# 147 Workflow A7e7194f

> Plan Review Workflow

- Skill: `tools-only/147-workflow-a7e7194f` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 3 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add tools-only/147-workflow-a7e7194f`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/tools-only/147-workflow-a7e7194f/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Productivity
- Author: tools-only (https://skillmd.com/u/tools-only)
- Updated: 2026-09-22
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/tools-only/147-workflow-a7e7194f

---

# Plan Review Workflow

## Philosophy

The reviewer model only sees selected files. RepoPrompt's Builder discovers context you'd miss (rp backend). Codex uses context hints from flowctl (codex backend).

---

## Phase 0: Backend Detection

**Run this first. Do not skip.**

**CRITICAL: flowctl is BUNDLED — NOT installed globally.** `which flowctl` will fail (expected). Always use:

```bash
set -e
FLOWCTL="${DROID_PLUGIN_ROOT:-${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}}/scripts/flowctl"
REPO_ROOT="$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null || pwd)"

# Priority: --review flag > env > config (flag parsed in SKILL.md)
BACKEND=$($FLOWCTL review-backend)

if [[ "$BACKEND" == "ASK" ]]; then
  echo "Error: No review backend configured."
  echo "Run /flow-next:setup to configure, or pass --review=rp|codex|none"
  exit 1
fi

echo "Review backend: $BACKEND (override: --review=rp|codex|none)"
```

**If backend is "none"**: Skip review, inform user, and exit cleanly (no error).

**Then branch to backend-specific workflow below.**

---

## Codex Backend Workflow

Use when `BACKEND="codex"`.

### Step 0: Save Checkpoint

**Before review** (protects against context compaction):
```bash
EPIC_ID="${1:-}"
$FLOWCTL checkpoint save --epic "$EPIC_ID" --json
```

### Step 1: Execute Review

```bash
RECEIPT_PATH="${REVIEW_RECEIPT_PATH:-/tmp/plan-review-receipt.json}"

# --files: comma-separated CODE files for reviewer context
# Epic/task specs are auto-included; pass files the plan will CREATE or MODIFY
# Read epic spec to identify affected paths, then list key files
CODE_FILES="src/main.py,src/config.py"  # Customize per epic

$FLOWCTL codex plan-review "$EPIC_ID" --files "$CODE_FILES" --receipt "$RECEIPT_PATH"
```

**Output includes `VERDICT=SHIP|NEEDS_WORK|MAJOR_RETHINK`.**

### Step 2: Update Status

```bash
# Based on verdict
$FLOWCTL epic set-plan-review-status "$EPIC_ID" --status ship --json
# OR
$FLOWCTL epic set-plan-review-status "$EPIC_ID" --status needs_work --json
```

### Step 3: Handle Verdict

If `VERDICT=NEEDS_WORK`:
1. Parse issues from output
2. Fix plan via `$FLOWCTL epic set-plan`
3. Re-run step 1 (receipt enables session continuity)
4. Repeat until SHIP

### Step 4: Receipt

Receipt is written automatically by `flowctl codex plan-review` when `--receipt` provided.
Format: `{"mode":"codex","epic":"<id>","verdict":"<verdict>","session_id":"<thread_id>","timestamp":"..."}`

---

## RepoPrompt Backend Workflow

Use when `BACKEND="rp"`.

### Atomic Setup Block

```bash
# Atomic: pick-window + builder
eval "$($FLOWCTL rp setup-review --repo-root "$REPO_ROOT" --summary "Review plan for <EPIC_ID>: <summary>")"

# Verify we have W and T
if [[ -z "${W:-}" || -z "${T:-}" ]]; then
  echo "<promise>RETRY</promise>"
  exit 0
fi

echo "Setup complete: W=$W T=$T"
```

If this block fails, output `<promise>RETRY</promise>` and stop. Do not improvise.

---

## Phase 1: Read the Plan (RP)

**If Flow issue:**
```bash
$FLOWCTL show <id> --json
$FLOWCTL cat <id>
```

Save output for inclusion in review prompt. Compose a 1-2 sentence summary for the setup-review command.

**Save checkpoint** (protects against context compaction during review):
```bash
$FLOWCTL checkpoint save --epic <id> --json
```
This creates `.flow/.checkpoint-<id>.json` with full state. If compaction occurs during review-fix cycles, restore with `$FLOWCTL checkpoint restore --epic <id>`.

---

## Phase 2: Augment Selection (RP)

Builder selects context automatically. Review and add must-haves:

```bash
# See what builder selected
$FLOWCTL rp select-get --window "$W" --tab "$T"

# Always add the epic spec
$FLOWCTL rp select-add --window "$W" --tab "$T" .flow/specs/<epic-id>.md

# Always add ALL task specs for this epic
for task_spec in .flow/tasks/${EPIC_ID}.*.md; do
  [[ -f "$task_spec" ]] && $FLOWCTL rp select-add --window "$W" --tab "$T" "$task_spec"
done

# Add PRD/architecture docs if found
$FLOWCTL rp select-add --window "$W" --tab "$T" docs/prd.md
```

**Why this matters:** Chat only sees selected files. Reviewer needs both epic spec AND task specs to check for consistency.

---

## Phase 3: Execute Review (RP)

### Build combined prompt

Get builder's handoff:
```bash
HANDOFF="$($FLOWCTL rp prompt-get --window "$W" --tab "$T")"
```

Write combined prompt:
```bash
cat > /tmp/review-prompt.md << 'EOF'
[PASTE HANDOFF HERE]

---

## IMPORTANT: File Contents
RepoPrompt includes the actual source code of selected files in a `<file_contents>` XML section at the end of this message. You MUST:
1. Locate the `<file_contents>` section
2. Read and analyze the actual source code within it
3. Base your review on the code, not summaries or descriptions

If you cannot find `<file_contents>`, ask for the files to be re-attached before proceeding.

## Plan Under Review
[PASTE flowctl show OUTPUT]

## Review Focus
[USER'S FOCUS AREAS]

## Review Scope

You are reviewing:
1. **Epic spec** - The high-level plan
2. **Task specs** - Individual task breakdowns

**CRITICAL**: Check for consistency between epic and tasks. Flag if:
- Task specs contradict or miss epic requirements
- Task acceptance criteria don't align with epic acceptance criteria
- Task approaches would need to change based on epic design decisions
- Epic mentions states/enums/types that tasks don't account for

## Review Criteria

Conduct a John Carmack-level review:

1. **Completeness** - All requirements covered? Missing edge cases?
2. **Feasibility** - Technically sound? Dependencies clear?
3. **Parallelizability** - Do independent tasks touch disjoint files? Flag overlapping file scopes that will cause merge conflicts.
4. **Clarity** - Specs unambiguous? Acceptance criteria testable?
5. **Architecture** - Right abstractions? Clean boundaries?
6. **Risks** - Blockers identified? Security gaps? Mitigation?
7. **Scope** - Right-sized? Over/under-engineering?
8. **Task sizing** - M tasks preferred. Flag over-splitting: 7+ tasks? Sequential S tasks that should be combined?
9. **Testability** - How will we verify this works?
10. **Consistency** - Do task specs align with epic spec?

## Output Format

For each issue:
- **Severity**: Critical / Major / Minor / Nitpick
- **Location**: Which task or section (e.g., "fn-1.3 Description" or "Epic Acceptance #2")
- **Problem**: What's wrong
- **Suggestion**: How to fix

**REQUIRED**: You MUST end your response with exactly one verdict tag. This is mandatory:
`<verdict>SHIP</verdict>` or `<verdict>NEEDS_WORK</verdict>` or `<verdict>MAJOR_RETHINK</verdict>`

Do NOT skip this tag. The automation depends on it.
EOF
```

### Send to RepoPrompt

```bash
$FLOWCTL rp chat-send --window "$W" --tab "$T" --message-file /tmp/review-prompt.md --new-chat --chat-name "Plan Review: <EPIC_ID>"
```

**WAIT** for response. Takes 1-5+ minutes.

---

## Phase 4: Receipt + Status (RP)

### Write receipt (if REVIEW_RECEIPT_PATH set)

```bash
if [[ -n "${REVIEW_RECEIPT_PATH:-}" ]]; then
  ts="$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)"
  mkdir -p "$(dirname "$REVIEW_RECEIPT_PATH")"
  cat > "$REVIEW_RECEIPT_PATH" <<EOF
{"type":"plan_review","id":"<EPIC_ID>","mode":"rp","timestamp":"$ts"}
EOF
  echo "REVIEW_RECEIPT_WRITTEN: $REVIEW_RECEIPT_PATH"
fi
```

### Update status

Extract verdict from response, then:
```bash
# If SHIP
$FLOWCTL epic set-plan-review-status <EPIC_ID> --status ship --json

# If NEEDS_WORK or MAJOR_RETHINK
$FLOWCTL epic set-plan-review-status <EPIC_ID> --status needs_work --json
```

If no verdict tag, output `<promise>RETRY</promise>` and stop.

---

## Fix Loop (RP)

**CRITICAL: Do NOT ask user for confirmation. Automatically fix ALL valid issues and re-review — our goal is production-grade world-class software and architecture. Never use AskUserQuestion in this loop.**

**CRITICAL: You MUST fix the plan BEFORE re-reviewing. Never re-review without making changes.**

If verdict is NEEDS_WORK:

1. **Parse issues** - Extract ALL issues by severity (Critical → Major → Minor)
2. **Fix the epic spec** - Address each issue.
3. **Update epic spec in flowctl** (MANDATORY before re-review):
   ```bash
   # Option A: stdin heredoc (preferred, no temp file)
   $FLOWCTL epic set-plan <EPIC_ID> --file - --json <<'EOF'
   <updated epic spec content>
   EOF

   # Option B: temp file (if content has single quotes)
   $FLOWCTL epic set-plan <EPIC_ID> --file /tmp/updated-plan.md --json
   ```
   **If you skip this step and re-review with same content, reviewer will return NEEDS_WORK again.**

   **Recovery**: If context compaction occurred, restore from checkpoint first:
   ```bash
   $FLOWCTL checkpoint restore --epic <EPIC_ID> --json
   ```

4. **Sync affected task specs** - If epic changes affect task specs, update them:
   ```bash
   $FLOWCTL task set-spec <TASK_ID> --file - --json <<'EOF'
   <updated task spec content>
   EOF
   ```
   Task specs need updating when epic changes affect:
   - State/enum values referenced in tasks
   - Acceptance criteria that tasks implement
   - Approach/design decisions tasks depend on
   - Lock/retry/error handling semantics
   - API signatures or type definitions

5. **Request re-review** (only AFTER steps 3-4):

   **IMPORTANT**: Do NOT re-add files already in the selection. RepoPrompt auto-refreshes
   file contents on every message. Only use `select-add` for NEW files created during fixes:
   ```bash
   # Only if fixes created new files not in original selection
   if [[ -n "$NEW_FILES" ]]; then
     $FLOWCTL rp select-add --window "$W" --tab "$T" $NEW_FILES
   fi
   ```

   Then send re-review request (NO --new-chat, stay in same chat).

   **CRITICAL: Do NOT summarize fixes.** RP auto-refreshes file contents - reviewer sees your changes automatically. Just request re-review. Any summary wastes tokens and duplicates what reviewer already sees.

   ```bash
   cat > /tmp/re-review.md << 'EOF'
   Issues addressed. Please re-review.

   **REQUIRED**: End with `<verdict>SHIP</verdict>` or `<verdict>NEEDS_WORK</verdict>` or `<verdict>MAJOR_RETHINK</verdict>`
   EOF

   $FLOWCTL rp chat-send --window "$W" --tab "$T" --message-file /tmp/re-review.md
   ```
6. **Repeat** until Ship

**Anti-pattern**: Re-adding already-selected files before re-review. RP auto-refreshes; re-adding can cause issues.

**Anti-pattern**: Re-reviewing without calling `epic set-plan` first. This wastes reviewer time and loops forever.

**Anti-pattern**: Updating epic spec without syncing affected task specs. Causes reviewer to flag consistency issues again.

---

## Anti-patterns

**All backends:**
- **Reviewing yourself** - You coordinate; the backend reviews
- **No receipt** - If REVIEW_RECEIPT_PATH is set, you MUST write receipt
- **Ignoring verdict** - Must extract and act on verdict tag
- **Mixing backends** - Stick to one backend for the entire review session

**RP backend only:**
- **Calling builder directly** - Must use `setup-review` which wraps it
- **Skipping setup-review** - Window selection MUST happen via this command
- **Hard-coding window IDs** - Never write `--window 1`

**Codex backend only:**
- **Using `--last` flag** - Conflicts with parallel usage; use `--receipt` instead
- **Direct codex calls** - Must use `flowctl codex` wrappers