Review Plan

export const meta = {
  name: 'review-plan-critics',
  description: 'Three adversarial Opus critics review a plan in parallel',
  phases: [{ title: 'Review', detail: 'three opus/xhigh critics, one per lens' }],
  model: 'opus',
}

const RUBRIC = `Grade each finding by CONSEQUENCE IF THE PLAN SHIPS UNCHANGED, not by your confidence:
- blocker: the plan will fail or do harm as written (goal not met, wrong approach, breaking change, data loss, security hole, irreversible step with no rollback). Implementation must not start until resolved.
- major: can proceed but will likely cause real pain (missing edge case/error path, no test coverage for new behaviour, significant over-engineering or scope creep, portability/concurrency gap, violated project convention).
- minor: a refinement that does not change viability (step ordering, naming, small simplification, docs/DocC reminder).
If unsure whether a finding is real, set "confidence" to low/medium and say so in the claim — do NOT inflate or deflate severity to express doubt.`

const LENSES = [
  {
    key: 'correctness',
    title: 'Correctness & Completeness',
    brief: `Does the plan actually achieve the goal? Hunt for: missing steps, wrong assumptions about how the code works, unhandled edge cases and error paths, ordering/dependency mistakes, missing tests, and "done" criteria that do not actually prove the feature works. This is a Swift package (see CLAUDE.md) — scrutinise Sendable/concurrency gaps, Codable/JSON-fixture coverage of every decoder branch, Linux portability, and public-API + DocC obligations.`,
  },
  {
    key: 'risk',
    title: 'Risk & Failure Modes (red team)',
    brief: `Assume the plan ships and something breaks. Hunt for: breaking changes to the public API, hidden coupling and side effects, backward-compatibility and migration risk, security/secret exposure, data-loss or irreversible steps, flaky or environment-dependent tests, and the absence of a rollback or verification path. Rank by blast radius.`,
  },
  {
    key: 'simplicity',
    title: 'Simplicity, Scope & Fit',
    brief: `Assume the plan does too much, the wrong way. Hunt for: over-engineering and speculative generality (YAGNI), scope creep beyond the stated goal, reinvention of something the codebase already provides, and divergence from established conventions and patterns in this repo. Propose the simpler alternative the plan should have taken.`,
  },
]

const VERDICT_SCHEMA = {
  type: 'object',
  additionalProperties: false,
  properties: {
    lens: { type: 'string' },
    stance: { type: 'string', enum: ['sound', 'sound-with-fixes', 'not-ready'] },
    findings: {
      type: 'array',
      items: {
        type: 'object',
        additionalProperties: false,
        properties: {
          severity: { type: 'string', enum: ['blocker', 'major', 'minor'] },
          confidence: { type: 'string', enum: ['high', 'medium', 'low'] },
          claim: { type: 'string', description: 'one-line statement of the problem' },
          evidence: { type: 'string', description: 'file:line or a concrete repo constraint' },
          suggestedChange: { type: 'string', description: 'concrete change to make to the plan' },
        },
        required: ['severity', 'confidence', 'claim', 'evidence', 'suggestedChange'],
      },
    },
    cleanNote: { type: 'string', description: 'if a category is clean, why each common failure mode does not apply' },
  },
  required: ['lens', 'stance', 'findings'],
}

// `args` can arrive as a JSON string rather than an object (a known harness
// gotcha), in which case `args.plan` / `args.goal` would be `undefined` and the
// critics would review an empty plan. Parse it back to an object first.
const input = typeof args === 'string' ? JSON.parse(args) : args
const plan = input.plan
const goal = input.goal

phase('Review')
const verdicts = await parallel(LENSES.map((lens) => () =>
  agent(
    `You are an ADVERSARIAL plan reviewer. Assume the plan is flawed and find the strongest objections through the lens of "${lens.title}".\n\n` +
    `${lens.brief}\n\n` +
    `THE GOAL THIS PLAN MUST ACHIEVE:\n${goal}\n\n` +
    `THE PLAN UNDER REVIEW:\n${plan}\n\n` +
    `You are READ-ONLY: read the codebase to verify your claims against real files/symbols, but do not edit anything or run mutating commands. Every finding MUST cite concrete evidence (file:line or a real repo constraint) — generic plan-review platitudes are noise and must be omitted. If your lens is genuinely clean, return an empty findings array and explain in "cleanNote" why each common failure mode does not apply.\n\n` +
    `SEVERITY RUBRIC:\n${RUBRIC}`,
    { label: `critic:${lens.key}`, phase: 'Review', model: 'opus', effort: 'xhigh', schema: VERDICT_SCHEMA }
  ).then((v) => v && { ...v, lens: lens.title })
))

return verdicts.filter(Boolean)