df-plan-review

name

df-plan-review

description

Plan quality verification for dev-flow. Goal-backward analysis ensures plans WILL achieve their stated goal before execution burns context. ⚠️ MUST use when: (1) Reviewing Plan quality before approve (2) Wopal completes Plan writing and needs quality gate (3) User asks to "check plan", "verify plan", "review plan" (4) Plan enters planning status and needs pre-execution validation 🔴 Trigger automatically when Plan is ready for review, even if user doesn't explicitly say "review". Agent: rook (read-only verification subagent) Mode: verification, not execution

df-plan-review — Plan Quality Verification

Goal-backward verification: Start from what the plan SHOULD deliver, verify it addresses that goal completely.

Core Principle

Plan completeness =/= Goal achievement

A task "create auth endpoint" can exist in the plan while password hashing is missing. The task exists but the goal "secure authentication" won't be achieved.

Six Verification Dimensions

1. Goal Coverage

Question: Does every stated goal have implementing task(s)?

Why: Missing goal coverage = plan won't deliver what it promises.

Process:

1. Extract goal from Plan header
2. For each goal component, find covering task(s)
3. Flag goals with zero tasks or vague coverage

Severity: BLOCKER if any goal component lacks coverage.

2. Task Completeness

Question: Does every task have Files + Action + Verify + Done?

Why: Missing verification = can't confirm completion.

Required elements by task type:

• auto: Files, Action, Verify, Done
• tdd: Files, Behavior, Implementation, Test commands, Expected outcomes
• checkpoint:*: N/A (marker tasks)

Red flags: Missing <verify>, vague <action>, empty <files>

Severity: BLOCKER for missing required fields.

3. Dependency & Wave Correctness

Question: Are task dependencies valid and wave assignment consistent?

Why: Broken dependencies = execution will fail at runtime.

Process:

1. Parse Delegation Strategy wave assignments
2. Check: Wave N depends on Wave N-1 outputs
3. Check: No circular dependencies
4. Check: Parallel tasks (same wave) have independent files

Red flags: Wave 2 referencing Wave 3 output, circular A→B→A

Severity: BLOCKER for circular dependencies or impossible wave order.

4. Key Links Planned

Question: Are artifacts wired together, not just created in isolation?

Why: Component created but not imported = dead code.

Process:

1. Identify artifacts in Files columns
2. For dependent pairs (Component→API, Form→Handler), check Action mentions wiring
3. Flag missing connections

Severity: WARNING for missing wiring in Action descriptions.

5. Verification Falsifiability

Question: Can each Verify command actually prove completion?

Why: "Manual — later" or "quality is good" = unverifiable.

Valid patterns:

• rg -c 'pattern' file ≥ 1
• pytest tests/ passes
• flow.sh complete succeeds

Invalid patterns:

• "Manual verification" without explicit reason
• Vague descriptions ("tests pass", "code works")
• Commands that can't be executed by Agent

Severity: BLOCKER for unverifiable commands without explicit manual reason.

6. Scope & Context Match

Question: Will plan complete within context budget and scope boundaries?

Why: 5+ tasks/plan = quality degradation. Scope exceeding In Scope = uncontrolled expansion.

Thresholds:

• Tasks/plan: 2-3 good, 4 warning, 5+ blocker (split required)
• Files/plan: 5-8 good, 10 warning, 15+ blocker
• Out of Scope violations: BLOCKER

Red flags: Plan includes Out of Scope items, 5+ tasks, complex work crammed into one wave

Severity: BLOCKER for Out of Scope violations or extreme complexity.

Completeness Gate

CRITICAL: All six dimensions MUST be checked before outputting any report.

1. At review start, create TodoWrite items for each dimension:

   • [ ] 1. Goal Coverage
   • [ ] 2. Task Completeness
   • [ ] 3. Dependency & Wave Correctness
   • [ ] 4. Key Links Planned
   • [ ] 5. Verification Falsifiability
   • [ ] 6. Scope & Context Match

2. During review, mark only ONE in_progress at a time. Mark completed immediately after dimension-specific checks are done.

3. FORBIDDEN to output final report (VERIFICATION PASSED / ISSUES FOUND) while any dimension is still pending or in_progress. Wopal uses your todo completion rate to track review progress.

4. Context low fallback: If context is running out and some dimensions remain unchecked → output a partial report with an explicit UNCOVERED DIMENSIONS section listing which dimensions were NOT checked and why.

Scope Reduction Detection

Most insidious failure: Plan claims to implement a decision but delivers a shadow version.

Pattern scan: Look for scope reduction language in Actions:

• "v1", "simplified", "static for now", "hardcoded"
• "future enhancement", "placeholder", "basic version"
• "NOT wired to", "NOT connected to", "stub"

Cross-reference: Match against Plan goal and Technical Context decisions. If reduced from stated requirement → BLOCKER.

Fix path: Either deliver fully or propose phase split, don't silently shrink.

Revision Loop

Bounded iteration: Max 3 revision rounds to prevent infinite planner-checker对抗.

Loop behavior:

1. Checker finds issues → returns ISSUES FOUND
2. Planner revises → Checker re-verifies
3. Repeat until PASS or 3 rounds exhausted
4. 3 rounds BLOCK → escalate to user with preserved分歧注释

Output Contract

VERIFICATION PASSED

## VERIFICATION PASSED

**Plan**: {plan-name}
**Status**: Ready for approve

### Goal Coverage
| Goal Component | Tasks | Coverage |
|----------------|-------|----------|
| {component-1}  | 1,2   | Complete |
| {component-2}  | 3     | Complete |

### Plan Summary
| Metric | Value | Status |
|--------|-------|--------|
| Tasks  | 3     | ✅ Within budget |
| Files  | 6     | ✅ Within budget |
| Waves  | 2     | ✅ Valid |

Plan verified. Proceed to `approve`.

ISSUES FOUND

## ISSUES FOUND

**Plan**: {plan-name}
**Issues**: {N} blocker(s), {Y} warning(s), {Z} info

### Blockers (must fix)

**1. [{dimension}] {description}**
- Task: {task-number}
- Issue: {specific problem}
- Fix: {concrete fix hint}

### Warnings (should fix)

**1. [{dimension}] {description}**
- Fix: {suggestion}

### Recommendation

Return to planner with feedback. Max {remaining} revision rounds.

Anti-patterns

DO NOT:

• Check codebase existence (that's verifier's job)
• Run tests (static plan analysis only)
• Accept vague tasks ("implement auth" without specifics)
• Skip dependency analysis
• Ignore scope boundaries
• Trust task names alone (read Action/Verify/Done)
• Allow unverifiable commands without explicit manual reason

References

Load detailed rubric when needed:

• references/review-rubric.md — Six-dimension detailed process, scope reduction patterns, revision loop rules, issue format specification

Examples

Example 1: Missing Goal Coverage

Plan goal: "Implement secure authentication with login, logout, session persistence"

Issue found:

issue:
  dimension: goal_coverage
  severity: blocker
  description: "Logout functionality has no implementing task"
  plan: "143-..."
  goal_component: "logout"
  fix_hint: "Add Task for logout endpoint or confirm logout is deferred with explicit reason"

Example 2: Scope Reduction

Technical Context D-26: "Config displays calculated costs in impulses from pricing table"

Task Action: "D-26 cost references (v1 — static labels). NOT wired to billing"

Issue found:

issue:
  dimension: scope_reduction
  severity: blocker
  description: "Plan reduces D-26 from calculated costs to static hardcoded labels"
  plan: "143-..."
  task: 1
  decision: "D-26: Config displays calculated costs"
  plan_action: "static labels v1 — NOT wired"
  fix_hint: "Either implement D-26 fully or split phase, don't silently reduce"