execplan-improve

name	execplan-improve
description	Read an existing ExecPlan, deeply analyze every referenced file and code path, and rewrite the plan with concrete, code-grounded improvements. Prefer work-item plans under `.agent/work/`, while preserving backward-compatible support for older singleton plan files.

Improve ExecPlan

Core philosophy: Every improvement must trace back to something found in the actual code. No speculative additions. No surface-level rewording.

Ousterhout Lens

Use John Ousterhout's design philosophy as the design-quality lens:

• prefer deep modules over shallow wrappers
• prefer interfaces that hide sequencing and policy details
• prefer fewer concepts, fewer knobs, and fewer special cases
• prefer simpler mental models over visually tidy decomposition
• prefer moving complexity behind a stable boundary over redistributing it

Treat these as the main forms of complexity:

• change amplification
• cognitive load
• unknown unknowns

Resolving the Base Repo

You may be running from a Codex worktree such as ~/.codex/worktrees/<id>/<repo>/.

1. If the current path contains /.codex/worktrees/, set the base repo to ~/<repo-name>.
2. Otherwise the base repo is the current working directory.

Check both the worktree .agent/ and the base repo .agent/. Prefer the worktree copy if both exist.

Input Resolution

Preferred target resolution order:

1. explicit plan path supplied by the user
2. explicit work-item path supplied by the user
3. .agent/active when it points to a work item with stage="plan" and state="completed"
4. the most recently updated work item under .agent/work/ with stage="plan" and state="completed"
5. legacy fallback: .agent/execplan-pending.md
6. explicit legacy fallback: .agent/potential-bugs/<plan-name>.md

If no ExecPlan exists in any supported location, tell the user and stop.

Understand the Purpose of ExecPlans

Read .agent/PLANS.md from the base repo or worktree before modifying the plan.

Workflow

Step 0: Short-Circuit Low-Value Repeats

Before doing repo work, inspect only the immediately previous assistant turn.

• If the previous execplan-improve result was exactly skip, return exactly skip.
• If it ended with Usefulness score: N/10 - ... and N <= 3, return exactly skip.

Step 1: Resolve the plan path and work-item metadata

If operating on a work item, read:

• meta.json
• decision.md when present
• execplan.md

Otherwise read the legacy plan path directly.

Step 2: Parse the ExecPlan

Extract:

• file paths
• symbols
• commands
• milestones
• acceptance criteria
• assumptions

Step 3: Deep-read referenced and adjacent code

Read the referenced files and nearby importers/importees. Look for:

• wrong paths or signatures
• missing tests or dependencies
• project conventions the plan misses
• leaked sequencing or policy the plan should hide
• shallow abstractions the plan preserves without reason
• duplicate concepts or special-case branches the plan could absorb

Step 4: Audit the plan

Check:

• accuracy
• completeness
• self-containment
• feasibility
• testability
• safety
• design quality

Step 5: Rewrite the plan in place

Rewrite at the same path:

• work-item format: execplan.md
• legacy format: the original singleton path

Preserve existing Progress, Surprises & Discoveries, Decision Log, and Outcomes & Retrospective.

Apply only code-grounded improvements:

• fix inaccuracies
• add missing files, tests, dependencies, milestones, and commands
• split oversized milestones
• define jargon
• make acceptance criteria observable
• add recovery guidance where missing
• strengthen the intended simplicity boundary and complexity dividend

Do not change the plan's intent.

Step 6: Finalize metadata

If using a work item, keep:

• stage="plan"
• state="completed"
• updated_at=<now>

Step 7: Score usefulness and summarize

Report:

• Fixed
• Added
• Strengthened
• Flagged
• final line: Usefulness score: X/10 - <specific reason>

If a real pass found no material improvements, return exactly skip.

Anti-Patterns

• surface-level rewording without code evidence
• speculative additions
• changing the plan's goal
• ignoring existing progress
• preserving shallow or leaky abstractions just because they were already in the draft