artifact-inline-no-tools-plan-review

name	artifact-inline-no-tools-plan-review
version	1.0.0
description	Recover adversarial plan reviews on large or sandbox-hostile repos by embedding grounded facts + full plan text directly in a compact prompt and explicitly forbidding reviewer tool use.
category	software-development
tags	["review","adversarial-review","prompt-packaging","codex","gemini","plan-review"]

Artifact-inline no-tools plan review

Use when adversarial plan reviews keep failing because providers try to search the repo, read ignored files, or hit sandbox/path/tooling problems.

When this fits

• Codex/Gemini review runs fail due file access, ignored-path restrictions, sandbox errors, or repo-scale grep/search timeouts
• You already have the key grounded facts and the full plan text locally
• You want a fast rerun review focused on the plan artifact itself, not exploratory repo browsing

Core pattern

1. Build a compact prompt file in the real workspace, not /tmp/.
2. Put these into the prompt explicitly:
   • adversarial reviewer instructions
   • grounded facts already verified by you
   • the exact review questions
   • the full current plan text
3. Add an explicit restriction:
   • "Do NOT use tools, repo search, file reads, or web access. Review ONLY the grounded facts and plan text included below."
4. Dispatch Codex/Gemini with the compact prompt.
5. Save canonical review artifacts under scripts/review/results/.
6. If Gemini still fails due capacity, save an UNAVAILABLE artifact instead of leaving the slot blank.

Why this works

On large repos, providers may waste the run on:

• ignored-path read failures
• repo grep timeouts
• sandboxed shell/file-access failures
• startup agent noise that derails actual review

Inlining the artifact and forbidding tool use turns the run into pure document review. This worked well for worldenergydata plan reruns on issues #343 and #344 after earlier attempts failed or produced noisy/non-substantive runs.

Minimal prompt skeleton

Adversarial review request for Issue #NNN.

Rules:
- You are adversarial. Assume defects until proven otherwise.
- Do not praise. Do not restate the plan.
- Focus only on what is wrong, missing, risky, ambiguous, or insufficiently grounded.
- IMPORTANT: Do NOT use tools, repo search, file reads, or web access. Review ONLY the grounded facts and plan text included below.
- Return APPROVE only if the draft is truly implementation-ready.
- Every finding must cite a specific plan section or quoted claim.

Grounded facts:
- ...
- ...

Review questions:
1. ...
2. ...

Plan under review:
[full plan text]

Required output format:
Verdict: APPROVE | MINOR | MAJOR
Retrieval adequacy: adequate | inadequate
Key findings:
- <severity> <finding>
Main blockers to fix:
1. <item>
2. <item>

Implementation notes

• Write prompt files with terminal/real filesystem paths under .planning/quick/
• Prefer absolute paths in $(cat ...) when dispatching to avoid cwd surprises
• Save raw compact outputs separately from canonical review artifacts
• If the review returns duplicated output, keep only the canonical distilled artifact in scripts/review/results/

Good use cases

• plan review reruns after first-wave provider/tool failures
• large repos with ignore rules that block provider tool access
• architecture/planning reviews where the artifact text is the real object under review

Not for

• code review where the diff itself is too large and must be inspected from the repo
• cases where the grounded facts are weak or unverified
• implementation validation that truly requires runtime inspection