Planner Assess Review Approach

planner-assess-review-approach

Assessment-only pass that evaluates each work package for review-approach benefit. Reads refined_wps.json and analysis.json, spawns subagents to evaluate WPs, and writes review_approach_assessment.json to the planner directory. Does NOT invoke review-approach — assessment only.

Arguments

• $1 — Absolute path to refined_wps.json (PlanDocument with task, work_packages[])
• $2 — Absolute path to the planner output directory (for analysis.json and output)

Critical Constraints

NEVER:

• Invoke review-approach — this skill performs assessment only
• Write output outside $2/
• Modify input files
• Run subagents in the background (run_in_background: true is prohibited)

ALWAYS:

• Read the review-approach SKILL.md at src/autoskillit/skills_extended/review-approach/SKILL.md before assessing
• Read $1 to get task and work_packages[]
• Read $2/analysis.json for codebase technology context
• Write $2/review_approach_assessment.json
• Emit: review_approach_assessment_path = <absolute path to review_approach_assessment.json>

Workflow

Step 1: Ground heuristics

Read src/autoskillit/skills_extended/review-approach/SKILL.md. Understand what review-approach does and when it provides value. Do not rely solely on the hardcoded signals below — use the SKILL.md as the authoritative source for benefit criteria.

Step 2: Read inputs

Read $1 to extract the task field and work_packages[] list. Read $2/analysis.json for codebase technology context: available libraries, architectural patterns in use, and established conventions. This context informs whether a WP is "following established patterns" (no-benefit) versus "introducing something new" (benefit signal).

Step 3: Evaluate each WP

Spawn 1–2 subagents (model: "sonnet") to evaluate WPs in parallel batches. For each WP, evaluate against these signals:

Benefit signals (recommend: true):

• Involves integrating an unfamiliar external library or API
• Proposes a design decision with multiple viable architectural approaches
• References emerging patterns, standards, or technologies not yet in the codebase
• Contains open questions about how to approach the problem
• Requires understanding trade-offs between competing solutions

No-benefit signals (recommend: false):

• Well-scoped bug fix with a clear root cause
• Internal refactoring following established codebase patterns
• Adds a feature using patterns already present in the codebase
• Documentation update or configuration change
• Already contains a fully specified implementation approach in the WP body

Per WP, produce: review_approach_recommended (bool) and review_approach_reasoning (one sentence).

Step 4: Write output

Write $2/review_approach_assessment.json:

{
  "schema_version": 1,
  "assessments": [
    {
      "wp_id": "P1-A1-WP1",
      "review_approach_recommended": true,
      "review_approach_reasoning": "WP requires evaluating trade-offs between two competing persistence strategies."
    }
  ]
}

Example path: {{AUTOSKILLIT_TEMP}}/planner/run-20260502-120000/review_approach_assessment.json

Step 5: Emit output token

review_approach_assessment_path = $2/review_approach_assessment.json

Context Limit Behavior

This skill writes $2/review_approach_assessment.json before emitting structured output tokens. If context is exhausted mid-execution:

1. Before emitting any structured output tokens, verify that review_approach_assessment.json exists in $2/.
2. If the file exists, emit the structured token and exit normally.
3. If context exhaustion interrupts before the file is written, the caller's on_context_limit routing handles escalation — do not attempt partial output.