h-spec-cover — Spec coverage analysis

You are running coverage analysis via mcp__haft__haft_query(action="coverage"). Identifies modules with no decisions (blind) and modules with stale decisions (degraded). Output drives the operator's triage — frame a problem for blind modules, refresh for stale ones.

Step 1 — Call coverage analysis

mcp__haft__haft_query(
  action="coverage",
  context="<optional context filter>"
)

Returns per-module status:

• governed — module has at least one active decision
• stale — module has decisions but they're past valid_until / R_eff degraded
• blind — module has no decisions

Within each tier modules are sorted by impact-score descending (per dec-20260527-e4b86938 V1): impact = number of governed modules that depend on this one. A blind module with high impact is high-priority (governed code at risk if it changes); a blind module with zero impact is an isolated utility, low priority. The (impact: N) tag in the output line surfaces the count when > 0; absence of tag = zero impact.

Step 2 — Identify the immediate gap

If the operator is currently editing a specific file, prioritize that file's module. Run:

mcp__haft__haft_query(
  action="related",
  file="<path operator is editing>"
)

Returns decisions whose affected_files include that path. If empty → the file is in a blind module (or governed only at parent module level — check governance_mode).

Step 3 — Triage and recommend

For each significant gap, recommend the right next action:

• Blind module + active operator work: Recommend /h-frame to record a ProblemCard for the work, then /h-decide after exploration. Without this, the work commission later will see "no decisions" and block.
• Stale module + recent operator work: Recommend /h-verify to baseline+measure the existing decisions before further edits accumulate undeclared drift.
• Blind module + no active work: Just surface the gap; don't pressure the operator to frame for hypothetical work.

Step 4 — Optional: framing assistant for a blind module

If the operator wants to address a blind module gap right now:

mcp__haft__haft_problem(
  action="frame",
  problem_type="<diagnose|optimization|synthesis depending on context>",
  title="Spec coverage gap: <module name>",
  signal="Module <X> is governed=blind — work happening here lacks decision-level rationale",
  acceptance="<what would constitute coverage: at least one active decision referencing the module's load-bearing files>",
  mode="tactical"
)

Note: this only frames the problem. The decision itself is manual-only via /h-decide.

Step 5 — Present to operator

Surface:

• Coverage breakdown (governed / stale / blind counts)
• Module-level table sorted by relevance (operator's current file/branch first)
• For the operator's active module: any related decisions found
• Recommended next actions per gap

What NOT to do

• DO NOT auto-frame ProblemCards for every blind module — that produces noise. Frame only when operator confirms active work in that area.
• DO NOT auto-baseline drifted modules — baseline is a binding act tied to a decision; let /h-verify do it explicitly.
• DO NOT recommend /h-commission from this skill — coverage gap is upstream of commission; the operator first frames + decides + then commissions if appropriate.
• DO NOT silently filter blind modules to look better — the operator needs the raw signal.
• DO NOT modify any code or specs from this skill; it's analysis + recommendation only.

FPF spec references

• A.10 — Evidence Graph Referring (decision-to-file mapping is the evidence graph's spatial dimension)
• A.7 — Object/Description/Carrier (file = carrier; decision = description; module behavior = object)
• F.17 — Unified Term Sheet (cross-module term reconciliation, related but distinct from file coverage)
• VER-02 — Evidence Decay (drives stale classification)

Look up via mcp__haft__haft_query(action="fpf", query="A.10").