artifact-inline-local-plan-rereview

name	artifact-inline-local-plan-rereview
description	Prevent stale Codex/Gemini findings by rerunning plan review against the exact revised local artifact inline when summary prompts keep anchoring on remote/main plan content.
version	1.0.0
category	workspace-hub-learned

Artifact-inline local plan re-review

Use when:

• a plan was revised locally after review
• a rerun reviewer still reports findings against lines that were already removed/changed
• the repo's remote/main version lags the local draft
• a compact summary-of-changes prompt is producing stale review results

Problem pattern

A compact rerun prompt that says "the plan was narrowed and now does X/Y/Z" may still cause Codex to fetch or anchor on the older remote/main artifact instead of the revised local draft.

Typical symptom:

• reviewer complains about deleted scope/items (for example package-root exports or generic metric_value) that are no longer present in the local plan
• reviewer verdict stays blocked for reasons tied to stale content rather than the current artifact

Reliable recovery

1. Build a new rerun prompt.
2. State explicitly:
   • review ONLY the exact inline artifact below
   • do NOT substitute any remote/main-branch version
3. Inline the exact revised local sections under review, not just a summary:
   • Deliverable
   • Scope Boundaries
   • Linkage / contract sections
   • Pseudocode
   • Files to Change
   • TDD Test List
   • Acceptance Criteria
   • Risks / Open Questions
4. Rerun Codex against that artifact-inline prompt.
5. Treat the artifact-inline rerun as authoritative over earlier compact-summary reruns that anchored on stale repo state.

Why this works

It removes ambiguity about which artifact is under review and prevents the reviewer from re-discovering or preferring the older plan text from main/GitHub.

Notes

• This is especially useful after iterative plan hardening on GitHub issues.
• Use compact prompts first when possible, but switch to artifact-inline once the reviewer keeps citing removed content.
• If the provider reports sandbox/local retrieval failures while the exact artifact was inlined, separate true content findings from infrastructure/retrievability findings. Patch content defects, but treat missing main visibility or failed sed/grep retrieval as promotion-gate evidence rather than proof the inline draft is wrong.
• Do not cite uncommitted/local-only artifacts as approval evidence. Keep the issue draft-only until clean review artifacts are committed and retrievable from the required branch.
• Save the raw rerun output and replace the canonical review artifact only after the rerun succeeds.