feat(harbor-pilot): add Playwright test investigation directive

- Create comprehensive MDC rule for systematic Playwright test failure investigation
- Integrate rule into harbor_pilot_universal.mdc for team-wide access
- Include investigation workflow, diagnostic commands, and evidence-based analysis
- Document specific failure patterns (alert stacking, selector conflicts, timing issues)
- Provide practical examples from recent test failure investigation
- Add investigation commands for error context, trace files, and page snapshots

This rule transforms ad-hoc test debugging into systematic investigation process,
leveraging Playwright's built-in debugging tools for faster root cause identification.

.cursor/rules/harbor_pilot_universal.mdc

@@ -202,3 +202,6 @@ Follow this exact order **after** the Base Contract’s **Objective → Result
 **Notes for Implementers:**  
 - Respect Base *Do-Not* (no filler, no invented facts, no censorship).  
 - Prefer clarity over completeness when timeboxed; capture unknowns explicitly.
+- Apply historical comment management rules (see `.cursor/rules/historical_comment_management.mdc`)
+- Apply realistic time estimation rules (see `.cursor/rules/realistic_time_estimation.mdc`)
+- Apply Playwright test investigation rules (see `.cursor/rules/playwright_test_investigation.mdc`)

.cursor/rules/historical_comment_management.mdc

@@ -0,0 +1,236 @@
+---
+description: when comments are generated by the model
+alwaysApply: false
+---
+# Historical Comment Management — Harbor Pilot Directive
+
+> **Agent role**: When encountering historical comments about removed methods, deprecated patterns, or architectural changes, apply these guidelines to maintain code clarity and developer guidance.
+
+## 🎯 Purpose
+
+Historical comments should either be **removed entirely** or **transformed into actionable guidance** for future developers. Avoid keeping comments that merely state what was removed without explaining why or what to do instead.
+
+## 📋 Decision Framework
+
+### Remove Historical Comments When:
+- **Obsolete Information**: Comment describes functionality that no longer exists
+- **No Action Required**: Comment doesn't help future developers make decisions
+- **Outdated Context**: Comment refers to old patterns that are no longer relevant
+- **Self-Evident**: The current code clearly shows the current approach
+
+### Transform Historical Comments When:
+- **Architectural Context**: The change represents a significant pattern shift
+- **Migration Guidance**: Future developers might need to understand the evolution
+- **Decision Rationale**: The "why" behind the change is still relevant
+- **Alternative Approaches**: The comment can guide future implementation choices
+
+## 🔄 Transformation Patterns
+
+### 1. From Removal Notice to Migration Note
+```typescript
+// ❌ REMOVE THIS
+// turnOffNotifyingFlags method removed - notification state is now managed by NotificationSection component
+
+// ✅ TRANSFORM TO THIS
+// Note: Notification state management has been migrated to NotificationSection component
+// which handles its own lifecycle and persistence via PlatformServiceMixin
+```
+
+### 2. From Deprecation Notice to Implementation Guide
+```typescript
+// ❌ REMOVE THIS
+// This will be handled by the NewComponent now
+// No need to call oldMethod() as it's no longer needed
+
+// ✅ TRANSFORM TO THIS
+// Note: This functionality has been migrated to NewComponent
+// which provides better separation of concerns and testability
+```
+
+### 3. From Historical Note to Architectural Context
+```typescript
+// ❌ REMOVE THIS
+// Old approach: used direct database calls
+// New approach: uses service layer
+
+// ✅ TRANSFORM TO THIS
+// Note: Database access has been abstracted through service layer
+// for better testability and platform independence
+```
+
+## 🚫 Anti-Patterns to Remove
+
+- Comments that only state what was removed
+- Comments that don't explain the current approach
+- Comments that reference non-existent methods
+- Comments that are self-evident from the code
+- Comments that don't help future decision-making
+
+## ✅ Best Practices
+
+### When Keeping Historical Context:
+1. **Explain the "Why"**: Why was the change made?
+2. **Describe the "What"**: What is the current approach?
+3. **Provide Context**: When might this information be useful?
+4. **Use Actionable Language**: Guide future decisions, not just document history
+
+### When Removing Historical Context:
+1. **Verify Obsoleteness**: Ensure the information is truly outdated
+2. **Check for Dependencies**: Ensure no other code references the old approach
+3. **Update Related Docs**: If removing from code, consider adding to documentation
+4. **Preserve in Git History**: The change is preserved in version control
+
+## 🔍 Implementation Checklist
+
+- [ ] Identify historical comments about removed/deprecated functionality
+- [ ] Determine if comment provides actionable guidance
+- [ ] Transform useful comments into migration notes or architectural context
+- [ ] Remove comments that are purely historical without guidance value
+- [ ] Ensure remaining comments explain current approach and rationale
+- [ ] Update related documentation if significant context is removed
+
+## 📚 Examples
+
+### Good Historical Comment (Keep & Transform)
+```typescript
+// Note: Database access has been migrated from direct IndexedDB calls to PlatformServiceMixin
+// This provides better platform abstraction and consistent error handling across web/mobile/desktop
+// When adding new database operations, use this.$getContact(), this.$saveSettings(), etc.
+```
+
+### Bad Historical Comment (Remove)
+```typescript
+// Old method getContactFromDB() removed - now handled by PlatformServiceMixin
+// No need to call the old method anymore
+```
+
+## 🎯 Integration with Harbor Pilot
+
+This rule works in conjunction with:
+- **Component Creation Ideals**: Maintains architectural consistency
+- **Migration Patterns**: Documents evolution of patterns
+- **Code Review Guidelines**: Ensures comments provide value
+
+## 📝 Version History
+
+### v1.0.0 (2025-08-21)
+- Initial creation based on notification system cleanup
+- Established decision framework for historical comment management
+- Added transformation patterns and anti-patterns
+- Integrated with existing Harbor Pilot architecture rules
+# Historical Comment Management — Harbor Pilot Directive
+
+> **Agent role**: When encountering historical comments about removed methods, deprecated patterns, or architectural changes, apply these guidelines to maintain code clarity and developer guidance.
+
+## 🎯 Purpose
+
+Historical comments should either be **removed entirely** or **transformed into actionable guidance** for future developers. Avoid keeping comments that merely state what was removed without explaining why or what to do instead.
+
+## 📋 Decision Framework
+
+### Remove Historical Comments When:
+- **Obsolete Information**: Comment describes functionality that no longer exists
+- **No Action Required**: Comment doesn't help future developers make decisions
+- **Outdated Context**: Comment refers to old patterns that are no longer relevant
+- **Self-Evident**: The current code clearly shows the current approach
+
+### Transform Historical Comments When:
+- **Architectural Context**: The change represents a significant pattern shift
+- **Migration Guidance**: Future developers might need to understand the evolution
+- **Decision Rationale**: The "why" behind the change is still relevant
+- **Alternative Approaches**: The comment can guide future implementation choices
+
+## 🔄 Transformation Patterns
+
+### 1. From Removal Notice to Migration Note
+```typescript
+// ❌ REMOVE THIS
+// turnOffNotifyingFlags method removed - notification state is now managed by NotificationSection component
+
+// ✅ TRANSFORM TO THIS
+// Note: Notification state management has been migrated to NotificationSection component
+// which handles its own lifecycle and persistence via PlatformServiceMixin
+```
+
+### 2. From Deprecation Notice to Implementation Guide
+```typescript
+// ❌ REMOVE THIS
+// This will be handled by the NewComponent now
+// No need to call oldMethod() as it's no longer needed
+
+// ✅ TRANSFORM TO THIS
+// Note: This functionality has been migrated to NewComponent
+// which provides better separation of concerns and testability
+```
+
+### 3. From Historical Note to Architectural Context
+```typescript
+// ❌ REMOVE THIS
+// Old approach: used direct database calls
+// New approach: uses service layer
+
+// ✅ TRANSFORM TO THIS
+// Note: Database access has been abstracted through service layer
+// for better testability and platform independence
+```
+
+## 🚫 Anti-Patterns to Remove
+
+- Comments that only state what was removed
+- Comments that don't explain the current approach
+- Comments that reference non-existent methods
+- Comments that are self-evident from the code
+- Comments that don't help future decision-making
+
+## ✅ Best Practices
+
+### When Keeping Historical Context:
+1. **Explain the "Why"**: Why was the change made?
+2. **Describe the "What"**: What is the current approach?
+3. **Provide Context**: When might this information be useful?
+4. **Use Actionable Language**: Guide future decisions, not just document history
+
+### When Removing Historical Context:
+1. **Verify Obsoleteness**: Ensure the information is truly outdated
+2. **Check for Dependencies**: Ensure no other code references the old approach
+3. **Update Related Docs**: If removing from code, consider adding to documentation
+4. **Preserve in Git History**: The change is preserved in version control
+
+## 🔍 Implementation Checklist
+
+- [ ] Identify historical comments about removed/deprecated functionality
+- [ ] Determine if comment provides actionable guidance
+- [ ] Transform useful comments into migration notes or architectural context
+- [ ] Remove comments that are purely historical without guidance value
+- [ ] Ensure remaining comments explain current approach and rationale
+- [ ] Update related documentation if significant context is removed
+
+## 📚 Examples
+
+### Good Historical Comment (Keep & Transform)
+```typescript
+// Note: Database access has been migrated from direct IndexedDB calls to PlatformServiceMixin
+// This provides better platform abstraction and consistent error handling across web/mobile/desktop
+// When adding new database operations, use this.$getContact(), this.$saveSettings(), etc.
+```
+
+### Bad Historical Comment (Remove)
+```typescript
+// Old method getContactFromDB() removed - now handled by PlatformServiceMixin
+// No need to call the old method anymore
+```
+
+## 🎯 Integration with Harbor Pilot
+
+This rule works in conjunction with:
+- **Component Creation Ideals**: Maintains architectural consistency
+- **Migration Patterns**: Documents evolution of patterns
+- **Code Review Guidelines**: Ensures comments provide value
+
+## 📝 Version History
+
+### v1.0.0 (2025-08-21)
+- Initial creation based on notification system cleanup
+- Established decision framework for historical comment management
+- Added transformation patterns and anti-patterns
+- Integrated with existing Harbor Pilot architecture rules

.cursor/rules/playwright-test-investigation.mdc

@@ -0,0 +1,356 @@
+---
+description: when working with playwright tests either generating them or using them to test code
+alwaysApply: false
+---
+# Playwright Test Investigation — Harbor Pilot Directive
+
+**Author**: Matthew Raymer  
+**Date**: 2025-08-21T14:22Z  
+**Status**: 🎯 **ACTIVE** - Playwright test debugging guidelines
+
+## Objective
+Provide systematic approach for investigating Playwright test failures with focus on UI element conflicts, timing issues, and selector ambiguity.
+
+## Context & Scope
+- **Audience**: Developers debugging Playwright test failures
+- **In scope**: Test failure analysis, selector conflicts, UI state investigation, timing issues
+- **Out of scope**: Test writing best practices, CI/CD configuration
+
+## Artifacts & Links
+- Test results: `test-results/` directory
+- Error context: `error-context.md` files with page snapshots
+- Trace files: `trace.zip` files for failed tests
+- HTML reports: Interactive test reports with screenshots
+
+## Environment & Preconditions
+- OS/Runtime: Linux/Windows/macOS with Node.js
+- Versions: Playwright test framework, browser drivers
+- Services: Local test server (localhost:8080), test data setup
+- Auth mode: None required for test investigation
+
+## Architecture / Process Overview
+Playwright test investigation follows a systematic diagnostic workflow that leverages built-in debugging tools and error context analysis.
+
+```mermaid
+flowchart TD
+    A[Test Failure] --> B[Check Error Context]
+    B --> C[Analyze Page Snapshot]
+    C --> D[Identify UI Conflicts]
+    D --> E[Check Trace Files]
+    E --> F[Verify Selector Uniqueness]
+    F --> G[Test Selector Fixes]
+    G --> H[Document Root Cause]
+    
+    B --> I[Check Test Results Directory]
+    I --> J[Locate Failed Test Results]
+    J --> K[Extract Error Details]
+    
+    D --> L[Multiple Alerts?]
+    L --> M[Button Text Conflicts?]
+    M --> N[Timing Issues?]
+    
+    E --> O[Use Trace Viewer]
+    O --> P[Analyze Action Sequence]
+    P --> Q[Identify Failure Point]
+```
+
+## Interfaces & Contracts
+
+### Test Results Structure
+| Component | Format | Content | Validation |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| Error Context | Markdown | Page snapshot in YAML | Verify DOM state matches test expectations |
+| Trace Files | ZIP archive | Detailed execution trace | Use `npx playwright show-trace` |
+| HTML Reports | Interactive HTML | Screenshots, traces, logs | Check browser for full report |
+| JSON Results | JSON | Machine-readable results | Parse for automated analysis |
+
+### Investigation Commands
+| Step | Command | Expected Output | Notes |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| Locate failed tests | `find test-results -name "*test-name*"` | Test result directories | Use exact test name patterns |
+| Check error context | `cat test-results/*/error-context.md` | Page snapshots | Look for UI state conflicts |
+| View traces | `npx playwright show-trace trace.zip` | Interactive trace viewer | Analyze exact failure sequence |
+
+## Repro: End-to-End Investigation Procedure
+
+### 1. Locate Failed Test Results
+```bash
+# Find all results for a specific test
+find test-results -name "*test-name*" -type d
+
+# Check for error context files
+find test-results -name "error-context.md" | head -5
+```
+
+### 2. Analyze Error Context
+```bash
+# Read error context for specific test
+cat test-results/test-name-test-description-browser/error-context.md
+
+# Look for UI conflicts in page snapshot
+grep -A 10 -B 5 "button.*Yes\|button.*No" test-results/*/error-context.md
+```
+
+### 3. Check Trace Files
+```bash
+# List available trace files
+find test-results -name "*.zip" | grep trace
+
+# View trace in browser
+npx playwright show-trace test-results/test-name/trace.zip
+```
+
+### 4. Investigate Selector Issues
+```typescript
+// Check for multiple elements with same text
+await page.locator('button:has-text("Yes")').count(); // Should be 1
+
+// Use more specific selectors
+await page.locator('div[role="alert"]:has-text("Register") button:has-text("Yes")').click();
+```
+
+## What Works (Evidence)
+- ✅ **Error context files** provide page snapshots showing exact DOM state at failure  
+  - **Time**: 2025-08-21T14:22Z  
+  - **Evidence**: `test-results/60-new-activity-New-offers-for-another-user-chromium/error-context.md` shows both alerts visible  
+  - **Verify at**: Error context files in test results directory
+
+- ✅ **Trace files** capture detailed execution sequence for failed tests  
+  - **Time**: 2025-08-21T14:22Z  
+  - **Evidence**: `trace.zip` files available for all failed tests  
+  - **Verify at**: Use `npx playwright show-trace <filename>`
+
+- ✅ **Page snapshots** reveal UI conflicts like multiple alerts with duplicate button text  
+  - **Time**: 2025-08-21T14:22Z  
+  - **Evidence**: YAML snapshots show registration + export alerts simultaneously  
+  - **Verify at**: Error context markdown files
+
+## What Doesn't (Evidence & Hypotheses)
+- ❌ **Generic selectors** fail with multiple similar elements at `test-playwright/testUtils.ts:161`  
+  - **Time**: 2025-08-21T14:22Z  
+  - **Evidence**: `button:has-text("Yes")` matches both "Yes" and "Yes, Export Data"  
+  - **Hypothesis**: Selector ambiguity due to multiple alerts with conflicting button text  
+  - **Next probe**: Use more specific selectors or dismiss alerts sequentially
+
+- ❌ **Timing-dependent tests** fail due to alert stacking at `src/views/ContactsView.vue:860,1283`  
+  - **Time**: 2025-08-21T14:22Z  
+  - **Evidence**: Both alerts use identical 1000ms delays, ensuring simultaneous display  
+  - **Hypothesis**: Race condition between alert displays creates UI conflicts  
+  - **Next probe**: Implement alert queuing or prevent overlapping alerts
+
+## Risks, Limits, Assumptions
+- **Trace file size**: Large trace files may impact storage and analysis time
+- **Browser compatibility**: Trace viewer requires specific browser support
+- **Test isolation**: Shared state between tests may affect investigation results
+- **Timing sensitivity**: Tests may pass/fail based on system performance
+
+## Next Steps
+| Owner | Task | Exit Criteria | Target Date (UTC) |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| Development Team | Fix test selectors for multiple alerts | All tests pass consistently | 2025-08-22 |
+| Development Team | Implement alert queuing system | No overlapping alerts with conflicting buttons | 2025-08-25 |
+| Development Team | Add test IDs to alert buttons | Unique selectors for all UI elements | 2025-08-28 |
+
+## References
+- [Playwright Trace Viewer Documentation](https://playwright.dev/docs/trace-viewer)
+- [Playwright Test Results](https://playwright.dev/docs/test-reporters)
+- [Test Investigation Workflow](./research_diagnostic.mdc)
+
+## Competence Hooks
+- **Why this works**: Systematic investigation leverages Playwright's built-in debugging tools to identify root causes
+- **Common pitfalls**: Generic selectors fail with multiple similar elements; timing issues create race conditions; alert stacking causes UI conflicts
+- **Next skill unlock**: Implement unique test IDs and handle alert dismissal order in test flows
+- **Teach-back**: "How would you investigate a Playwright test failure using error context, trace files, and page snapshots?"
+
+## Collaboration Hooks
+- **Reviewers**: QA team, test automation engineers
+- **Sign-off checklist**: Error context analyzed, trace files reviewed, root cause identified, fix implemented and tested
+
+## Assumptions & Limits
+- Test results directory structure follows Playwright conventions
+- Trace files are enabled in configuration (`trace: "retain-on-failure"`)
+- Error context files contain valid YAML page snapshots
+- Browser environment supports trace viewer functionality
+
+---
+
+**Status**: Active investigation directive  
+**Priority**: High  
+**Maintainer**: Development team  
+**Next Review**: 2025-09-21
+# Playwright Test Investigation — Harbor Pilot Directive
+
+**Author**: Matthew Raymer  
+**Date**: 2025-08-21T14:22Z  
+**Status**: 🎯 **ACTIVE** - Playwright test debugging guidelines
+
+## Objective
+Provide systematic approach for investigating Playwright test failures with focus on UI element conflicts, timing issues, and selector ambiguity.
+
+## Context & Scope
+- **Audience**: Developers debugging Playwright test failures
+- **In scope**: Test failure analysis, selector conflicts, UI state investigation, timing issues
+- **Out of scope**: Test writing best practices, CI/CD configuration
+
+## Artifacts & Links
+- Test results: `test-results/` directory
+- Error context: `error-context.md` files with page snapshots
+- Trace files: `trace.zip` files for failed tests
+- HTML reports: Interactive test reports with screenshots
+
+## Environment & Preconditions
+- OS/Runtime: Linux/Windows/macOS with Node.js
+- Versions: Playwright test framework, browser drivers
+- Services: Local test server (localhost:8080), test data setup
+- Auth mode: None required for test investigation
+
+## Architecture / Process Overview
+Playwright test investigation follows a systematic diagnostic workflow that leverages built-in debugging tools and error context analysis.
+
+```mermaid
+flowchart TD
+    A[Test Failure] --> B[Check Error Context]
+    B --> C[Analyze Page Snapshot]
+    C --> D[Identify UI Conflicts]
+    D --> E[Check Trace Files]
+    E --> F[Verify Selector Uniqueness]
+    F --> G[Test Selector Fixes]
+    G --> H[Document Root Cause]
+    
+    B --> I[Check Test Results Directory]
+    I --> J[Locate Failed Test Results]
+    J --> K[Extract Error Details]
+    
+    D --> L[Multiple Alerts?]
+    L --> M[Button Text Conflicts?]
+    M --> N[Timing Issues?]
+    
+    E --> O[Use Trace Viewer]
+    O --> P[Analyze Action Sequence]
+    P --> Q[Identify Failure Point]
+```
+
+## Interfaces & Contracts
+
+### Test Results Structure
+| Component | Format | Content | Validation |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| Error Context | Markdown | Page snapshot in YAML | Verify DOM state matches test expectations |
+| Trace Files | ZIP archive | Detailed execution trace | Use `npx playwright show-trace` |
+| HTML Reports | Interactive HTML | Screenshots, traces, logs | Check browser for full report |
+| JSON Results | JSON | Machine-readable results | Parse for automated analysis |
+
+### Investigation Commands
+| Step | Command | Expected Output | Notes |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| Locate failed tests | `find test-results -name "*test-name*"` | Test result directories | Use exact test name patterns |
+| Check error context | `cat test-results/*/error-context.md` | Page snapshots | Look for UI state conflicts |
+| View traces | `npx playwright show-trace trace.zip` | Interactive trace viewer | Analyze exact failure sequence |
+
+## Repro: End-to-End Investigation Procedure
+
+### 1. Locate Failed Test Results
+```bash
+# Find all results for a specific test
+find test-results -name "*test-name*" -type d
+
+# Check for error context files
+find test-results -name "error-context.md" | head -5
+```
+
+### 2. Analyze Error Context
+```bash
+# Read error context for specific test
+cat test-results/test-name-test-description-browser/error-context.md
+
+# Look for UI conflicts in page snapshot
+grep -A 10 -B 5 "button.*Yes\|button.*No" test-results/*/error-context.md
+```
+
+### 3. Check Trace Files
+```bash
+# List available trace files
+find test-results -name "*.zip" | grep trace
+
+# View trace in browser
+npx playwright show-trace test-results/test-name/trace.zip
+```
+
+### 4. Investigate Selector Issues
+```typescript
+// Check for multiple elements with same text
+await page.locator('button:has-text("Yes")').count(); // Should be 1
+
+// Use more specific selectors
+await page.locator('div[role="alert"]:has-text("Register") button:has-text("Yes")').click();
+```
+
+## What Works (Evidence)
+- ✅ **Error context files** provide page snapshots showing exact DOM state at failure  
+  - **Time**: 2025-08-21T14:22Z  
+  - **Evidence**: `test-results/60-new-activity-New-offers-for-another-user-chromium/error-context.md` shows both alerts visible  
+  - **Verify at**: Error context files in test results directory
+
+- ✅ **Trace files** capture detailed execution sequence for failed tests  
+  - **Time**: 2025-08-21T14:22Z  
+  - **Evidence**: `trace.zip` files available for all failed tests  
+  - **Verify at**: Use `npx playwright show-trace <filename>`
+
+- ✅ **Page snapshots** reveal UI conflicts like multiple alerts with duplicate button text  
+  - **Time**: 2025-08-21T14:22Z  
+  - **Evidence**: YAML snapshots show registration + export alerts simultaneously  
+  - **Verify at**: Error context markdown files
+
+## What Doesn't (Evidence & Hypotheses)
+- ❌ **Generic selectors** fail with multiple similar elements at `test-playwright/testUtils.ts:161`  
+  - **Time**: 2025-08-21T14:22Z  
+  - **Evidence**: `button:has-text("Yes")` matches both "Yes" and "Yes, Export Data"  
+  - **Hypothesis**: Selector ambiguity due to multiple alerts with conflicting button text  
+  - **Next probe**: Use more specific selectors or dismiss alerts sequentially
+
+- ❌ **Timing-dependent tests** fail due to alert stacking at `src/views/ContactsView.vue:860,1283`  
+  - **Time**: 2025-08-21T14:22Z  
+  - **Evidence**: Both alerts use identical 1000ms delays, ensuring simultaneous display  
+  - **Hypothesis**: Race condition between alert displays creates UI conflicts  
+  - **Next probe**: Implement alert queuing or prevent overlapping alerts
+
+## Risks, Limits, Assumptions
+- **Trace file size**: Large trace files may impact storage and analysis time
+- **Browser compatibility**: Trace viewer requires specific browser support
+- **Test isolation**: Shared state between tests may affect investigation results
+- **Timing sensitivity**: Tests may pass/fail based on system performance
+
+## Next Steps
+| Owner | Task | Exit Criteria | Target Date (UTC) |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| Development Team | Fix test selectors for multiple alerts | All tests pass consistently | 2025-08-22 |
+| Development Team | Implement alert queuing system | No overlapping alerts with conflicting buttons | 2025-08-25 |
+| Development Team | Add test IDs to alert buttons | Unique selectors for all UI elements | 2025-08-28 |
+
+## References
+- [Playwright Trace Viewer Documentation](https://playwright.dev/docs/trace-viewer)
+- [Playwright Test Results](https://playwright.dev/docs/test-reporters)
+- [Test Investigation Workflow](./research_diagnostic.mdc)
+
+## Competence Hooks
+- **Why this works**: Systematic investigation leverages Playwright's built-in debugging tools to identify root causes
+- **Common pitfalls**: Generic selectors fail with multiple similar elements; timing issues create race conditions; alert stacking causes UI conflicts
+- **Next skill unlock**: Implement unique test IDs and handle alert dismissal order in test flows
+- **Teach-back**: "How would you investigate a Playwright test failure using error context, trace files, and page snapshots?"
+
+## Collaboration Hooks
+- **Reviewers**: QA team, test automation engineers
+- **Sign-off checklist**: Error context analyzed, trace files reviewed, root cause identified, fix implemented and tested
+
+## Assumptions & Limits
+- Test results directory structure follows Playwright conventions
+- Trace files are enabled in configuration (`trace: "retain-on-failure"`)
+- Error context files contain valid YAML page snapshots
+- Browser environment supports trace viewer functionality
+
+---
+
+**Status**: Active investigation directive  
+**Priority**: High  
+**Maintainer**: Development team  
+**Next Review**: 2025-09-21

.cursor/rules/realistic_time_estimation.mdc

@@ -0,0 +1,348 @@
+---
+description: when generating text that has project task work estimates
+alwaysApply: false
+---
+# No Time Estimates — Harbor Pilot Directive
+
+> **Agent role**: **DO NOT MAKE TIME ESTIMATES**. Instead, use phases, milestones, and complexity levels. Time estimates are consistently wrong and create unrealistic expectations.
+
+## 🎯 Purpose
+
+Development time estimates are consistently wrong and create unrealistic expectations. This rule ensures we focus on phases, milestones, and complexity rather than trying to predict specific timeframes.
+
+## 🚨 Critical Rule
+
+**DO NOT MAKE TIME ESTIMATES**
+- **Never provide specific time estimates** - they are always wrong
+- **Use phases and milestones** instead of days/weeks
+- **Focus on complexity and dependencies** rather than time
+- **Set expectations based on progress, not deadlines**
+
+## 📊 Planning Framework (Not Time Estimates)
+
+### **Complexity Categories**
+- **Simple**: Text changes, styling updates, minor bug fixes
+- **Medium**: New features, refactoring, component updates
+- **Complex**: Architecture changes, integrations, cross-platform work
+- **Unknown**: New technologies, APIs, or approaches
+
+### **Platform Complexity**
+- **Single platform**: Web-only or mobile-only changes
+- **Two platforms**: Web + mobile or web + desktop
+- **Three platforms**: Web + mobile + desktop
+- **Cross-platform consistency**: Ensuring behavior matches across all platforms
+
+### **Testing Complexity**
+- **Basic**: Unit tests for new functionality
+- **Comprehensive**: Integration tests, cross-platform testing
+- **User acceptance**: User testing, feedback integration
+
+## 🔍 Planning Process (No Time Estimates)
+
+### **Step 1: Break Down the Work**
+- Identify all subtasks and dependencies
+- Group related work into logical phases
+- Identify critical path and blockers
+
+### **Step 2: Define Phases and Milestones**
+- **Phase 1**: Foundation work (basic fixes, core functionality)
+- **Phase 2**: Enhancement work (new features, integrations)
+- **Phase 3**: Polish work (testing, user experience, edge cases)
+
+### **Step 3: Identify Dependencies**
+- **Technical dependencies**: What must be built first
+- **Platform dependencies**: What works on which platforms
+- **Testing dependencies**: What can be tested when
+
+### **Step 4: Set Progress Milestones**
+- **Milestone 1**: Basic functionality working
+- **Milestone 2**: All platforms supported
+- **Milestone 3**: Fully tested and polished
+
+## 📋 Planning Checklist (No Time Estimates)
+
+- [ ] Work broken down into logical phases
+- [ ] Dependencies identified and mapped
+- [ ] Milestones defined with clear criteria
+- [ ] Complexity levels assigned to each phase
+- [ ] Platform requirements identified
+- [ ] Testing strategy planned
+- [ ] Risk factors identified
+- [ ] Success criteria defined
+
+## 🎯 Example Planning (No Time Estimates)
+
+### **Example 1: Simple Feature**
+```
+Phase 1: Core implementation
+- Basic functionality
+- Single platform support
+- Unit tests
+
+Phase 2: Platform expansion
+- Multi-platform support
+- Integration tests
+
+Phase 3: Polish
+- User testing
+- Edge case handling
+```
+
+### **Example 2: Complex Cross-Platform Feature**
+```
+Phase 1: Foundation
+- Architecture design
+- Core service implementation
+- Basic web platform support
+
+Phase 2: Platform Integration
+- Mobile platform support
+- Desktop platform support
+- Cross-platform consistency
+
+Phase 3: Testing & Polish
+- Comprehensive testing
+- Error handling
+- User experience refinement
+```
+
+## 🚫 Anti-Patterns to Avoid
+
+- **"This should take X days"** - Red flag for time estimation
+- **"Just a few hours"** - Ignores complexity and testing
+- **"Similar to X"** - Without considering differences
+- **"Quick fix"** - Nothing is ever quick in software
+- **"No testing needed"** - Testing always takes effort
+
+## ✅ Best Practices
+
+### **When Planning:**
+1. **Break down everything** - no work is too small to plan
+2. **Consider all platforms** - web, mobile, desktop differences
+3. **Include testing strategy** - unit, integration, and user testing
+4. **Account for unknowns** - there are always surprises
+5. **Focus on dependencies** - what blocks what
+
+### **When Presenting Plans:**
+1. **Show the phases** - explain the logical progression
+2. **Highlight dependencies** - what could block progress
+3. **Define milestones** - clear success criteria
+4. **Identify risks** - what could go wrong
+5. **Suggest alternatives** - ways to reduce scope or complexity
+
+## 🔄 Continuous Improvement
+
+### **Track Progress**
+- Record planned vs. actual phases completed
+- Identify what took longer than expected
+- Learn from complexity misjudgments
+- Adjust planning process based on experience
+
+### **Learn from Experience**
+- **Underestimated complexity**: Increase complexity categories
+- **Missed dependencies**: Improve dependency mapping
+- **Platform surprises**: Better platform research upfront
+
+## 🎯 Integration with Harbor Pilot
+
+This rule works in conjunction with:
+- **Project Planning**: Focuses on phases and milestones
+- **Resource Allocation**: Based on complexity, not time
+- **Risk Management**: Identifies blockers and dependencies
+- **Stakeholder Communication**: Sets progress-based expectations
+
+## 📝 Version History
+
+### v2.0.0 (2025-08-21)
+- **Major Change**: Completely removed time estimation approach
+- **New Focus**: Phases, milestones, and complexity-based planning
+- **Eliminated**: All time multipliers, estimates, and calculations
+- **Added**: Dependency mapping and progress milestone framework
+
+### v1.0.0 (2025-08-21)
+- Initial creation based on user feedback about estimation accuracy
+- ~~Established realistic estimation multipliers and process~~
+- ~~Added comprehensive estimation checklist and examples~~
+- Integrated with Harbor Pilot planning and risk management
+
+---
+
+## 🚨 Remember
+
+**DO NOT MAKE TIME ESTIMATES. Use phases, milestones, and complexity instead. Focus on progress, not deadlines.**
+
+## 🚨 Remember
+
+**Your first estimate is wrong. Your second estimate is probably still wrong. Focus on progress, not deadlines.**
+# No Time Estimates — Harbor Pilot Directive
+
+> **Agent role**: **DO NOT MAKE TIME ESTIMATES**. Instead, use phases, milestones, and complexity levels. Time estimates are consistently wrong and create unrealistic expectations.
+
+## 🎯 Purpose
+
+Development time estimates are consistently wrong and create unrealistic expectations. This rule ensures we focus on phases, milestones, and complexity rather than trying to predict specific timeframes.
+
+## 🚨 Critical Rule
+
+**DO NOT MAKE TIME ESTIMATES**
+- **Never provide specific time estimates** - they are always wrong
+- **Use phases and milestones** instead of days/weeks
+- **Focus on complexity and dependencies** rather than time
+- **Set expectations based on progress, not deadlines**
+
+## 📊 Planning Framework (Not Time Estimates)
+
+### **Complexity Categories**
+- **Simple**: Text changes, styling updates, minor bug fixes
+- **Medium**: New features, refactoring, component updates
+- **Complex**: Architecture changes, integrations, cross-platform work
+- **Unknown**: New technologies, APIs, or approaches
+
+### **Platform Complexity**
+- **Single platform**: Web-only or mobile-only changes
+- **Two platforms**: Web + mobile or web + desktop
+- **Three platforms**: Web + mobile + desktop
+- **Cross-platform consistency**: Ensuring behavior matches across all platforms
+
+### **Testing Complexity**
+- **Basic**: Unit tests for new functionality
+- **Comprehensive**: Integration tests, cross-platform testing
+- **User acceptance**: User testing, feedback integration
+
+## 🔍 Planning Process (No Time Estimates)
+
+### **Step 1: Break Down the Work**
+- Identify all subtasks and dependencies
+- Group related work into logical phases
+- Identify critical path and blockers
+
+### **Step 2: Define Phases and Milestones**
+- **Phase 1**: Foundation work (basic fixes, core functionality)
+- **Phase 2**: Enhancement work (new features, integrations)
+- **Phase 3**: Polish work (testing, user experience, edge cases)
+
+### **Step 3: Identify Dependencies**
+- **Technical dependencies**: What must be built first
+- **Platform dependencies**: What works on which platforms
+- **Testing dependencies**: What can be tested when
+
+### **Step 4: Set Progress Milestones**
+- **Milestone 1**: Basic functionality working
+- **Milestone 2**: All platforms supported
+- **Milestone 3**: Fully tested and polished
+
+## 📋 Planning Checklist (No Time Estimates)
+
+- [ ] Work broken down into logical phases
+- [ ] Dependencies identified and mapped
+- [ ] Milestones defined with clear criteria
+- [ ] Complexity levels assigned to each phase
+- [ ] Platform requirements identified
+- [ ] Testing strategy planned
+- [ ] Risk factors identified
+- [ ] Success criteria defined
+
+## 🎯 Example Planning (No Time Estimates)
+
+### **Example 1: Simple Feature**
+```
+Phase 1: Core implementation
+- Basic functionality
+- Single platform support
+- Unit tests
+
+Phase 2: Platform expansion
+- Multi-platform support
+- Integration tests
+
+Phase 3: Polish
+- User testing
+- Edge case handling
+```
+
+### **Example 2: Complex Cross-Platform Feature**
+```
+Phase 1: Foundation
+- Architecture design
+- Core service implementation
+- Basic web platform support
+
+Phase 2: Platform Integration
+- Mobile platform support
+- Desktop platform support
+- Cross-platform consistency
+
+Phase 3: Testing & Polish
+- Comprehensive testing
+- Error handling
+- User experience refinement
+```
+
+## 🚫 Anti-Patterns to Avoid
+
+- **"This should take X days"** - Red flag for time estimation
+- **"Just a few hours"** - Ignores complexity and testing
+- **"Similar to X"** - Without considering differences
+- **"Quick fix"** - Nothing is ever quick in software
+- **"No testing needed"** - Testing always takes effort
+
+## ✅ Best Practices
+
+### **When Planning:**
+1. **Break down everything** - no work is too small to plan
+2. **Consider all platforms** - web, mobile, desktop differences
+3. **Include testing strategy** - unit, integration, and user testing
+4. **Account for unknowns** - there are always surprises
+5. **Focus on dependencies** - what blocks what
+
+### **When Presenting Plans:**
+1. **Show the phases** - explain the logical progression
+2. **Highlight dependencies** - what could block progress
+3. **Define milestones** - clear success criteria
+4. **Identify risks** - what could go wrong
+5. **Suggest alternatives** - ways to reduce scope or complexity
+
+## 🔄 Continuous Improvement
+
+### **Track Progress**
+- Record planned vs. actual phases completed
+- Identify what took longer than expected
+- Learn from complexity misjudgments
+- Adjust planning process based on experience
+
+### **Learn from Experience**
+- **Underestimated complexity**: Increase complexity categories
+- **Missed dependencies**: Improve dependency mapping
+- **Platform surprises**: Better platform research upfront
+
+## 🎯 Integration with Harbor Pilot
+
+This rule works in conjunction with:
+- **Project Planning**: Focuses on phases and milestones
+- **Resource Allocation**: Based on complexity, not time
+- **Risk Management**: Identifies blockers and dependencies
+- **Stakeholder Communication**: Sets progress-based expectations
+
+## 📝 Version History
+
+### v2.0.0 (2025-08-21)
+- **Major Change**: Completely removed time estimation approach
+- **New Focus**: Phases, milestones, and complexity-based planning
+- **Eliminated**: All time multipliers, estimates, and calculations
+- **Added**: Dependency mapping and progress milestone framework
+
+### v1.0.0 (2025-08-21)
+- Initial creation based on user feedback about estimation accuracy
+- ~~Established realistic estimation multipliers and process~~
+- ~~Added comprehensive estimation checklist and examples~~
+- Integrated with Harbor Pilot planning and risk management
+
+---
+
+## 🚨 Remember
+
+**DO NOT MAKE TIME ESTIMATES. Use phases, milestones, and complexity instead. Focus on progress, not deadlines.**
+
+## 🚨 Remember
+
+**Your first estimate is wrong. Your second estimate is probably still wrong. Focus on progress, not deadlines.**

test-playwright/60-new-activity.spec.ts

@@ -23,10 +23,11 @@ test('New offers for another user', async ({ page }) => {
   await page.getByPlaceholder('URL or DID, Name, Public Key').fill(autoCreatedDid + ', A Friend');
   await expect(page.locator('button > svg.fa-plus')).toBeVisible();
   await page.locator('button > svg.fa-plus').click();
-  await page.locator('div[role="alert"] button:has-text("No")').click(); // don't register
+  await expect(page.locator('div[role="alert"] h4:has-text("Success")')).toBeVisible(); // wait for info alert to be visible…
-  await expect(page.locator('div[role="alert"] h4:has-text("Success")')).toBeVisible();
+  await page.locator('div[role="alert"] button > svg.fa-xmark').click(); // …and dismiss it
-  await page.locator('div[role="alert"] button > svg.fa-xmark').click(); // dismiss info alert
   await expect(page.locator('div[role="alert"] button > svg.fa-xmark')).toBeHidden(); // ensure alert is gone
+  await page.locator('div[role="alert"] button:text-is("No")').click(); // Dismiss register prompt
+  await page.locator('div[role="alert"] button:text-is("No, Not Now")').click(); // Dismiss export data prompt
 
   // show buttons to make offers directly to people
   await page.getByRole('button').filter({ hasText: /See Actions/i }).click();

test-playwright/testUtils.ts

@@ -158,10 +158,10 @@ export async function generateAndRegisterEthrUser(page: Page): Promise<string> {
     .fill(`${newDid}, ${contactName}`);
   await page.locator("button > svg.fa-plus").click();
   // register them
-  await page.locator('div[role="alert"] button:has-text("Yes")').click();
+  await page.locator('div[role="alert"] button:text-is("Yes")').click();
   // wait for it to disappear because the next steps may depend on alerts being gone
   await expect(
-    page.locator('div[role="alert"] button:has-text("Yes")')
+    page.locator('div[role="alert"] button:text-is("Yes")')
   ).toBeHidden();
   await expect(page.locator("li", { hasText: contactName })).toBeVisible();