| name | adversarial-review-prompt-refresh-guard |
| description | Prevent stale plan/code review prompts from being sent to Codex/Gemini after the underlying artifact changed. |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| author | Hermes Agent |
| category | software-development |
| tags | ["review","adversarial-review","prompt-packaging","codex","gemini","governance"] |
Adversarial Review Prompt Refresh Guard
Use this when running adversarial plan/code reviews through prompt files such as .planning/quick/review-<issue>-prompt.md.
When to use
- You patched a plan after review findings
- You are running a second/third review wave
- You generate provider prompts from local files before calling
codex exec / gemini exec
Core risk
A revised plan file can be current while the provider prompt file is stale.
When that happens, reviewers attack already-fixed artifact paths or old deliverables, producing misleading repeat MAJOR findings.
Required workflow
- After every material plan edit, regenerate the review prompt from the current plan text.
- Verify the prompt file itself before dispatch.
- Search the prompt for newly added artifact paths / acceptance criteria.
- Search the prompt for removed or superseded paths from the earlier draft.
- Reconcile the plan artifact's own self-referential sections before rerun:
## Adversarial Review Summary- any
Revisions required / Revisions made bullets
- any open-question text that the latest patch actually resolved
- any old overall-result line like
FAIL / not approval-ready
- Only then launch Codex/Gemini.
Minimal verification pattern
- Regenerate: rewrite
.planning/quick/review-<issue>-prompt.md
- Verify current content with
read_file() or search_files()
- Confirm:
- new artifact paths are present
- removed old paths are absent
- updated acceptance criteria are present
- issue body + latest plan text are both included
- the plan file does not still self-declare stale review state from the previous wave
- rerun-specific blockers are reflected as either fixed or still-open, not both
Artifact self-consistency guard
A rerun can fail even with a fresh prompt if the plan file itself still contains stale review narrative.
Common failure mode seen in live use:
- the plan still says
**Overall result:** FAIL
Revisions required still list changes that are already patched into the draft- tests/acceptance criteria are updated, but the plan's own review summary still describes the old state
Reviewers treat those contradictions as real defects. Before rerun, update or neutralize stale self-referential sections so the artifact is internally consistent.
Heuristic
If reviewers complain about paths/artifacts you already fixed, treat stale-prompt packaging as a possible root cause before accepting the finding as a new defect in the current plan.
Good signs
- prompt file mentions the same paths as the latest plan
- provider output references the new artifact names
- repeated review findings shrink or change after the prompt refresh
Bad signs
- provider output criticizes deleted artifact paths
- prompt file still contains old report locations
- second-wave review repeats first-wave findings word-for-word despite real plan changes
Suggested artifact set per issue
.planning/quick/review-<issue>-prompt.md.planning/quick/review-<issue>-codex.out.planning/quick/review-<issue>-gemini.outscripts/review/results/YYYY-MM-DD-plan-<issue>-codex.mdscripts/review/results/YYYY-MM-DD-plan-<issue>-gemini.md
Why this matters
This guard prevents false negative review cycles, wasted rework, and presenting non-current criticism to the user as if it applied to the latest draft.
