Cawplan Internal QA Coding Session Test

CawPlan Internal QA — Session Summary Prompt Test

Bootstrap

cawplan skill check

Workflow

1. Resolve one session

If the request gives an entry_id directly, skip to step 2.

Otherwise resolve a session to test:

• Person (optional): if named, resolve via cawplan session members (case-insensitive / substring match) the same way as the humaninputs skills. If more than one plausibly matches, present a numbered list and ask — don't guess. If no person is named, use the current user (cawplan session my-sessions, no --user-id override needed).
• Date: if given, use it; otherwise default to the last 2 days.
• List sessions in that scope:

  cawplan session my-sessions --date "<date>"                    # current user, or:
  cawplan session my-sessions --user-id "<resolved_user_id>" --from "<from>" --to "<to>"
  

• If more than one session comes back, present a numbered list (session_title, date/time, project, entry_id/unique_id) and ask which one to test — don't pick automatically. If exactly one, use it. If none, say so and ask for a different scope rather than guessing.

2. Fetch the full conversation

cawplan session conversation --entry-id "<entry_id>"

This returns data.messages[] — ordered {role, time, text} entries (the raw uploaded conversation, not the human-input rows). Note the total message count and roughly how much of it is user vs assistant.

If the response has no messages (empty conversation, or the session wasn't uploaded with include_conversation), say so and stop — there's nothing to summarize.

3. Generate the summary yourself

Read references/SESSION_SUMMARY_RULES.md if you haven't already this session. Read through data.messages[] in order and write the summary exactly as that doc describes: a narrative prose recap (not bullets), up to ~800 words but proportional to the session's actual content, matching the conversation's dominant language. Do this directly as a reasoning step — don't write a script or call an external LLM API; you are the generator here, using the rules in the reference doc.

4. Report

Show, in order:

• Session identified: entry_id, session_title (if known), date, message count.
• The generated summary in full.
• A one-line self-assessment: does the summary actually reflect the conversation (right artifacts named, right outcome stated), or did anything get invented/missed? This is a read-only sanity check, not a pass/fail gate — there is no cloud value to compare against yet.

Notes

• This is display-only: it never writes anything back to CawPlan, and it doesn't compare against a cloud-persisted summary (the feature is new; historical sessions won't have one until they're reenriched). If you want to compare a specific session's cloud summary once it exists, use cawplan session my-sessions / the session detail endpoint directly and read summary from the response — this skill doesn't need to grow comparison logic for that.
• Very long sessions (many dozens of messages) are still fine to summarize directly in one pass for this manual test — production's map-reduce slicing is an LLM output-budget concern, not a requirement for a human/agent doing the same task by reading.

References

• references/SESSION_SUMMARY_RULES.md