test(planning): split interview session-config eval into engineering + general session cases

[kyle-sexton]

Summary

The interview skill's recommends-session-config eval only checked the "downstream execution session" framing, so a general/terminal-session case could still pass on that stale framing after the skill contract moved general sessions to recommend config for the current/next session. This splits the eval into an engineering/downstream case and a general/current-session case so both framings are actually covered.

⚠️ Do not merge before #848

This depends on #848 (docs(planning): reframe interview session-config framing), which is still open. The current/next-session framing eval 10 asserts exists only on #848's branch — origin/main's SKILL.md / context/session-config.md still carry the old downstream-only framing. Until #848 lands, this branch is intentionally inconsistent: the skill (on main) says downstream-only while eval 10 expects current/next-session config. Merging this first would ship an eval asserting behavior the shipped skill does not describe. Hence do-not-merge + draft.

On merge order: once #848 lands, re-merge main into this branch (merge, not rebase) and re-verify the version bump lands one increment past whatever #848 itself bumped to. #848 currently bumps planning 0.25.0 → 0.25.1; this branch bumps 0.25.0 → 0.25.2 on that assumption. If #848's target changes, re-bump. Expect a merge conflict on plugin.json's version line and the CHANGELOG.md insertion point — resolve 0.25.2 above 0.25.1.

Fix

plugins/planning/skills/interview/evals/evals.json:

• Eval 9 renamed recommends-session-config-from-live-docs → recommends-session-config-engineering-downstream. Its prompt is already an engineering task (a code re-architecture), for which the downstream-execution-session framing remains correct; the expected_output and expectations now make that engineering/handoff scope explicit so it is unambiguously the engineering half of the split.
• New eval 10 recommends-session-config-general-current-session: a clearly non-build general decision (org-structure strategy across ~200 people, with an explicit "not a code change" override to lock the general classification). It asserts the skill recommends config for the current/next session, applied now — not a downstream execution session that will never exist — while keeping the same capability-vs-thoroughness distinction, advisor pairing, live-doc sourcing, and graceful-degrade expectations.

This closes the coverage gap: the eval set can no longer accept downstream-only framing for a general-session case.

Version bump 0.25.0 → 0.25.2 and a [0.25.2] CHANGELOG entry (see merge-order note above).

Verification

This repo ships no model-graded eval runner — skill-quality:check's own SKILL.md states "Not for: running model-graded evals." So this cannot assert a behavioral pass of the skill against the evals; the available evidence is schema conformance + the static skill gate:

• check-jsonschema --schemafile plugins/skill-quality/reference/evals.schema.json plugins/planning/skills/interview/evals/evals.json → ok -- validation done
• python -m jsonschema validate against the same schema → SCHEMA VALID, 10 evals, all id/name unique.
• CHECK_SKILL_SKILLS_ROOT=…/plugins/planning/skills check-skill.sh interview → PASS — 0 errors, 2 warning(s). Both warnings are pre-existing and unrelated (soft line-count target; description trigger phrasing) — the same two docs(planning): reframe interview session-config framing #848's own verification reported; this change introduces none. The run's INFO lines confirm it validated interview (not a no-op).

Related

• Depends on / serializes behind docs(planning): reframe interview session-config framing #848 (docs(planning): reframe interview session-config framing, open).
• Origin: codex P2 review finding on docs(planning): reframe interview session-config framing #848 (thread PRRT_kwDOTCGFQM6TBhu6), classified VALID and deferred out of docs(planning): reframe interview session-config framing #848's docs-reframe scope — filed as planning/interview: recommends-session-config-from-live-docs eval still asserts old downstream-only framing #1083.

Closes #1083

Work-class: C3 (bug-fix-shaped) — attended triage 2026-07-23, operator-ratified. 🤖

[claude]

Claude encountered an error after 0s —— View job

---

I'll analyze this and get back to you.

[claude]

Claude encountered an error after 1s —— View job

---

I'll analyze this and get back to you.

[github-actions]

Warning

Automated security review did not complete — this is an infrastructure failure, not a review verdict.

Treat any Claude comment on this PR (including a placeholder like "I'll analyze this and get back to you") as incomplete, not "no findings."

• Run: https://github.com/melodic-software/claude-code-plugins/actions/runs/29972862201
• Last SDK result: {"subtype":"success","is_error":true,"num_turns":1,"duration_ms":565,"total_cost_usd":0}

Re-running the job, or pushing a new commit, will retry the review.

[github-actions]

Warning

Automated review did not complete — this is an infrastructure failure, not a review verdict.

Treat any Claude comment on this PR (including a placeholder like "I'll analyze this and get back to you") as incomplete, not "no findings."

• Run: https://github.com/melodic-software/claude-code-plugins/actions/runs/29972862127
• Last SDK result: {"subtype":"success","is_error":true,"num_turns":1,"duration_ms":475,"total_cost_usd":0}

Re-running the job, or pushing a new commit, will retry the review.

[kyle-sexton]

🔒 babysit-prs lane claiming this PR for on-branch fix work this cycle (amendment-round: 16, safe tier). Will fix clear branch-owned findings and push; will not resolve threads or merge (safe tier).