### expert_build/cli.py:main
VERDICT: PASS
CORRECTNESS: VALID
SPEC_COMPLIANCE: N/A
ISSUE_COMPLIANCE: N/A
BELIEF_COMPLIANCE: N/A
TEST_COVERAGE: PARTIAL
INTEGRATION: WIRED
REASONING: The consistency check between `argparse` subparsers and the `commands` dispatch dictionary is correctly implemented. It uses set operations to identify discrepancies and provides clear, sorted error messages to `stderr`. While the check is positioned after `parse_args()` (meaning it won't run if `argparse` handles `--help` or invalid arguments by exiting early), it provides a robust runtime guard against developer errors like forgetting to register a command handler.
---

### tests/test_cli.py
VERDICT: CONCERN
CORRECTNESS: QUESTIONABLE
SPEC_COMPLIANCE: N/A
ISSUE_COMPLIANCE: N/A
BELIEF_COMPLIANCE: N/A
TEST_COVERAGE: COVERED
INTEGRATION: WIRED
REASONING: The test `test_cli_registration_is_consistent` is logically flawed. By patching `sys.argv` with `["expert-build", "--help"]`, the test triggers `argparse`'s default help-handling logic, which prints help and calls `sys.exit(0)` immediately inside `parse_args()`. Because this exit occurs before the registration check logic is reached, the test passes regardless of whether the registration is actually consistent. To be effective, the test should invoke a valid subcommand (e.g., `status`) while mocking its handler, or the registration check should be moved to a standalone function that can be tested without the side effects of `main()`.

### SELF_REVIEW
LIMITATIONS: My assessment of the test's failure to reach the target code is based on standard `argparse` behavior. I have not seen the full `expert_build/cli.py` beyond the `main` function and imports, but the provided context is sufficient to verify the logic in the diff.
---
