with valid credentials redirects to /account
3. Customer login with invalid credentials shows error
4. Customer registration page renders at /account/register
5. Customer registration creates account and logs in
6. Duplicate email registration in same store shows error
7. Customer logout redirects to /account/login
8. Unauthenticated access to /account redirects to /account/login

### Storefront (test via browser)
1. Homepage loads (may be minimal at this point)
2. Unknown hostname returns 404
3. Suspended store returns 503

### Backend-Only Scenarios (verify via Pest test results)
For scenarios that cannot be tested via browser (migrations, models, scopes, policies), verify by running `php artisan test --compact` and confirming all 235 tests pass.

## Output Format for `work/phase-1/qa-report.md`

### For each Gherkin scenario:
- **What was tested**: Description
- **How it was tested**: Specific Playwright actions taken (or "Verified via Pest test suite")
- **Expected result**: What should happen
- **Actual result**: What actually happened
- **Status**: PASS or FAIL

### Asset Verification Section
For every page visited:
- Page URL
- Number of images/assets found
- How many loaded successfully
- PASS/FAIL

### URL Verification Section
For every internal link and navigation element:
- URL
- Expected destination
- Actual result (page loaded / 404 / error / redirect)
- PASS/FAIL

### Regression Check
Phase 1 is the first phase, so note: "No prior phases to regress against."

### Self-Assessment
- Areas that felt undertested
- Anything that passed but seemed brittle
- Any concerns about behavior that technically meets spec but feels wrong

## Rules
- Every check must be PASS or FAIL. No UNKNOWN, SKIPPED, PARTIAL, N/A, or blank.
- If a FAIL is found, document it and tell the team lead what needs fixing.
- Be thorough with the browser testing - actually navigate, click, fill forms, verify responses.
- Never use em-dash characters in text.

When done, send a message to the team lead with your results.


Spawned successfully.
agent_id: qa-analyst-p1@vivid-launching-llama
name: qa-analyst-p1
team_name: vivid-launching-llama
The agent is now running and will receive instructions via mailbox.

Prompt:
You are the **QA Analyst** for Phase 1: Foundation of the shop project.

## Your Task
Verify all Phase 1 functionality using Playwright (via MCP Playwright tools) and Chrome. Test all routes AND rendered pages. Track all checks in `work/phase-1/qa-report.md`.

## IMPORTANT: Use Playwright MCP Tools
You have access to Playwright browser tools via MCP:
- `browser_navigate` to visit URLs
- `browser_snapshot` to capture page state
- `browser_click` to click elements
- `browser_fill_form` to fill form fields
- `browser_console_messages` to check for JS errors
- `browser_take_screenshot` for visual verification
- `browser_network_requests` to check network activity

Before starting, use the `get-absolute-url` tool to get the correct base URL for the application.

## What to Test (Phase 1 Gherkin Scenarios)
Read `work/phase-1/gherkin-specs.md` for the full list. The testable UI scenarios for Phase 1 are:

### Admin Authentication (test via browser)
1. Admin login page renders at /admin/login
2. Admin login with valid credentials (admin@acme.test / password) redirects to /admin
3. Admin login with invalid credentials shows error
4. Admin login does not reveal whether email or password is wrong (generic error)
5. Admin logout redirects to /admin/login
6. Unauthenticated access to /admin redirects to /admin/login

### Customer Authentication (test via browser)
1. Customer login page renders at /account/login
2. Customer login with valid credentials redirects to /account
3. Customer login with invalid credentials shows error
4. Customer registration page renders at /account/register
5. Customer registration creates account and logs in
6. Duplicate email registration in same store shows error
7. Customer logout redirects to /account/login
8. Unauthenticated access to /account redirects to /account/login

### Storefront (test via browser)
1. Homepage loads (may be minimal at this point)
2. Unknown hostname returns 404
3. Suspended store returns 503

### Backend-Only Scenarios (verify via Pest test results)
For scenarios that cannot be tested via browser (migrations, models, scopes, policies), verify by running `php artisan test --compact` and confirming all 235 tests pass.

## Output Format for `work/phase-1/qa-report.md`

### For each Gherkin scenario:
- **What was tested**: Description
- **How it was tested**: Specific Playwright actions taken (or "Verified via Pest test suite")
- **Expected result**: What should happen
- **Actual result**: What actually happened
- **Status**: PASS or FAIL

### Asset Verification Section
For every page visited:
- Page URL
- Number of images/assets found
- How many loaded successfully
- PASS/FAIL

### URL Verification Section
For every internal link and navigation element:
- URL
- Expected destination
- Actual result (page loaded / 404 / error / redirect)
- PASS/FAIL

### Regression Check
Phase 1 is the first phase, so note: "No prior phases to regress against."

### Self-Assessment
- Areas that felt undertested
- Anything that passed but seemed brittle
- Any concerns about behavior that technically meets spec but feels wrong

## Rules
- Every check must be PASS or FAIL. No UNKNOWN, SKIPPED, PARTIAL, N/A, or blank.
- If a FAIL is found, document it and tell the team lead what needs fixing.
- Be thorough with the browser testing - actually navigate, click, fill forms, verify responses.
- Never use em-dash characters in text.

When done, send a message to the team lead with your results.


QA Analyst is now running browser tests. Code reviewer shutdown pending. Waiting for QA results.


<teammate-message teammate_id="system">
{"type":"teammate_terminated","message":"code-reviewer-p1 has shut down."}
</teammate-message>

<teammate-message teammate_id="code-reviewer-p1" color="pink">
{"type":"shutdown_approved","requestId":"shutdown-1773989069887@code-reviewer-p1","from":"code-reviewer-p1","timestamp":"2026-03-20T06:44:33.432Z","paneId":"in-process","backendType":"in-process"}
</teammate-message>


Code reviewer shut down cleanly. Waiting for the QA Analyst to complete browser testing of Phase 1.


<teammate-message teammate_id="qa-analyst-p1" color="cyan" summary="Phase 1 QA: 16/17 browser tests FAIL, 3 critical blockers">
Phase 1 QA is complete. The full report is at `work/phase-1/qa-report.md`.

**Pest tests: 235/235 PASS**
**Browser tests: 1/17 PASS, 16/17 FAIL**

The backend foundation is solid -- all Pest tests pass. But the web-facing layer has 3 critical blockers that prevent browser verification:

**Critical Issue 1: Admin login page 500 error**
`App\Livewire\Admin\Auth\Login` references `->layout('components.layouts.guest')` but no such Blade file exists. Available layouts are in `resources/views/layouts/` (auth.blade.php, app.blade.php). Either create `resources/views/components/layouts/guest.blade.php` or change the layout reference.

**Critical Issue 2: Customer routes not registered**
The Livewire components (`Storefront\Account\Auth\Login`, `Register`) and their Blade views exist, but `routes/web.php` has no `/account/*` routes at all. The entire customer auth route group is missing.

**Critical Issue 3: No /admin dashboard route**
Only `/admin/login` and `/admin/logout` are registered. There is no `/admin` route for the dashboard. Unauthenticated access to `/admin` returns 404 instead of redirecting to `/admin/login`.

**Minor issues:**
- Admin seeder uses `test@example.com` but Gherkin specs reference `admin@acme.test`
- No customer test data is seeded
- Storefront domain `acme-fashion.test` is not configured in Herd (cannot browser-test hostname resolution)
- Middleware alias registered as `auth.customer` but Gherkin specs expect `auth:customer`

These 3 critical issues need to be fixed before Phase 1 can pass browser QA.
</teammate-message>

<teammate-message teammate_id="qa-analyst-p1" color="cyan">
{"type":"idle_notification","from":"qa-analyst-p1","timestamp":"2026-03-20T06:48:35.043Z","idleReason":"available"}
</teammate-message>


QA found critical issues. Let me send the developer back to fix them.


SendMessage

The QA Analyst found 3 critical issues and 4 minor issues that need fixing before Phase 1 can pass. Please fix all of these:

**Critical Issue 1: Admin login page 500 error**
`App\Livewire\Admin\Auth\Login` references `->layout('components.layouts.guest')` but no such Blade file exists. Either create `resources/views/components/layouts/guest.blade.php` with a minimal layout, or change the layout reference to use an existing layout file.

**Critical Issue 2: Customer routes not registered**
The Livewire components exist but `routes/web.php` has no `/account/*` routes. Add the customer auth route group:
- GET /account/login
- GET /account/register
- GET /account (authenticated, redirects to login if not)
- POST /account/logout

**Critical Issue 3: No /admin dashboard route**
Only `/admin/login` and `/admin/logout` are registered. Add a `/admin` route (even if it's a placeholder page) so that:
- Authenticated admins see a dashboard placeholder
- Unauthenticated users are redirected to `/admin/login`

**Minor Issue 1: Admin seeder**
The admin user should be seeded with email `admin@acme.test` (not `test@example.com`), password `password`, and role `owner` on Store 1.

**Minor Issue 2: Customer seeder**
Seed a customer with email `customer@acme.test`, password `password`, name "John Doe", belonging to Store 1.

**Minor Issue 3: Store domain**
Ensure the StoreDomain seeder creates a domain record for `acme-fashion.test` pointing to Store 1 with type `storefront`.

**Minor Issue 4: Middleware alias**
The Gherkin specs expect `auth:customer` but you registered `auth.customer`. Check which convention is correct for Laravel 12 and make it consistent. (Laravel typically uses dots for middleware aliases.)

After fixing, run `vendor/bin/pint --dirty --format agent` and `php artisan test --compact` to verify nothing broke. Then send me a message confirming the fixes.

Summary: Fix 3 critical + 4 minor QA issues

The QA Analyst found 3 critical issues and 4 minor issues that need fixing before Phase 1 can pass. Please fix all of these:

**Critical Issue 1: Admin login page 500 error**
`App\Livewire\Admin\Auth\Login` references `->layout('components.layouts.guest')` but no such Blade file exists. Either create `resources/views/components/layouts/guest.blade.php` with a minimal layout, or change the layout reference to use an existing layout file.

**Critical Issue 2: Customer routes not registered**
The Livewire components exist but `routes/web.php` has no `/account/*` routes. Add the customer auth route group:
- GET /account/login
- GET /account/register
- GET /account (authenticated, redirects to login if not)
- POST /account/logout

**Critical Issue 3: No /admin dashboard route**
Only `/admin/login` and `/admin/logout` are registered. Add a `/admin` route (even if it's a placeholder page) so that:
- Authenticated admins see a dashboard placeholder
- Unauthenticated users are redirected to `/admin/login`

**Minor Issue 1: Admin seeder**
The admin user should be seeded with email `admin@acme.test` (not `test@example.com`), password `password`, and role `owner` on Store 1.

**Minor Issue 2: Customer seeder**
Seed a customer with email `customer@acme.test`, password `password`, name "John Doe", belonging to Store 1.

**Minor Issue 3: Store domain**
Ensure the StoreDomain seeder creates a domain record for `acme-fashion.test` pointing to Store 1 with type `storefront`.

**Minor Issue 4: Middleware alias**
The Gherkin specs expect `auth:customer` but you registered `auth.customer`. Check which convention is correct for Laravel 12 and make it consistent. (Laravel typically uses dots for middleware aliases.)

After fixing, run `vendor/bin/pint --dirty --format agent` and `php artisan test --compact` to verify nothing broke. Then send me a message confirming the fixes.


Message sent to dev-backend-p1's inbox

Summary: Fix 3 critical + 4 minor QA issues

The QA Analyst found 3 critical issues and 4 minor issues that need fixing before Phase 1 can pass. Please fix all of these:

**Critical Issue 1: Admin login page 500 error**
`App\Livewire\Admin\Auth\Login` references `->layout('components.layouts.guest')` but no such Blade file exists. Either create `resources/views/components/layouts/guest.blade.php` with a minimal layout, or change the layout reference to use an existing layout file.

**Critical Issue 2: Customer routes not registered**
The Livewire components exist but `routes/web.php` has no `/account/*` routes. Add the customer auth route group:
- GET /account/login
- GET /account/register
- GET /account (authenticated, redirects to login if not)
- POST /account/logout

**Critical Issue 3: No /admin dashboard route**
Only `/admin/login` and `/admin/logout` are registered. Add a `/admin` route (even if it's a placeholder page) so that:
- Authenticated admins see a dashboard placeholder
- Unauthenticated users are redirected to `/admin/login`

**Minor Issue 1: Admin seeder**
The admin user should be seeded with email `admin@acme.test` (not `test@example.com`), password `password`, and role `owner` on Store 1.

**Minor Issue 2: Customer seeder**
Seed a customer with email `customer@acme.test`, password `password`, name "John Doe", belonging to Store 1.

**Minor Issue 3: Store domain**
Ensure the StoreDomain seeder creates a domain record for `acme-fashion.test` pointing to Store 1 with type `storefront`.

**Minor Issue 4: Middleware alias**
The Gherkin specs expect `auth:customer` but you registered `auth.customer`. Check which convention is correct for Laravel 12 and make it consistent. (Laravel typically uses dots for middleware aliases.)

After fixing, run `vendor/bin/pint --dirty --format agent` and `php artisan test --compact` to verify nothing broke. Then send me a message confirming the fixes.

Message sent to dev-backend-p1's inbox

Summary: Fix 3 critical + 4 minor QA issues


Developer is fixing the QA issues. Waiting for the fixes.


<teammate-message teammate_id="qa-analyst-p1" color="cyan" summary="Phase 1 QA: 16/17 browser tests FAIL, 3 critical blockers"> Phase 1 QA is complete. The full report is at `work/phase-1/qa-report.md…