hyper-plan-loop

name	hyper-plan-loop
description	Use when a plan should be produced and critic-hardened in one gesture — plan → Codex review → revise, repeated until clean. Also when the user invokes /hyperclaude:hyper-plan-loop. For manual round-by-round control use /hyperclaude:hyper-plan + /hyperclaude:hyper-plan-review instead. Requires the experimental agent-teams feature.

hyper-plan-loop

Autonomous plan-hardening gate. Creates a per-run team, spawns the planner agent as a persistent teammate, writes its plan to .hyperclaude/plans/<YYYYMMDD-HHMM>-<slug>.md, runs Codex plan-review through the bridge, and revises via the still-live planner until Codex returns no blocking findings (judged by meaning, not Codex severity labels) or the cap is hit. The planner is spawned once; every revise round reuses its retained context via SendMessage. The reviewer is always the Codex bridge, never a teammate — this preserves the "Claude builds, Codex reviews" invariant.

When to use

• User typed /hyperclaude:hyper-plan-loop <task>.
• User wants an autonomous plan → review → revise cycle in a single gesture.

Skip when:

• The task is one step — dispatch the implementer agent directly (pass run_in_background: false for the result inline).
• You want hands-on control over each plan / review round — use /hyperclaude:hyper-plan + /hyperclaude:hyper-plan-review manually.
• The experimental agent-teams feature is unavailable (this skill stops with a documented fallback message — see Step 2).

Failure & recovery protocol — read first

${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/loop-protocol.md carries the shared cross-loop protocol — team contract shapes (§A), unsolicited-message protocol skeleton (§B), teardown procedure (§C), shared anti-patterns (§D), abstract request-id state machine (§E). references/failure-protocol.md (sibling of this file) is the plan-loop binding layer: it names this loop's reply-token shape (WROTE: <id> <path>), accept regex, post-acceptance file/structure validation, and plan-loop-specific anti-patterns. Step 0 makes Reading BOTH mandatory before the loop starts.

Agent-teams tool contract

See ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/loop-protocol.md §F1 + §A for the Agent/SendMessage argument shapes and idle-notification semantics (a payload-less wake — the loop-bound WROTE: reply arrives only via planner SendMessage, else the lead falls back to a corrective round-trip). Loop-specific bindings:

• Plan ownership: the planner writes the canonical plan file itself via caller-directed write-file mode (its Step 3 prompt carries the exact resolved path). The lead never Writes or Reads the plan body on the normal path — it does only a quiet ok/bad structure check, and only Reads the body for human-facing failure diagnostics. Every write-file-mode reply (initial, retry, revise redo) is gated to WROTE: <reqid> <path>-only (Step 4 anchored gate). Unsolicited planner messages follow the lead-side protocol (references/failure-protocol.md §2) — prompt-only idle discipline is insufficient.

Planner request id. Every lead→planner solicitation carries a per-run, lead-owned, monotonically increasing integer id. The lead is the SOLE id source — the planner only echoes it. The counter increments on EVERY solicitation: spawn = 1, each Step 7 revise = +1, AND every §1/§3 corrective redo — anchored-gate corrective AND file-check corrective alike — gets its OWN new id (a corrective is a fresh solicitation; reusing the prior id reintroduces the blind spot). The shutdown_request object message is EXEMPT (no id).

The lead must retain the following run-state across turns and never conflate these fields:

• plan_path — the resolved canonical plan path from Step 1.
• teammate_name — "planner" (the spawn name); the bare-name handle for every lead→planner send, per the §A send-resolution procedure. [DEGRADE] - teammate_id — the opaque agent_id captured at Step 3 spawn (§A-DEGRADE D0; never parsed); the FALLBACK handle for the first degraded send. Degrade-only — unused on the live-mailbox main path. [DEGRADE] - resolved_handle — the degraded handle (teammate_name or teammate_id) that won the first degraded send; null until D1 resolves it. Degrade-only — unused on the live-mailbox main path.
• awaiting_reply, request_id_counter, expected_request_id, solicit_sent_at, review_iteration — these are the cross-loop state-machine fields. Lifecycle and semantics (mint protocol, MESSAGE ACCEPTED / POST-ACCEPTANCE VALIDATION ACCEPTED acceptance stages, Phase 1 / Phase 2 routing, stale-recovery) are defined in ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/loop-protocol.md §E (single source of truth); this loop binds to them by name.
• review_brief_file — the scratchpad path holding the composed review brief (Step 1), or null when no admissible source exists. Retained across turns; distinct from the shell variable BRIEF_FILE assigned from it in each Step 5/7 bridge Bash call.

Mint protocol, lifecycle, and phase classification: see ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/loop-protocol.md §E. The references/failure-protocol.md (sibling) carries the plan-loop binding declarations (reply-token shape WROTE: <id> <path>, exact-path accept regex, file/structure post-acceptance validation).

How to invoke

Invocation argument: $ARGUMENTS

$ARGUMENTS is a task description only. There is NO existing-plan-path input mode — revision happens inside the loop. Resolution (mirrors stock hyper-plan):

• $ARGUMENTS non-empty → that is the task.
• $ARGUMENTS empty → fall back to the newest .hyperclaude/research/*.md (its task: frontmatter), or the user's most recent build/implement intent in this conversation.
• Nothing found → ask the user and STOP.

Step 0 — Read the failure & recovery protocol

See ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/loop-protocol.md §F2 for the two-file read requirement. Both loop-protocol.md (shared §A–§E) AND references/failure-protocol.md (sibling, plan-loop binding) are mandatory before spawning; this loop's local file binds the WROTE: <id> <path> reply-token shape.

Step 1 — Resolve task + slug + plan path

Reuse the stock hyper-plan logic — see skills/hyper-plan/SKILL.md Steps 1–2; do not duplicate the rule text. In brief:

1. Derive the canonical slug deterministically (lowercase, ASCII, alphanumerics + hyphen, first 5 words of the task joined by -).

2. Scan all .hyperclaude/research/*.md frontmatter slug: fields (the canonical key — not the filename). If one OR MORE equals the derived slug (there may be a Codex + Claude pair), treat ALL matching files as the linked research artifacts and inline the full contents of ALL of them as context in Step 3.

3. Resolve the plan path:

   mkdir -p .hyperclaude/plans
   date +%Y%m%d-%H%M
   

   Base path: .hyperclaude/plans/<timestamp>-<slug>.md. If it exists, append -2, -3, … until free.

4. Compose the review brief (or record null). Compose per ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/review-brief.md. The admissible source here is $ARGUMENTS (the user's own task text) and decisions the user explicitly approved in this conversation — never the planner's plan output (Step 7 revises the plan every round; re-deriving the brief from it would let the planner bless its own scope additions). Record the resulting scratchpad path as review_brief_file, or null if no admissible source exists.

Step 2 — Confirm agent-teams availability

See ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/loop-protocol.md §F3 for the probe + documented stop message; <fallback-command> = /hyperclaude:hyper-plan + /hyperclaude:hyper-plan-review.

[ "$CLAUDE_CODE_EXPERIMENTAL_AGENT_TEAMS" = "1" ]

Initialize and record the following run-state fields (the Step 3 spawn will mint id 1): request_id_counter = 0, expected_request_id = null, awaiting_reply = false, solicit_sent_at = null.

Failure handling (both cases emit the §F3 documented message with <fallback-command> = /hyperclaude:hyper-plan + /hyperclaude:hyper-plan-review):

• Env var unset → STOP with the §F3 message (fallback bound above). No teardown (nothing was created).
• Step 3 spawn fails → STOP with the §F3 message (fallback bound above). No teardown (team never formed).

Step 3 — Spawn the planner teammate

Use the Agent tool. The full contract text below goes in the prompt: string (a populated prompt field — not a separate message):

Agent({
  subagent_type: "hyperclaude:planner",
  name: "planner",
  prompt: "<the contract string assembled from the bullets below>"
})

The prompt string MUST contain:

• Task — verbatim.
• Research context — full contents of ALL matched research artifacts inline (there may be a Codex + Claude pair), if any were found in Step 1. Do not make the planner re-read them.
• Output format — a multi-task plan with ## Task N: <title> headings. Each task block: Files to create / modify (exact paths), Steps ([ ]-checkboxes, 2–5 min each), Verification (a command or observable change), Commit message (one line, conventional-commits). No frontmatter — plan body only; the skill owns the file name.
• Write-file mode — the exact resolved plan path from Step 1, stated literally, with an explicit instruction: use the Write tool to write the full plan to THAT EXACT path yourself (never a different path, never a -v2.md sibling), then reply with exactly WROTE: 1 <that exact path> and NOTHING else — no plan body, no summary of changes, no preamble. (The spawn mints request id 1: the lead sets request_id_counter = 1, expected_request_id = 1, awaiting_reply = true, and immediately before the Agent-spawn call captures solicit_sent_at via a Bash date -u +%FT%TZ; the planner must echo that id verbatim.)
• Reply transport (MANDATORY) — that WROTE: reply MUST be delivered by calling SendMessage({ to: "team-lead", summary: "Plan written request 1", message: "WROTE: 1 <that exact path>" }). Plain assistant text is NOT visible to the lead on a live-mailbox host, and going idle only emits a payload-less idle notification — so if you merely print WROTE: and idle WITHOUT the SendMessage call, the lead never receives the confirmation and the loop stalls until a corrective round-trip. Call SendMessage first, then idle. Every later solicitation carries its own id; the planner must echo THAT id verbatim in its reply (e.g. WROTE: 2 <path> for id 2), and the summary echoes request <id> for human mailbox debugging (the message body stays authoritative). This applies identically to every later revise-round reply. [DEGRADE] Exception (degraded host only): if SendMessage is unavailable on your host (degraded), emit that same WROTE: line as your FINAL ASSISTANT TEXT — the lead reads it from your task-completion result per §A-DEGRADE D2.
• Idle / no-resend discipline — after replying WROTE: <id> <path>, go idle and wait; do NOT resend, re-announce, or nag. The lead will next contact you only via SendMessage carrying revise findings or a shutdown_request, and may take several minutes running Codex review between turns (this is normal). Never re-emit a prior reply.
• State that the planner stays alive as a teammate, will receive Codex feedback in later turns, and must retain its full planning context.

After the Agent(...) call — capture and validate handles:

• Record teammate_name = "planner" (the bare-name handle for all lead→planner sends, per §A R1). [DEGRADE] - Capture the returned agent_id VERBATIM/OPAQUELY into run-state teammate_id (§A-DEGRADE D0 — never parse the @/suffix); this is the FALLBACK handle for the first degraded send. [DEGRADE] - Set resolved_handle = null (no degraded lead→planner send has been made yet; degrade-only field).
• Note: the Agent spawn is NOT a lead→planner SendMessage. The planner's spawn-time WROTE: 1 <path> reply is a SendMessage({ to: "team-lead", … }) — that exercises teammate→lead routing, NOT lead→planner routing. The FIRST lead→planner send is the Step 7 revise (on a run where the initial plan is accepted cleanly) OR an initial §1 corrective sent via Step 4 when the WROTE: reply is malformed or missing. [DEGRADE] - Degrade detection (conditions (1)/(2)/(3) per §A-DEGRADE): [DEGRADE] - Condition (1): the first bare-name send FAILED and teammate_id was not captured at spawn (D0 captured nothing — no fallback handle available) → record plan_path from Step 1 (planner may have written it — the spawn prompted the write) and STOP with the fallback noting that path for manual inspection. STOP WITHOUT teardown (no addressable teammate — §A-DEGRADE D3 no-usable-handle exception). This condition is reached ONLY after a bare-name send has actually failed, NOT at spawn time. [DEGRADE] - Condition (2): the teammate replies via its task-completion result (SendMessage unavailable on this host) → this is §A-DEGRADE D2 driving; do NOT STOP. Read the WROTE: 1 <path> reply from the spawn task result (D2 case (i)) and apply the SAME Step 4 anchored gate + file check; then continue the loop (later rounds use D2 case (ii) — reply read from the D1 teammate_id SendMessage task result). Reference §A-DEGRADE for the driving algorithm. [DEGRADE] - Condition (3): first lead→planner send fails on BOTH bare teammate_name AND teammate_id (D1 fallback exhausted) → record plan_path and STOP honestly; the planner may have written the plan at spawn so note that path for manual inspection. STOP WITHOUT teardown (no addressable teammate).

Step 4 — Confirm the planner wrote the plan

The lead no longer Writes the plan — the planner writes the canonical file itself (caller-directed write-file mode, Step 3). The lead only verifies.

Anchored reply gate (id-first summary) — applies to EVERY planner reply in write-file mode (the initial write, any retry, and every Step 7 revise redo). Classification is id-first, phase-first:

1. First operation: parse the leading WROTE: <integer> token from the trimmed reply and capture <reqid>. Everything after that token is the path payload.
2. Classify by awaiting_reply FIRST, then by id, BEFORE any exact-path or no-prose check.
   • Not awaiting (awaiting_reply == false): a WROTE: with id <= request_id_counter is stale/duplicate — ignore SILENTLY (NEVER compare to expected_request_id; it is null then; NO §2 idle-correction for the stale WROTE: itself). Any non-WROTE: wake routes via Step 4a/§2.
   • Awaiting (awaiting_reply == true): an older id (reqid < expected_request_id) is a stale leftover — ignore content, do NOT run the §1 corrective for it, apply the stale-recovery sub-step; a matching id (reqid == expected_request_id) enforces the exact accept regex ^WROTE: <expected id> <exact resolved plan path from Step 1>\s*$ (path = entire remaining string, verbatim) plus no-prose rule — on pass → MESSAGE ACCEPTED (clear expected_request_id, awaiting_reply, and solicit_sent_at); a future id (reqid > expected_request_id) is a protocol violation → Step 8 teardown then STOP.
3. After MESSAGE ACCEPTED, run the file/structure check (= PLAN VALIDATION ACCEPTED stage). On any body echo, added prose, preamble, or a different path at the matching-id step → §1 corrective + escalation.

File check (only after the gate passes): confirm the file is non-empty via the Bash tool:

[ -s "<resolved plan path>" ]

If missing or empty → apply the file-check corrective + escalation in references/failure-protocol.md §1.

In-place rule: every later revision overwrites THIS SAME path; never a -v2.md (or any other) sibling — the bridge's --resume keys on the plan path, and a new path breaks resume continuity. The id, not a new path, is the disambiguator — a stale round-N WROTE: is byte-identical on path but distinguishable by id.

Full two-phase state machine, the two acceptance stages, and the stale-recovery sub-step are authoritative in references/failure-protocol.md §6 — do not duplicate the pseudo-code here.

Step 4a — Unsolicited planner messages

See ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/loop-protocol.md §F4 for unsolicited-message handling (§E two-phase classification is the authoritative router; §B governs genuinely-unsolicited non-WROTE: traffic). This loop's anchored reply-token is WROTE: <id> <path>; the local binding: reply-token shape + accept rule in references/failure-protocol.md Binding declarations; corrective/recovery in §1; unsolicited-message handling in §2 (which points at shared §B).

Step 5 — Plan-review iteration 1 (fresh)

Iteration counting: the fresh review here is iteration 1. The Step 8 cap is 10 total reviews (iter 1 fresh + at most 9 resumed revise rounds). See ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/loop-protocol.md §E for the review_iteration-vs-request_id_counter independence rule.

Invoke via the Bash tool with timeout: 600000. If review_brief_file is non-null, assign it to BRIEF_FILE per the shell-safety recipe in ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/review-brief.md and append --review-brief "$(cat "$BRIEF_FILE")"; omit both when review_brief_file is null:

node "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/codex-bridge.mjs" plan-review --plan-path "<resolved path>" [--review-brief "$(cat "$BRIEF_FILE")"]

Parse the bridge's single stdout JSON envelope per ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/bridge-review-calls.md (envelope shape + strict-parse rule). On ok:true, read the artifact at path with the Read tool.

On any non-ok:true, Bash timeout, or JSON parse failure → Step 8 teardown, then STOP with a named-loop report ("hyper-plan-loop bridge failure, iter N") surfacing error verbatim (or a short parser/timeout diagnostic if no error field) plus the artifact path if present. If the artifact Read itself fails → Step 8 teardown, then STOP.

Step 6 — Severity gate

Read the artifact body and judge by meaning, not regex. The plan-review template emits ### Issues with - **Blocker** — … / - **Major** — … / - **Minor** — … bullets plus ### Verdict — but classify by meaning, not by the severity word Codex attached: a finding blocks if it concerns plan-level correctness, wrong file paths, broken task ordering, unverifiable steps, or missing required behavior the implementer would inherit (regardless of severity label). Pure style / "consider X" / "could be slightly clearer" / vague nits do NOT block.

• Any blocking finding → revise (Step 7).
• No blocking findings (style/nits only, or an approving verdict) → exit loop (Step 8 teardown → Step 9). Non-blocking findings are reported, never gating.

Conservative branch: if severity cannot be confidently judged by meaning (no recognizable ### Issues / ### Verdict structure, truncated body, etc.) — do NOT assume "no blocking findings": instead Step 8 teardown, then STOP with a named-loop report ("hyper-plan-loop unparseable review, iter N") surfacing the artifact path for manual triage.

Step 7 — Revise via the live planner, then re-review

First check the cap: if the iteration counter is already at 10 (10 total Codex reviews consumed), do NOT send findings or revise — go directly to Step 8 (cap reached).

The lead never Reads the plan body into its context here (that would reintroduce the token cost this skill is designed to avoid). Validation is filesystem-level only.

Before sending, increment the id: request_id_counter += 1, expected_request_id = request_id_counter, awaiting_reply = true; immediately before the SendMessage call, capture solicit_sent_at via a Bash date -u +%FT%TZ (the field-definition rule above is binding — assistant-turn start is NOT valid). Pass that new id in the message and in the reply instruction.

Send the blocking findings to the still-live planner, addressed via the §A send-resolution procedure (R1: bare teammate_name — see ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/loop-protocol.md §A for the authoritative algorithm): [DEGRADE] On a degraded run, the lead reads each round's WROTE: reply from the planner's task-completion result per §A-DEGRADE D2 — the initial WROTE: 1 is case (i) read from the spawn task result, later rounds are case (ii) via D1 teammate_id send. Apply the SAME Step 4 anchored gate + file check after reading; then continue to the next review round. Driving ends at "validate → continue"; teardown is NOT part of this sequence.

SendMessage({
  to: <resolved via §A send-resolution procedure>,
  summary: "Revise plan request <id>",
  message: "<verbatim blocking findings + relevant ### Verdict text when it explains the required direction; instruct: first Read <the exact resolved plan path> to refresh, then revise THAT SAME path in place (Edit it, or re-Write it); reply with exactly 'WROTE: <id> <that exact path>' and nothing else — no plan body, no preamble>"
})

(Replace <id> with the actual integer just minted. The to: handle is resolved via the §A procedure as described above — R1 sends to bare teammate_name on the live-mailbox main path.)

Do NOT re-send the task or research — the planner still holds that context.

§3 corrective id note: any §3 redo-pipeline corrective (see references/failure-protocol.md §3) also mints its OWN new incremented id (the full mint protocol applies, same as the increment-before-send above: request_id_counter += 1, expected_request_id = request_id_counter, awaiting_reply = true, and solicit_sent_at captured via Bash date -u +%FT%TZ immediately before the SendMessage call) before sending — the redo reply must echo that newest id, not the failed solicitation's id. The to: handle for any corrective also uses the §A send-resolution procedure.

Revise-validation — every revise reply must pass, in order: (1) anchored reply gate (Step 4) → (2) structure ok/bad check. The single-redo budget, corrective wording, and terminal STOP are specified in references/failure-protocol.md §3 — follow it verbatim. The structure check is a one-liner that prints only ok or bad:

node -e 'try{process.stdout.write(/^##\s*Task\s/m.test(require("fs").readFileSync(process.argv[1],"utf8"))?"ok":"bad")}catch{process.stdout.write("bad")}' "<resolved plan path>"

bad → §3 corrective + terminal handling. On ok, increment the iteration counter and re-invoke the bridge via the Bash tool with timeout: 600000. Same review_brief_file-gated BRIEF_FILE assignment + --review-brief token as Step 5 — per ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/review-brief.md's two re-supply reasons (fallback survival on an auto→fresh fallback, and mid-loop updates), re-pass it on every round; never regenerate review_brief_file from the planner's just-revised plan (that would let the planner bless its own scope additions) — only a NEW user decision may update it:

node "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/codex-bridge.mjs" plan-review --plan-path "<same path>" --resume auto [--review-brief "$(cat "$BRIEF_FILE")"]

--plan-path is REQUIRED on every iteration including resumes (plan-review --resume auto alone is invalid). Always pass --resume auto from iteration 2 onward. Re-parse per Step 5's JSON rules, then loop back to Step 6.

Step 8 — Cap + teardown

Cap at 10 total reviews (iter 1 fresh + at most 9 resumed revise rounds). See ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/loop-protocol.md §E for the review_iteration-vs-request_id_counter independence rule.

On cap-reached, FIRST capture the cap report details (iterations consumed, residual blocking findings from the latest review, plan path left in its latest revised state), THEN run teardown, THEN emit the named-loop report ("hyper-plan-loop revise loop"): the loop ran out of rounds before Codex stopped flagging plan-level correctness/path/ordering/missing-behavior issues. The plan path needs manual triage.

(Cap is only reachable via Step 7, which only runs when the latest review had blocking findings — so cap-reached always means "blocking findings still open." A run where Codex returns non-blocking-only at any iteration exits cleanly via Step 6 before the cap can trip.)

Teardown is MANDATORY on EVERY exit path once the Step 3 teammate spawn has succeeded — loop success, cap reached, and every post-spawn STOP: bridge failure, reply-contract failure (anchored gate / unsolicited-message protocol), planner-write failure, planner-format failure, plus any other unexpected tool error while the planner teammate is live. Run teardown FIRST, then report/STOP — never before. Teardown consists of a best-effort shutdown_request only; no explicit team-delete call (the team is cleaned up automatically on session exit).

Teardown procedure: see ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/loop-protocol.md §F5 → §C. [DEGRADE] On a degraded run, teardown follows §A-DEGRADE D3 instead — D3 resolves the target in order: (a) resolved_handle set → send to it; (b) resolved_handle null but teammate_id captured → send to teammate_id; (c) both null → STOP WITHOUT teardown (no-addressable-teammate exception, genuine STOP per §A-DEGRADE condition (1)/(3)).

Step 9 — Final report

After the Step 8 teardown attempt (shutdown_request sent best-effort, no-wait), report:

• The plan path.
• Whether the slug was reused from research artifact(s) or freshly derived.
• Review iterations consumed.
• The final Codex verdict.
• Residual non-blocking findings (informational, never gating).
• Next step:
  • Clean exit (loop converged) → recommend: Next step: /hyperclaude:hyper-implement <plan path>.
  • Cap-reached (blocking findings still open) → do NOT recommend implementation. Direct the user to inspect the plan path and decide whether to revise manually (via /hyperclaude:hyper-plan + /hyperclaude:hyper-plan-review) or re-run /hyperclaude:hyper-plan-loop with the original task description (this skill takes a task description, not an existing plan path).

Anti-patterns

Cross-loop invariants (reviewer-as-agent, re-spawning, skipping shutdown): see ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/loop-protocol.md §D. Plan-loop-specific:

• Reading the plan body into lead context each revise round, or accepting any non-WROTE: reply as success.
• Writing <plan>-v2.md (or any) sibling files. Always overwrite the same plan path; --resume keys on it. [DEGRADE] - Hardcoding to: teammate_id as the primary handle for lead→planner sends instead of routing via the §A send-resolution procedure. teammate_id is the FALLBACK (degrade-only); the PRIMARY is bare teammate_name. All lead→planner sends (revise, corrective, AND teardown shutdown_request) must go through the §A procedure — see ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/loop-protocol.md §A and §D anti-pattern 3.
• Treating non-blocking findings as revise targets. Step 6 classifies by meaning — style nits, vague "consider X" suggestions, and pure prose-polish do NOT block, regardless of what severity label Codex attached. Only plan-level correctness / wrong paths / broken ordering / unverifiable steps / missing required behavior gate the loop.
• Editing hyper-plan or hyper-plan-review. This skill is purely additive.
• Restating ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/review-brief.md's rules inside this SKILL.md (see shared anti-pattern #8) instead of pointing at it; fabricating review_brief_file from the planner's plan prose; or letting a brief ask Codex to suppress correctness / security / data-loss findings.