lgtm-test-gap-reviewlisted

# lgtm Test Gap Review Use during validation after inspecting implementation. Goal: verify behavior, not implementation trivia. ## Workflow 1. Re-read selected phase's Validation + Web validation sections. 2. Identify behavior to prove. 3. Inspect existing tests/checks for that behavior. 4. Find gaps: - no test covers new behavior - assertions too weak - only happy path covered - test checks implementation details not behavior - test uses fixtures that cannot fail meaningfully - required command skipped - manual verification claimed without evidence 5. Add/strengthen tests only where they materially improve confidence. 6. Run relevant checks. 7. For measurable claims, restate claim in falsifiable form, classify result as `VERIFIED`, `NOT VERIFIED`, or `INCONCLUSIVE`. 8. If required check cannot run, report blocker + residual risk. ## Verification Preference Prefer, in order: 1. existing project test command required by `AGENTS.md` 2. selected phase validation command 3. targeted unit or integration tests 4. focused manual verification with concrete evidence 5. explicit blocker report ## Verdict Shape Use this shape when validating a measurable claim: ```md VERIFIED | NOT VERIFIED | INCONCLUSIVE Claim: ... Evidence: ... Reasoning: ... ``` Use `INCONCLUSIVE` when no valid baseline, signal is noisy, environment differs, or check failed for reasons unrelated to claim. ## Guardrails Don't chase 100% coverage for its own sake. Don't add fake-confi