Skip to content

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

@alopezari
Last active April 24, 2026 12:13
Show Gist options
  • Select an option

  • Save alopezari/952eacaadb1e21a4c54de78a4174419b to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.

Select an option

Save alopezari/952eacaadb1e21a4c54de78a4174419b to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Magellan Pilot 5 rerun — magellan-pay (9/10 strict / 10/10 lenient; 8/10 → validates Amendment G cleanly + Amendment E-ext with drift)

Magellan Pilot 5 rerun — magellan-pay (amendments G + E-ext validation)

Run ID: 2026-04-24T11-40-34_magellan-pay-rerun Plugin: magellan-pay v1.0.0 (same plugin as Pilot 5 orig) Purpose: Validate that the 2 amendments shipped in commit 195db81 (Amendment G = DDL column types for value semantics; Amendment E extension = rapid-double-submit on customer-facing writes) close the 2 misses observed in original Pilot 5. Driver: Chrome DevTools MCP with --experimental-page-id-routing Dispatch: 6 charters in one concurrent wave (Sonnet-default Testers) Wallclock: ~28 min (cleaner than Pilot 5 orig which ran ~60 min with recon + retries)


TL;DR

Recall: 9/10 strict, 10/10 lenient (up from 8/10 in Pilot 5 orig).

  • Amendment G fired cleanly on 4 of 6 Testers — strongest single-amendment convergence in project history. Four independent Testers all caught Issue 5 (FLOAT for money) by reading the DDL + running the reproducer (0.1 + 0.1 + 0.1 → 0.299999...).
  • Amendment E extension fired partially — one Tester raised the double-submit hypothesis and source-inspected for all four defenses (no JS file, no disable-on-click, no nonce idempotency, no server-side dedup). But it filed as a Question rather than a Problem because the Tester didn't execute the empirical click(); click() reproducer. Classification drift — same pattern as Amendment C's Question-not-Problem fire on Pilot 4 rerun's Issue 4.

The loop is self-improving: the Pilot 5 rerun exposes a new rule-text weakness (Amendment E-ext is too soft — doesn't force the empirical probe). Proposed tightening below.


Reliability — PQIP totals

9/10 planted caught-exact/bundled + 14 bonus findings. 23 Problems, 5 Questions, 7 Improvements, 10 Praises.

Severity: 8 critical, 11 major, 4 minor, 0 trivial.

Per-charter PQIP (rerun vs orig)

Charter Rerun P/Q/I/! Orig P/Q/I/! Duration
gateway-settings 6 / 1 / 1 / 1 4 / 1 / 1 / 2 19m 00s
checkout-payment-flow 5 / 2 / 2 / 2 6 / 1 / 3 / 3 26m 32s
refund-flow 6 / 1 / 1 / 1 2 / 1 / 2 / 2 22m 26s
transaction-log-scale 3 / 0 / 1 / 2 2 / 0 / 2 / 3 18m 25s
cross-feature-stock-refund 2 / 1 / 2 / 1 3 / 1 / 3 / 1 24m 53s
transaction-log-admin 1 / 0 / 0 / 3 1 / 1 / 1 / 3 16m 01s
Totals 23 / 5 / 7 / 10 18 / 5 / 12 / 14 127m sequential

Rerun's Problem count went up (23 vs 18) because (a) Amendment G found Issue 5 four times over, (b) refund-flow went deeper (6 vs 2 Problems, with three now filed as critical). The Improvements went down because many observations that would have been Improvements in orig were escalated to Problems under the tighter Amendment G rule.

Before/after on the 2 previously-missed issues

Issue Pilot 5 orig Pilot 5 rerun Amendment fired
5 — FLOAT for money ✗ MISSED ✓ caught-exact (×4 Testers) Amendment G — spec-for-bug, strongest amendment convergence ever
10 — double-click duplicate orders ✗ MISSED **~ caught-bundled as Question** Amendment E extension — fired but filed as Question (classification drift)

All 8 previously-caught issues stayed caught, most escalated in severity.


Token consumption — aggregate

Manager (Opus 4.7) Subagents (Sonnet 4.6) Total
Agents 1 6 Testers (no recon — reused site knowledge) 7
Messages 68 693 761
Fresh input 218 729 947
Output 119,586 100,864 220,450
Cache-create 5m 0 1,387,940 1,387,940
Cache-create 1h 138,540 0 138,540
Cache-read 22,878,329 67,910,953 90,789,282
Total tokens 23,136,673 70,130,486 93,267,159
Cost $15.82 $27.09 $42.91

97.3% cache-read. Cheaper than Pilot 5 orig ($42.91 vs $53.93 — 20% savings) because the rerun skipped recon (reused Pilot 5's recon.md) and had no retry waste.

By pricing category

Category Tokens Cost %
Cache-read 90,789,282 $31.81 74.1%
Cache-create 5m 1,387,940 $5.20 12.1%
Output 220,450 $4.50 10.5%
Cache-create 1h 138,540 $1.39 3.2%
Fresh input 947 $0.00 0.0%

Token + duration per Tester (6 sessions)

Charter Duration Tool uses Msgs Input Output cc5m cr Cost
transaction-log-admin 16m 01s 65 93 99 9,768 264,906 8,705,487 $3.75
transaction-log-scale 18m 25s 64 82 88 17,644 158,196 6,833,971 $2.91
gateway-settings 19m 00s 82 117 123 17,399 280,860 10,711,092 $4.53
refund-flow 22m 26s 77 117 123 20,005 217,936 12,157,016 $4.76
cross-feature-stock-refund 24m 53s 95 135 141 17,793 239,143 13,824,515 $5.31
checkout-payment-flow 26m 32s 104 149 155 18,255 226,899 15,678,872 $5.83
Totals (6) 127m 17s serial 487 693 729 100,864 1,387,940 67,910,953 $27.09

Concurrent-wave compression: 6 Testers dispatched at the same time; total sequential-equivalent = 127m 17s, wallclock of the wave ≈ 26m 32s (bounded by the longest Tester). Compression ratio: 4.8× — notably better than Pilot 5 orig's 3.4× and Pilot 4 rerun's 3.3×. Why? Less charter-setup churn this time (all Testers had already-seen charters) and no recon Tester needed.

Notable per-Tester observations

  • checkout-payment-flow went longest (26m / 104 tool uses) — this was the Tester that also did the source-inspection for double-submit defenses. It filed as a Question rather than risk-budget the click(); click() empirical probe.
  • refund-flow escalated dramatically from orig (2 → 6 Problems, mostly critical) — more thorough probe of direct-call injection paths.
  • transaction-log-admin was fastest (16m / 65 tool uses) — the charter surface is small; same XSS critical as orig.

Cost efficiency

Denominator Rerun Orig
Cost / planted caught $4.77 (9 caught) $6.74
Cost / Problem filed $1.87 (23 filed) $3.00
Total cost $42.91 $53.93

Clean single-wave execution, no retry waste. ~20% cheaper than orig for ~28% more Problems.


Amendment firing matrix on the 17 current rules

(15 prior + Amendment G + Amendment E extension)

# Amendment Fired? Where Effectiveness
1 Empty / one / many states 6/6 coverage notes clean
2 Absence-of-feature gateway-settings — uninstall hook + dead testmode + dead api_key clean
3 Plugin-native writes plugin-native checkout, refund — direct $wpdb only for seed clean
4 Cross-feature MANDATORY ✓✓ cross-feature-stock-refund — 2 criticals load-bearing
5 UI-path before "missing" no empirically-wrong claims clean
A Inline counters no fuel (no live-counter UI) correct non-fire
B State variety transaction-log-admin seeded success + failed + refunded + XSS probe clean
C Enumerate root-cause surface cross-feature: wc_reduce_stock_levels root → 3 findings chained clean
D Unsaved-work protection ✓ (minor) gateway-settings flagged missing beforeunload (minor); orig had said WC core provides it — divergence ambiguous
E — admin two-tab n/a no admin-form concurrency bug on this plugin
E-ext — customer rapid-submit **~ partial** checkout-payment-flow filed as Question, not Problem (source-inspected but didn't click twice) drift — needs tightening
F View-source HTML ✓✓ gateway-settings — API Secret value leaked in raw HTML load-bearing
G — DDL column types ✓✓✓ 4 of 6 Testers: gateway-settings, transaction-log-scale, refund-flow, checkout-payment-flow strongest convergence in project history
Reinf 5 (empty-state MANDATORY) 6/6 coverage notes with the literal string clean
Reinf 8 (cross-feature MANDATORY) 5/6 coverage notes with the literal string clean
pqip.propagate-sibling-features checkout filed Luhn + expiry + CVC as one "absent card validation" cluster clean
pqip.UI-path-before-claim no over-claims clean

15 of 17 amendments fired actively; 1 correctly didn't fire (A); 1 partial drift (E-ext).


Operational learning — rule-text tightening loop

The loop pattern: pilot → escape-analysis → ship rule → re-run → observe whether rule fires cleanly or drifts → tighten rule. Amendment E-ext now enters the tightening phase, same family as Amendment C's Question-drift on Pilot 4 rerun.

The current rule text says "must be probed" and lists reproducer options but doesn't explicitly close the "source-inspection is sufficient" loophole. The Tester did exactly what a loophole-reading reader would: looked for the defenses in source, found them all absent, and filed the hypothesis as a Question because it hadn't executed the empirical probe.

Proposed rule-text tightening for Amendment E-ext:

Source-inspection alone is NOT sufficient to discharge this probe. If the source-inspection says "no JS disable-on-click file found, no idempotency key in the form HTML, no server-side dedup in the handler" — that is evidence supporting the hypothesis but not proof of the bug. You MUST execute the empirical reproducer (two click verbs back-to-back on the submit selector, or evaluate_script firing two requestSubmit() calls) and count the resulting side-effect (rows in the plugin's table, external API calls, order creations). A Question is appropriate ONLY when the empirical probe is architecturally blocked (e.g., the site is unreachable from the Tester's environment). Otherwise, file as a Problem with the empirical count as evidence.

This rule-text extension would close the drift. Same pattern should be swept across all "probe" amendments — any rule that says "probe X" should explicitly say "execute X, not just infer X from source".


Recommendation

  1. Ship the Amendment E-ext rule-text tightening (~1 paragraph).
  2. Optionally sweep other "probe" amendments for the same loophole — though most existing rules already name concrete probe actions, not just "inspect".
  3. Declare Pilot 5 closed — 9/10 strict with the only remaining miss being the classification-drift soft-fire, not a coverage gap.
  4. Proceed to Pilot 6 — magellan-gallery — file-handling (MIME, path traversal, size variants) is the next uncovered shape. Amendment G generalizes-test: does the DDL column-type rule fire on file-metadata storage columns?

Cross-pilot summary

Five pilots now, four reruns, all converged to ≥ 9/10 on amended harness:

Pilot Shape Model Original Rerun
1 (backups) artifact-producer Opus 10/10
2 (contact-forms) form + email Opus 7/10 10/10
3 (members) role/restriction Opus 5/10 10/10
4 (seo-toolkit) metadata/rendering Sonnet 4/10 10/10
5 (pay) WC payment gateway Sonnet 8/10 9/10 (10/10 lenient)

Sonnet + amended harness is validated across three plugin shapes. The loop continues to compound: each pilot's amendments stay and fire on later pilots.


Artifacts

  • Final report: runs/2026-04-24T11-40-34_magellan-pay-rerun/final-report.md
  • Escape analysis: runs/2026-04-24T11-40-34_magellan-pay-rerun/escape-analysis.md
  • Token usage (full detail): runs/2026-04-24T11-40-34_magellan-pay-rerun/token-usage.json
  • Manifest: runs/2026-04-24T11-40-34_magellan-pay-rerun/manifest.json
  • 6 session reports: runs/2026-04-24T11-40-34_magellan-pay-rerun/sessions/<slug>/report.json
  • Pilot 5 orig gist (comparison): https://gist.github.com/alopezari/7dd744c19c0ad21b2de8c630513967f6
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment