Problem / Why
Two authoritative policy documents state different numbers, and tooling disagrees with both: the local test wrapper enforces an 80% floor while a feature-review hook hard-codes 85% against artifacts/csharp/coverage.xml. A repository whose measured figure sits between 80% and 85% therefore passes one gate and fails another depending on which artifact happens to exist, which makes the gate a function of tooling accident rather than of code quality. Feature #464 had to route around this deliberately by declining to emit the canonical coverage artifact.
Proposed Behavior
Pick one set of thresholds, state it in a single authoritative location, and make every other document and every gate reference that location rather than restating a number. Align the wrapper floor and the review hook to the chosen value.
Acceptance Criteria
Constraints & Risks
Raising the effective floor could block unrelated in-flight work, so the change should be sequenced deliberately. The denominator question is the substantive part and must not be skipped: feature #464 measured 70.32% and 85.25% on two runs of the same repository whose lines-valid differed by 17,946, so a bare percentage is not meaningful without naming what was measured.
Test Conditions
Source
From: docs/features/potential/2026-08-27-coverage-threshold-discrepancy-claude-md-vs-rules.md
Problem / Why
Two authoritative policy documents state different numbers, and tooling disagrees with both: the local test wrapper enforces an 80% floor while a feature-review hook hard-codes 85% against
artifacts/csharp/coverage.xml. A repository whose measured figure sits between 80% and 85% therefore passes one gate and fails another depending on which artifact happens to exist, which makes the gate a function of tooling accident rather than of code quality. Feature #464 had to route around this deliberately by declining to emit the canonical coverage artifact.Proposed Behavior
Pick one set of thresholds, state it in a single authoritative location, and make every other document and every gate reference that location rather than restating a number. Align the wrapper floor and the review hook to the chosen value.
Acceptance Criteria
Constraints & Risks
Raising the effective floor could block unrelated in-flight work, so the change should be sequenced deliberately. The denominator question is the substantive part and must not be skipped: feature #464 measured 70.32% and 85.25% on two runs of the same repository whose
lines-validdiffered by 17,946, so a bare percentage is not meaningful without naming what was measured.Test Conditions
Source
From: docs/features/potential/2026-08-27-coverage-threshold-discrepancy-claude-md-vs-rules.md