Re Plan

Re-Plan

Resolve low-confidence tasks in an existing plan. Investigate, remove uncertainty, make decisions with evidence, and update the plan doc so that remaining work can proceed safely.

Confidence Policy

• Confidence ≥90 is a motivation, not a quota. Increasing confidence should come from reducing uncertainty (evidence, tests, spikes), not from deleting planned work.
• If work is valuable but not yet high-confidence, preserve it as deferred/Phase 3 and add "What would make this ≥90%" notes.

Scientific Confidence Protocol (Mandatory)

Treat re-planning as hypothesis testing, not narrative scoring.

Core rule

Confidence may only increase when uncertainty is reduced by evidence.

If uncertainty remains, do one of:

• keep confidence where it is (or lower it), or
• add explicit precursor work (INVESTIGATE/SPIKE) and make downstream tasks depend on it.

Evidence ladder (use to justify confidence changes)

Promotion gate (hard rule)

A task should not be promoted from <80% to ≥80% unless at least one is true:

1. The blocking unknowns are closed with E2+ evidence, or
2. A precursor task is inserted with explicit exit criteria, and downstream implementation remains below 80% until that precursor is completed.

Fail-first promotion caps (business-artifact/mixed IMPLEMENT tasks)

For non-code deliverables, confidence cannot be promoted above thresholds without fail-first evidence:

• No Red evidence (falsification probe) → cap at 79%
• Red complete but no Green pass evidence → cap at 84%
• Green complete but no Refactor evidence → cap at 89%

Precursor task pattern

When evidence is insufficient to promote a task above 80%, create formal precursor tasks in the plan — not inline notes.

Precursor tasks are first-class plan tasks. They get their own TASK-ID, full confidence assessment, acceptance criteria, and validation contract (TC for code/mixed; VC for business-artifact/mixed when applicable), and appear in the task summary table. The blocked downstream task explicitly Depends on the precursor TASK-ID.

Why formal tasks, not notes: Inline "precursor evidence needed" notes hide real work behind a single confidence number. A task at 70% with "needs spike" looks like one task — but it's actually two: the spike and the implementation. Making precursors formal tasks means:

• The dependency chain is visible and sequenceable
• Precursor tasks get their own confidence assessment (they may themselves be blocked)
• /build-feature can build the precursor independently
• /sequence-plan correctly orders the full chain
• Progress tracking reflects actual work remaining

Precursor task requirements:

• Type: INVESTIGATE (research/decision) or SPIKE (code prototype with measurable outcome)
• Purpose: resolve exactly one uncertainty class (Implementation/Approach/Impact)
• Outputs: concrete artifact (decision memo, call-site map, test/probe output, prototype result)
• Exit criteria: binary pass/fail statement tied to evidence
• Confidence: assessed using the same min-of-dimensions rule as any other task
• Dependency: the blocked downstream task Depends on this precursor's TASK-ID
• Validation contract: SPIKE tasks that produce code require TC contracts; business-artifact/mixed precursor tasks require VC contracts plus fail-first evidence when they are IMPLEMENT-like. INVESTIGATE tasks that produce only a decision memo do not.

Recursive decomposition: If a precursor task is itself below 80% confidence, it may need its own precursors. Work backwards from the blocked task until every task in the chain is ≥80%. This may produce a chain of 2-3 tasks — that's fine. The alternative (one task with hidden precursors) masks the true confidence.

Example chain:

TASK-54 (INVESTIGATE, 85%): Decision memo — Firebase custom claims vs PIN token
  ↓ unblocks
TASK-55 (SPIKE, 82%): Prototype Firebase Auth init + custom claims flow
  ↓ unblocks
TASK-51 (IMPLEMENT, 74% → conditional 82%): Staff auth replacement
  (confidence promotable to 82% only after TASK-54 + TASK-55 complete)

Conditional confidence: When a blocked task's confidence depends on precursor completion, record it as:

Confidence: 74% (→ 82% conditional on TASK-54, TASK-55)

This makes the confidence chain transparent. The task stays at 74% until precursors are done.

TDD / Fail-First Compliance Requirement

Every IMPLEMENT task must have an enumerated validation contract before it can be marked Ready.

• Code/mixed tasks require a Test contract with TC-XX cases.
• Business-artifact/mixed tasks require a Validation contract with VC-XX checks plus fail-first execution evidence (Red, Green, Refactor).

A task without required validation cases for its track (TC-XX or VC-XX) cannot proceed to /build-feature, regardless of confidence score. Re-plan must add missing contracts and evidence.

Code/mixed test contract format:

- **Test contract:**
  - **TC-01:** <scenario> → <expected outcome>
  - **TC-02:** <error case> → <expected outcome>
  - **TC-03:** <edge case> → <expected outcome>
  - **Test type:** <unit | integration | e2e | contract>
  - **Test location:** <path/to/test.ts (existing) or path/to/new-test.ts (new)>
  - **Run:** <command to execute>

Business-artifact/mixed validation contract format:

- **Validation contract:**
  - **VC-01:** <quality/channel/compliance scenario> → <pass condition>
  - **VC-02:** <failure/constraint scenario> → <pass condition>
  - **VC-03:** <edge/handoff/measurement scenario> → <pass condition>
  - **Validation type:** <review checklist | approval gate | dry-run | rehearsal | contract>
  - **Validation location/evidence:** <artifact path or checklist path>
  - **Run/verify:** <procedure>
- **Execution plan (business-artifact/mixed):** Red → Green → Refactor
  - **Red evidence:** <expected failure/gap probe + observed result>
  - **Green evidence:** <minimum artifact/process that passes VC checks>
  - **Refactor evidence:** <quality/operability hardening + VC re-pass result>

Minimum validation contract requirements:

• At least one TC/VC per acceptance criterion
• Happy path covered (TC-01 or VC-01)
• At least one error/edge case for M/L effort tasks
• Validation type/location/run procedure specified
• For business-artifact/mixed tasks claiming >80%: Red, Green, and Refactor evidence must be recorded

Operating Mode

RE-PLANNING ONLY

Allowed: read files, search repo, inspect tests, trace call sites/dependencies, review docs/plans/, review targeted git history, consult external official docs if needed.

Not allowed: code changes, refactors, commits except plan/notes updates, applying migrations, destructive commands.

Inputs

• An existing plan doc: docs/plans/<feature-slug>-plan.md
• The task IDs to re-plan (explicit from user or inferred from below-threshold tasks)
• Optional: fact-find brief docs/plans/<feature-slug>-fact-find.md

If the plan doc does not exist:

• With fact-find: Offer to create initial plan from fact-find, then proceed with re-planning
• Without fact-find: Stop and instruct: "No plan exists. Run /plan-feature to create initial plan first."

If the plan doc is stale/out-of-sync:

• Create a minimal recovery plan if salvageable (preserve task IDs, update with current reality)
• Otherwise, recommend /plan-feature for clean rebuild

Outputs

• Update the existing plan doc in-place: docs/plans/<feature-slug>-plan.md
• Optional (only if the investigation is extensive): add a short supporting note: docs/plans/<feature-slug>-replan-notes.md
• No code changes. No commits except doc updates.

When to Use

Run /re-plan when any of the following occurs:

• A plan task has overall confidence <80% (or is explicitly flagged as blocked).
• A task is missing a required validation contract (TC-XX or VC-XX) — cannot proceed to build without it.
• During implementation, confidence drops due to unexpected complexity or new evidence.
• A fact-check or repo audit finds factual inaccuracies in the plan that materially affect confidence.
• New information invalidates assumptions, dependencies, or approach decisions.
• Build was stopped due to uncertainty and needs a structured reset.
• /build-feature rejected a task due to missing validation contract/evidence.
• A CHECKPOINT task was reached during /build-feature — triggers a mid-build reassessment of all remaining tasks using evidence from completed work.

Note: /re-plan is not for generating a plan from scratch; that is /plan-feature. /re-plan operates on a specific plan and task IDs.

Checkpoint-Triggered Re-Assessment

When /re-plan is invoked at a CHECKPOINT during /build-feature, it operates in mid-build reassessment mode:

1. Gather implementation evidence: Read the completed tasks' build completion notes, commits, and confidence reassessments. This is E2/E3 evidence (executable verification from real implementation).

2. Validate horizon assumptions: Each CHECKPOINT lists "Horizon assumptions to validate." Check each one against the evidence from completed tasks:

   • Confirmed: The assumption held — downstream tasks can retain or increase confidence.
   • Partially confirmed: Some aspects held, others were more complex than expected — downstream tasks need revision.
   • Disproved: The assumption was wrong — downstream tasks that depend on it need major revision or abandonment.

3. Scout ahead for remaining tasks: Before reassessing confidence, proactively validate assumptions that remaining tasks depend on:

   Code/mixed scouts:

   • Doc lookups: Verify any library/API/framework capabilities the remaining tasks assume — check against the exact versions in use.
   • Probe tests: Write small throwaway tests that exercise critical assumptions (e.g., "can Prisma do nested creates with this schema?", "does this API accept this payload shape?"). These are E2 evidence.
   • Contract checks: Run tsc or schema validation against type/contract assumptions that downstream tasks depend on.
   • Integration boundary tests: Run existing tests that cross boundaries the remaining tasks will depend on.

   Business-artifact/mixed scouts:

   • Hypothesis freshness: Check whether key hypotheses from the fact-find's Hypothesis & Validation Landscape still hold (supplier quotes, pricing, channel costs, regulatory rules, competitive positioning). Flag any >14 days old with time-sensitive dependencies.
   • Signal updates: Check whether new evidence has appeared since planning (completed demand tests, conversion data, competitor launches) that changes existing signal coverage.
   • Channel/approval drift: Verify platform policies, approval paths, and compliance constraints haven't changed.

   Scout results directly feed the reassessment — a failed scout disproves an assumption before you build on it.

4. Reassess remaining tasks: For each task after the CHECKPOINT:

   • Re-evaluate confidence using evidence from completed work AND scout results (not just static analysis)
   • Split tasks that are now understood to be larger than planned
   • Remove or defer tasks that are no longer viable
   • Add new tasks discovered during implementation or scouting

5. Apply the standard re-plan workflow (steps 1–7) to the remaining tasks, with the key difference that completed tasks and scout results provide E2/E3 evidence that was unavailable during initial planning.

6. After re-plan completes: /build-feature will check the results and either continue building or stop if remaining tasks dropped below threshold.

Workflow

1) Select tasks and establish the re-plan scope

Identify the target tasks:

• Prefer explicit task IDs provided by the user.
• Otherwise, scan the plan and select any tasks with overall confidence <80% and any tasks that depend on them.
• Also select any IMPLEMENT tasks missing required validation contracts (TC-XX/VC-XX) — these cannot proceed to build regardless of confidence.

For each target task, record:

• current confidence (overall + per dimension)
• current acceptance criteria
• dependencies (TASK-IDs)
• affected files/modules
• validation contract status: code/mixed TC complete|incomplete|missing OR business-artifact/mixed VC complete|incomplete|missing
• fail-first evidence status (business-artifact/mixed): complete | incomplete | missing

2) Diagnose the confidence gap by dimension

For each low-confidence task, identify which dimension(s) caused the min-score:

Record the diagnosis per task explicitly in the plan update.

2b) Define falsifiable checks (before scoring)

For each target task, define:

• Uncertainty statement: what is unknown right now?
• Falsifiable check: what observation would prove/disprove the current approach?
• Evidence target class: E1, E2, or E3 (from the evidence ladder)

If you cannot define a falsifiable check, confidence must not increase.

3) Perform targeted investigation (evidence-driven)

A) Close Implementation gaps

Minimum actions (code/mixed):

• Locate at least one analogous pattern in the repo.
• Identify the exact integration seam (function/class/module boundaries).
• Confirm required types/contracts and where they are validated.
• Identify the correct test layer(s) that can prove correctness.
• Run at least one executable check where possible (existing targeted test, probe, or script) for high-impact claims.

Minimum actions (business-artifact/mixed):

• Verify the fact-find's Hypothesis & Validation Landscape is still current (key hypotheses, existing signal coverage, falsifiability assessment).
• Confirm channel constraints and format requirements haven't changed since planning.
• Verify the approval path still works (reviewer available, process unchanged).
• Check whether existing signal coverage has improved or decayed since fact-find (new data available? prior signals stale?).

Evidence to capture:

• file paths (and key symbol names) for code/mixed
• pattern references ("this matches pattern used in X")
• relevant tests and how they assert behavior
• for business-artifact/mixed: hypothesis validity status, channel constraint confirmations, signal freshness assessment

B) Close Approach gaps

Minimum actions (code/mixed):

• List at least two viable approaches (A/B).
• Evaluate each for:
  • consistency with existing architecture and conventions
  • coupling and maintainability
  • migration/rollout complexity
  • operational risk and observability

Minimum actions (business-artifact/mixed):

• List at least two viable approaches (A/B).
• Evaluate each for:
  • channel fit for the target audience
  • test design quality — are VCs isolated and diagnostic per the Business VC Quality Checklist?
  • measurement feasibility — can the pass/fail signal actually be observed?
  • cost and time to run the validation (falsification cost from hypothesis landscape)

Both tracks:

• Decide on a chosen approach based on evidence.
• If the decision is genuinely a product preference, escalate to the user with a precise choice and recommendation.
• If no approach can be selected confidently, create a precursor INVESTIGATE/SPIKE task instead of forcing a score increase.

Deliverable:

• A short "Decision" paragraph added to the plan (and a Decision Log entry).

C) Close Impact gaps

Minimum actions (code/mixed):

• Map upstream and downstream dependencies:
  • what this change depends on
  • who/what consumes it
• Identify integration boundaries:
  • package boundaries, service boundaries, API/event contracts
• Inventory existing tests that cover impacted paths, plus gaps.
• Check for extinct tests: Tests that assert obsolete behavior give false confidence. Flag any tests that:
  • Test removed/renamed APIs or contracts
  • Assert behavior that no longer exists
  • Were not updated when functional code last changed
• Identify rollout/rollback requirements:
  • feature flags, backward compatibility, migration sequencing
• Add quantitative blast-radius notes where possible (number of files, call-sites, tests likely affected).

Minimum actions (business-artifact/mixed):

• Check whether market, competitive, or regulatory landscape has shifted since planning.
• Verify supplier quotes, pricing assumptions, or availability timelines are still valid.
• Confirm audience/channel assumptions haven't drifted (ad costs, platform policy changes, audience behaviour shifts).
• Check whether any hypothesis from the fact-find's Hypothesis & Validation Landscape has been confirmed or invalidated by events since planning.
• Identify rollback/pivot requirements: what happens if the VC fails after execution (sunk cost, reversibility).

Evidence to capture:

• callers / references (file paths) for code/mixed
• contracts (types/schemas/endpoints)
• tests and commands
• extinct tests flagged for update during build
• for business-artifact/mixed: hypothesis validity status, market/regulatory change notes, updated signal coverage assessment

3b) Complete validation contracts for tasks missing them

For each IMPLEMENT task missing required validation contract elements:

Step 1: Review acceptance criteria

• Each acceptance criterion must map to at least one validation case
• Identify gaps: criteria without corresponding TC/VC cases

Step 2: Enumerate validation cases by track

• Code/mixed: TC-01 happy path; TC-02+ error/edge/boundary cases
• Business-artifact/mixed: VC-01 happy path; VC-02+ failure/constraint/edge/handoff checks
• For M/L effort tasks: at least 3 validation cases required
• For S effort tasks: at least 1 validation case required (may be more based on complexity)

Step 3: Specify validation metadata

• Code/mixed: test type, test location, run command
• Business-artifact/mixed: validation type, evidence location, run/verify procedure

Step 4: Add track-specific contract to the task Code/mixed format:

- **Test contract:**
  - **TC-01:** <scenario> → <expected outcome>
  - **TC-02:** <error case> → <expected outcome>
  - **Acceptance coverage:** TC-01 covers criteria 1,2; TC-02 covers criteria 3
  - **Test type:** <unit | integration | e2e>
  - **Test location:** `path/to/test.ts`
  - **Run:** `pnpm test --testPathPattern=<pattern>`

Business-artifact/mixed format:

- **Validation contract:**
  - **VC-01:** <scenario> → <pass condition>
  - **VC-02:** <failure case> → <pass condition>
  - **Acceptance coverage:** VC-01 covers criteria 1,2; VC-02 covers criteria 3
  - **Validation type:** <review checklist | approval gate | dry-run | rehearsal | contract>
  - **Validation location/evidence:** `path/to/review-checklist.md`
  - **Run/verify:** <exact review/rehearsal procedure>
- **Execution plan (business-artifact/mixed):** Red → Green → Refactor
  - **Red evidence:** <falsification probe + observed failure/gap>
  - **Green evidence:** <minimum artifact/process + VC pass result>
  - **Refactor evidence:** <improvement + VC regression check result>

Deriving validation cases from acceptance criteria:

4) Resolve open questions (self-serve first; escalate last)

Rules:

• Investigate the repo and official docs first.
• Only ask the user when:
  • business rules/UX intent cannot be inferred,
  • two approaches are truly equivalent and require preference,
  • or you have exhausted evidence sources and the uncertainty remains.

If user input is needed:

• Ask only the minimum set of questions required to proceed.
• Each question must include:
  • why it matters
  • what decision it affects
  • a recommended default with risk (if appropriate)

5) Update the plan doc with deltas (mandatory structure)

Update docs/plans/<feature-slug>-plan.md as follows:

Plan frontmatter:

• Set Status: Active after re-plan updates unless the user explicitly wants it to remain Draft.

For each re-planned task:

• Preserve the same TASK-ID (do not renumber).
• Add a Re-plan Update block containing:
  • Previous confidence → new confidence
  • Evidence class used for uplift (E1/E2/E3)
  • What was investigated (repo areas, tests, docs)
  • Decisions made (and why)
  • Updated dependencies/order (if changed)
  • Updated acceptance criteria/validation plan/rollout notes as needed

If confidence remains <80% after investigation — create formal precursor tasks:

Do NOT add inline "Precursor evidence needed" notes. Instead:

1. Create a new task section in the plan with the next available TASK-ID
2. Full task definition — same structure as any IMPLEMENT task:
   • Type (INVESTIGATE or SPIKE)
   • Effort (S/M/L)
   • Confidence (min-of-dimensions, assessed normally)
   • Acceptance criteria (what artifact is produced, what question is answered)
   • Validation contract (TC/VC based on execution track; required for SPIKE/IMPLEMENT-like precursors)
   • Exit criteria (binary pass/fail)
   • Affects (files to read/modify)
3. Add to task summary table with confidence, effort, and dependencies
4. Update the blocked task's Depends on to include the new precursor TASK-ID
5. Record conditional confidence on the blocked task:

   Confidence: 70% (→ 84% conditional on TASK-XX, TASK-YY)

6. Recursively assess — if the precursor itself is <80%, it needs its own precursors

The blocked task's confidence stays at its current value until precursors are completed and provide E2/E3 evidence. Do not speculatively raise it.

After creating precursor tasks, re-assess the full dependency graph — new tasks may unblock or reorder existing work.

Decomposition closure rule: after all confidence/dependency/content edits are complete, run /sequence-plan as the final structural step before deciding readiness or handing off to /build-feature.

Also update:

• Last-updated in frontmatter
• Overall-confidence (effort-weighted as defined in /plan-feature)
• Task Summary table (confidence, effort, dependencies)

5a) Confidence Score Validation Checklist (Mandatory Before Finalizing)

Before marking any task as Ready or finalizing confidence scores, verify:

• Evidence citation: Every non-trivial claim includes file path + line number
  • Example: "Bug location: metadata.ts:56-60" not "metadata.ts has a bug"
• Code verification: If claiming something exists/doesn't exist, you've read the file
  • Example: "No tests exist: rg generateMetadata apps/brikette/src/test → zero hits"
• Min-of-dimensions: Overall confidence = min(Implementation, Approach, Impact), not weighted average
• Internal consistency: Confidence in task body matches confidence in summary table
• No assumptions: If you haven't verified in code, it's an "Unknown" not a confident claim
• Test impact quantified: If tests will break, list how many and which files
• Evidence class stated: Any confidence uplift cites E1/E2/E3 and corresponding artifact(s)
• No narrative promotion: Task is not promoted to ≥80 solely from E1 static audit when key unknowns remain
• Precursor enforcement: Remaining unknowns are converted into explicit precursor tasks with dependencies

If any checklist item fails, do NOT finalize the confidence score. Investigate or mark as Unknown.

5b) Validation Contract Checklist (Mandatory for all IMPLEMENT tasks)

Before marking any IMPLEMENT task as Ready, verify:

• Track-appropriate enumeration exists:
  • Code/mixed: task has at least one TC-XX: line
  • Business-artifact/mixed: task has at least one VC-XX: line
• Acceptance coverage: Every acceptance criterion maps to at least one TC/VC
• Scenario + outcome: Each case has format <scenario> → <expected outcome/pass condition>
• Validation metadata specified:
  • Code/mixed: test type + test location + run command
  • Business-artifact/mixed: validation type + evidence location + run/verify procedure
• Minimum case count met (TC or VC):
  • S-effort: ≥1
  • M-effort: ≥3 (including at least one error/edge case)
  • L-effort: ≥5 (including failure/edge/integration or handoff scenarios)
• Fail-first evidence (business-artifact/mixed):
  • Red evidence present
  • Green evidence present
  • Refactor evidence present
• Fail-first confidence caps respected (business-artifact/mixed):

  • 79% only with Red evidence

  • 84% only with Green evidence

  • 89% only with Refactor evidence

If any checklist item fails, the task is NOT ready for build. Add the missing validation contract/evidence elements.

6) Re-assess knock-on effects

After resolving the target tasks:

Identify any tasks whose confidence should change due to:

• new constraints
• new dependencies
• revised approach
• newly discovered blast radius
• factual corrections from fact-checks or audits

Update those tasks' confidence (and notes) if materially affected.

6a) Sequence the plan (mandatory after decomposition/topology changes)

After updating tasks and re-assessing knock-on effects, run /sequence-plan on the plan. This:

• Re-sorts tasks into correct implementation order (accounting for new/changed dependencies)
• Renumbers tasks sequentially (preserving domain prefix)
• Updates all Depends on and Blocks fields with new IDs
• Regenerates the Parallelism Guide to reflect the current dependency graph

Mandatory when: tasks were decomposed (split), added, removed, or dependencies changed. New tasks must appear in correct execution order — precursors before the tasks they unblock.

Execution order rule: complete all substantive re-plan edits first (confidence updates, acceptance changes, dependency rewrites), then run /sequence-plan, then move to step 7 handoff.

Skip conditions: Only skip if re-plan touched a single task with no dependency changes and no tasks were created/split/removed.

Note: /sequence-plan does not change task scope, confidence, or acceptance — it only reorders, renumbers, and maps dependencies. All substantive changes were made in steps 1–6.

7) Decision point and handoff

End by classifying the plan state:

• Ready to build: all IMPLEMENT tasks are ≥80% confidence AND have complete validation contracts (TC/VC) with required fail-first evidence
• Validation incomplete: confidence ≥80% but some tasks are missing validation contracts/evidence — add them before proceeding
• Partially ready: some tasks are 60–79% with explicit precursor tasks/verification steps; none below 60%
• Blocked: any IMPLEMENT task is <60% or requires user input to proceed safely

Validation gate is mandatory. A task with 90% confidence but missing required TC/VC or fail-first evidence is NOT ready for build.

Provide the recommended next action:

• /build-feature if ready (confidence ≥80% AND validation contracts complete) — and sequencing is up-to-date after any decomposition
• /re-plan again if remaining blocked tasks exist or validation contracts/evidence are missing
• Ask user questions if genuinely required

Plan Update Snippet (insert into each affected task)

Add this block inside the task section:

#### Re-plan Update (YYYY-MM-DD)
- **Previous confidence:** 55%
- **Updated confidence:** 84%
  - **Evidence class:** E2 (executable verification)
  - Implementation: 84% — <why + evidence>
  - Approach: 88% — <why + evidence>
  - Impact: 84% — <why + evidence>
- **Investigation performed:**
  - Repo: `path/to/file.ts`, `path/to/other.ts`
  - Tests: `path/to/test.spec.ts` (notes)
  - Docs: <internal/external reference>
- **Decision / resolution:**
  - <what was decided and why>
- **Changes to task:**
  - Dependencies: <updated TASK-IDs (including new precursor tasks)>
  - Acceptance: <updated bullets if changed>
  - Validation plan: <updated bullets if changed>
  - Rollout/rollback: <updated notes if changed>

When confidence remains <80%, use the conditional confidence pattern instead of inline precursor notes:

#### Re-plan Update (YYYY-MM-DD)
- **Previous confidence:** 70%
- **Updated confidence:** 70% (→ 84% conditional on TASK-54, TASK-55)
  - Confidence cannot be promoted until precursor tasks complete and provide E2/E3 evidence
- **Investigation performed:**
  - <what was investigated>
- **Precursor tasks created:**
  - TASK-54 (INVESTIGATE): <description> — resolves <uncertainty>
  - TASK-55 (SPIKE): <description> — resolves <uncertainty>
- **Dependencies updated:** Now depends on TASK-54, TASK-55

Also add a short entry to the plan's Decision Log whenever an approach decision is made or reversed.

Quality Checks (must pass)

• Each low-confidence task has the weak dimension(s) explicitly diagnosed.
• Investigation is targeted and evidenced (file paths/tests/docs).
• Any approach decision includes alternatives, tradeoffs, and rationale.
• Impact is mapped (upstream/downstream) with explicit blast radius notes.
• Plan doc updated: task confidence deltas, dependencies, acceptance criteria, validation contract, rollout/rollback.
• Related tasks re-assessed and updated where necessary.
• User questions are only asked when genuinely unavoidable and are decision-framed.
• TDD/fail-first compliance: Every IMPLEMENT task has complete track-appropriate validation contracts (TC for code/mixed; VC + Red/Green/Refactor evidence for business-artifact/mixed).
• Validation contract checks: All items in 5b) checklist pass for every IMPLEMENT task.
• Scientific uplift compliance: each confidence increase is tied to E1/E2/E3 evidence and uncertainty reduction.
• Precursor compliance: unresolved unknowns are represented as formal precursor tasks (with TASK-ID, confidence, acceptance) — not inline notes or "precursor evidence needed" bullets.
• Precursor confidence: each precursor task has its own min-of-dimensions confidence assessment. If a precursor is <80%, it has its own precursors (recursive decomposition).
• Dependency chain: blocked tasks have explicit Depends on referencing precursor TASK-IDs. Conditional confidence recorded on the blocked task.
• Sequencing applied: /sequence-plan has been run — tasks reordered, renumbered, Blocks fields updated, Parallelism Guide regenerated.
• Decomposition closure: when tasks were split/added/removed, sequencing was run after final structural edits and before handoff.

Completion Messages

All ≥80% with complete validation contracts:

"Re-plan complete. Updated docs/plans/<feature-slug>-plan.md. All implementation tasks are ≥80% confidence with complete validation contracts (TC/VC + required fail-first evidence). Tasks re-sequenced into N execution waves (max parallelism: P). Proceed to /build-feature."

Confidence ≥80% but missing validation contracts/evidence:

"Re-plan complete. Updated plan. Tasks are ≥80% confidence but missing required validation contracts/evidence (TC/VC or Red/Green/Refactor). Tasks re-sequenced. Run /re-plan again to add missing validation elements before proceeding to build."

Some tasks <80% with precursor chain created:

"Re-plan complete. Updated plan. Tasks remain <80% with conditional confidence pending precursor completion. Created N new precursor tasks (TASK-XX, TASK-YY) — all ≥80% and ready for /build-feature. Tasks re-sequenced into N execution waves. Build precursor tasks first, then /re-plan to promote blocked tasks."

Blocked / needs user input:

"Re-plan complete but still blocked on (<%>) due to . Tasks re-sequenced where possible. I need the following decisions from you: ."

Checkpoint-triggered — remaining tasks confirmed:

"Checkpoint re-assessment complete. Horizon assumptions validated against completed work. N remaining tasks reassessed — all ≥80% with complete validation contracts/evidence. Tasks re-sequenced. Resuming /build-feature."

Checkpoint-triggered — remaining tasks revised:

"Checkpoint re-assessment complete. Found: . Revised N tasks, added M new tasks, deferred/removed K tasks. Updated plan re-sequenced into N execution waves. Resuming /build-feature for eligible tasks."

Checkpoint-triggered — approach invalidated:

"Checkpoint re-assessment complete. Completed work revealed: . Remaining approach is no longer viable because: . Recommend: . Build paused pending direction."