Refactor workflow phases#9
Conversation
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughConsolidates a five-phase workflow into a three-phase dev-workflow (plan → implement → review), rebrands package to Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant User
participant CLI as /5:implement
participant Orchestrator as step-orchestrator-agent
participant Executor as step-executor-agent
participant Verifier as verification-agent
participant StateFile as .5/features/{feature}/state.json
User->>CLI: /5:implement {feature} (uses plan.md + codebase-scan.md)
CLI->>StateFile: Load state.json (if present)
alt no state.json or restart
CLI->>Orchestrator: Spawn orchestrator (plan.md + scan)
Orchestrator->>StateFile: Write derived state.json (steps/components)
end
CLI->>CLI: Run baseline build/test, store baseline in state.json
loop For each step
CLI->>CLI: Enforce deps & file prechecks
CLI->>Executor: Spawn executor per component (parallel/sequential)
Executor->>Executor: Read patterns, modify/create files, run component verify
Executor->>CLI: Return ---RESULT--- (status, files, verify)
CLI->>StateFile: Update component status & retries (escalate model if needed)
end
CLI->>Verifier: Spawn verification-agent
Verifier->>Verifier: Run completeness/build/test/quality checks
Verifier->>CLI: Return ---VERIFICATION--- (status, results)
CLI->>StateFile: Update verification fields & set status (completed/failed)
CLI->>User: Report counts, verification status, path to state.json
Estimated code review effort🎯 4 (Complex) | ⏱️ ~60 minutes Possibly related issues
Possibly related PRs
Poem
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3 | ❌ 2❌ Failed checks (1 warning, 1 inconclusive)
✅ Passed checks (3 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing Touches📝 Generate docstrings
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Review rate limit: 0/1 reviews remaining, refill in 60 minutes.Comment |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: ec83f06f1b
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 10
Caution
Some comments are outside the diff and can’t be posted inline due to platform limitations.
⚠️ Outside diff range comments (6)
src/commands/5/eject.md (1)
1-6:⚠️ Potential issue | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick winRestore the required
contextfrontmatter field.This command file no longer satisfies the repo rule that workflow commands must include
contextin frontmatter, which can break command metadata loading. As per coding guidelines, commands are Markdown files with YAML frontmatter that must include: name, description, allowed-tools, context, and user-invocable properties.🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed. In `@src/commands/5/eject.md` around lines 1 - 6, The frontmatter for the command in src/commands/5/eject.md is missing the required context field; update the YAML frontmatter block at the top of the file (the existing keys: name, description, allowed-tools, user-invocable) to include a context entry (e.g., context: repo or another appropriate context value per project conventions) so the command metadata loader can parse it correctly; ensure the frontmatter still contains name, description, allowed-tools, context, and user-invocable in the same block.src/commands/5/address-review-findings.md (1)
1-7:⚠️ Potential issue | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick winRestore the required
contextfrontmatter field.This command file no longer satisfies the repo rule that workflow commands must include
contextin frontmatter, which can break command metadata loading. As per coding guidelines, commands are Markdown files with YAML frontmatter that must include: name, description, allowed-tools, context, and user-invocable properties.🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed. In `@src/commands/5/address-review-findings.md` around lines 1 - 7, The frontmatter for the command "5:address-review-findings" is missing the required context field; edit the Markdown frontmatter at the top of that file to add a context property (e.g., context: repo or another valid context used across commands) so the frontmatter includes name, description, allowed-tools, context, and user-invocable; make sure the added context key follows the same formatting/style as the existing YAML frontmatter entries to restore proper metadata loading.test/test-update-system.sh (1)
236-247:⚠️ Potential issue | 🟡 Minor | ⚡ Quick winCheck the full Codex uninstall surface.
This assertion only verifies
.codex/skills/5-plan/SKILL.mdis removed. If5-implement,5-review, or5-verifyremain on disk, the test still passes.Suggested fix
-if [ -f ".codex/skills/5-plan/SKILL.md" ]; then - echo "✗ Workflow skills not removed" - exit 1 -else - echo "✓ Workflow skills removed" -fi +for skill in 5-plan 5-implement 5-review 5-verify; do + if [ -e ".codex/skills/$skill" ]; then + echo "✗ Workflow skill still present: $skill" + exit 1 + fi +done +echo "✓ Workflow skills removed"🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed. In `@test/test-update-system.sh` around lines 236 - 247, The test only checks for .codex/skills/5-plan/SKILL.md and .codex/instructions.md; update the assertion block in test/test-update-system.sh to verify the full Codex uninstall surface by iterating over the skill folders (5-plan, 5-implement, 5-review, 5-verify) and failing if any .codex/skills/5-*/SKILL.md exists, and keep the existing check for .codex/instructions.md (or check it once alongside the loop) so any remaining skill files or instructions.md cause the test to fail; locate the existing if/else checks for .codex/skills/5-plan/SKILL.md and .codex/instructions.md and replace them with a loop/combined checks.src/skills/configure-skills/SKILL.md (1)
50-55:⚠️ Potential issue | 🟠 MajorAdd
create-skillandscaffold-skillto allowed-tools or remove the documented fast path.The skill body (line 52) references using
create-skillandscaffold-skillfrom the skill-creator plugin when available, but neither tool appears in the frontmatter'sallowed-toolslist (line 4:Read, Write, Bash, Glob, Grep). Either add these tools to the whitelist or remove the reference to this conditional fast path.🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed. In `@src/skills/configure-skills/SKILL.md` around lines 50 - 55, The frontmatter's allowed-tools list in SKILL.md doesn't include the skill-creator tools referenced in the body; either add "create-skill" and "scaffold-skill" to the frontmatter allowed-tools array or remove the conditional fast-path paragraph that mentions using the skill-creator plugin; update the frontmatter entry named allowed-tools (currently containing Read, Write, Bash, Glob, Grep) to include create-skill and scaffold-skill, or delete/replace the lines that reference tools.skillCreator.available and the create-skill/scaffold-skill examples so the doc and whitelist stay consistent.src/commands/5/configure.md (1)
260-265:⚠️ Potential issue | 🟡 Minor | ⚡ Quick winDrop the obsolete "implementation plans" wording.
.5/features/no longer contains a separate implementation-plan artifact in v2. Please update this prompt to describe the actual generated contents so the.gitignoreguidance stays accurate.Suggested fix
- - "The `.5/features/` folder will contain unified plans, implementation plans, and state files. Would you like to add it to `.gitignore`?" + - "The `.5/features/` folder will contain unified plans, state files, verification reports, and review findings. Would you like to add it to `.gitignore`?"🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed. In `@src/commands/5/configure.md` around lines 260 - 265, Update the prompt block titled "2m. Git-ignore `.5/features/` folder" to remove the obsolete phrase "implementation plans" and instead describe the actual generated contents (e.g., unified plans and state files) so the guidance is accurate; find the prompt text containing "The `.5/features/` folder will contain unified plans, implementation plans, and state files. Would you like to add it to `.gitignore`?" and change it to mention only the current artifacts (for example "unified plans and state files") and keep the two options and recommendation wording unchanged.src/commands/5/discuss-feature.md (1)
78-88:⚠️ Potential issue | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick winAlign the extracted state with the unified plan.
This still extracts the old feature-spec sections, so the discussion flow will miss the sections the new
plan.mdactually uses.Suggested fix
- Extract current state: - - Ticket ID - - Summary - - Requirements (functional and non-functional) - - Constraints - - Affected domains - - Entity definitions - - Business rules - - Acceptance criteria - - Alternatives considered - - Decisions (with [DECIDED]/[FLEXIBLE]/[DEFERRED] labels) + Extract current state: + - Ticket ID + - Overview + - What Changes + - Existing Patterns to Follow + - Constraints + - Scope + - Acceptance Criteria + - Decisions ([DECIDED]/[FLEXIBLE]/[DEFERRED]) + - Module Impact + - Component Checklist + - Technical Notes + - Alternatives Considered🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed. In `@src/commands/5/discuss-feature.md` around lines 78 - 88, The "Extract current state" section currently lists legacy feature-spec headings; update it to match the unified plan used in plan.md by replacing those items with the plan's canonical sections (for example: Goals, Scope, Stakeholders, Requirements (functional/non‑functional), Constraints, Success criteria/Acceptance criteria, Deliverables, Risks & Mitigations, Open questions, Alternatives considered, and Decisions with [DECIDED]/[FLEXIBLE]/[DEFERRED] labels) and ensure the header "Extract current state" and the Decisions labeling remain present so downstream flow expects the new plan structure.
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
AGENTS.md (1)
62-67: ⚡ Quick winAdd usage examples to the AGENTS guide.
This draft covers agent capabilities, inputs, and outputs, but the repo guideline also requires usage examples. A short invocation example for each agent would make the new guide complete and easier to apply.
As per coding guidelines: Use AGENTS.md to document all available agents, their capabilities, inputs, outputs, and usage examples.
Suggested addition
## Agents - `step-orchestrator-agent.md` reads `plan.md` and `codebase-scan.md`, then writes enriched `state.json`. - `step-executor-agent.md` implements assigned components and reports a strict `---RESULT---` block. - `verification-agent.md` runs file/build/test/acceptance/quality checks and writes `verification.md`. + +## Usage examples +- `step-orchestrator-agent.md`: read `plan.md` and `codebase-scan.md`, then write `state.json` +- `step-executor-agent.md`: implement the assigned step and end with `---RESULT---` +- `verification-agent.md`: run the selected checks and write `verification.md`🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed. In `@AGENTS.md` around lines 62 - 67, AGENTS.md currently lists capabilities/IO for each agent but lacks usage examples; add a short invocation example for each agent entry (step-orchestrator-agent.md, step-executor-agent.md, verification-agent.md) showing how to run or call the agent (e.g., CLI command or JSON payload and expected response), include one concrete sample input and the corresponding output snippet (e.g., a minimal plan -> enriched state.json for step-orchestrator-agent, a component assignment -> ---RESULT--- block for step-executor-agent, and a test run -> verification.md excerpt for verification-agent) and keep each example to 1–2 lines so the guide remains concise.
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
Inline comments:
In `@bin/sync-agents.js`:
- Around line 34-38: The exclusion set WORKFLOW_MANAGED_AGENTS currently misses
the legacy filename "component-executor.md", causing getClaudeCustomAgents() to
treat that file as user-authored and mirror it into .codex/instructions.md;
update WORKFLOW_MANAGED_AGENTS to include "component-executor.md" (or
alternatively move the managed-agent list into a single source such as the
installer manifest and have getClaudeCustomAgents() read from that centralized
inventory) so legacy workflow-managed agents remain excluded from syncing.
In `@src/agents/step-orchestrator-agent.md`:
- Around line 28-69: Update the sample JSON so the totalSteps field is not
hard-coded to 0 but reflects the actual number of entries in the steps array
(i.e., totalSteps === steps.length); modify the example in
src/agents/step-orchestrator-agent.md to compute/represent totalSteps from the
steps array rather than a fixed value, ensuring the "totalSteps" and "steps"
fields stay consistent in the sample state.json.
In `@src/agents/verification-agent.md`:
- Around line 22-27: The "Files" check only considers create/modify/delete and
misses the supported "rename" action; update the verification logic and
documentation for the Files rule so that when an action is "rename" it verifies
the old path is removed and the new path is created (i.e., check that the source
file no longer exists and the destination file exists), and update the
Acceptance criteria/inspection guidance to require evidence for both the removal
of the old path and creation of the new path; refer to the "Files" rule text
(line starting "Files: every planned create/modify target exists unless action
is `delete`.") and ensure any code that iterates plan actions treats "rename"
explicitly.
In `@src/commands/5/discuss-feature.md`:
- Line 3: Update remaining v1 terminology in src/commands/5/discuss-feature.md
by replacing the old `/plan` and `spec` terms with their namespaced equivalents:
change every occurrence of `/plan` to `5:plan` and every standalone use of
`spec` to `5:spec` (including the description field, the fallback prompt, the
final choice text, and the occurrences noted around lines 66-70 and 141); ensure
you edit the description, fallback prompt, and final choice blocks in
discuss-feature.md so all command names are consistently prefixed with `5:`.
In `@src/commands/5/implement.md`:
- Line 28: Update the recovery text that currently reads "If `plan.md` is
missing, stop and tell the user to run `/5:plan {feature-name}` first." to
instruct users to run the plan command without a folder name since the command
derives the folder from the description/ticket; replace the sentence in
src/commands/5/implement.md (the missing-plan message) with wording like "If
plan.md is missing, stop and tell the user to run `/5:plan` first (the command
derives the feature folder from the description/ticket)." Ensure the updated
message makes clear no explicit {feature-name} is required.
- Around line 65-67: The baseline step currently reads commands from the
non-guaranteed state.json.verification.commands; update the text in implement.md
to either (a) use only guaranteed sources (e.g., the .5/config.json commands)
and explicitly state the fallback order, or (b) require and reference a new
guaranteed field in the orchestrator state contract (add verification.commands
to src/agents/step-orchestrator-agent.md). Specifically, change the wording
around "Run build/test commands from state.json.verification.commands or
.5/config.json" to define a clear, contract-safe precedence (use .5/config.json
as primary or fall back to it if verification.commands is absent) and mention
skipping commands set to "none" and recording results in state.json.baseline as
before.
In `@src/commands/5/plan.md`:
- Around line 63-69: Enforce strict ticket ID validation and safe argument
passing: when reading ticket.pattern from .5/config.json and matching the branch
name, validate the extracted ID against a tight regex for expected formats
(e.g., PROJECT-123) and reject or re-prompt on mismatch; when calling the Jira
fetch path (--jira -> mcp__claude_ai_Atlassian_Rovo__getJiraIssue) pass the
validated ID as a typed parameter rather than interpolating into a shell string,
and when running the GitHub path (--github -> gh issue view {id} --json ...)
invoke the CLI using an argv array or a library API and wrap the ID in explicit
quotes or escaping to prevent shell interpretation; apply the same
validation/quoting to user-entered IDs (step 4) and on fetch failure return a
clear error and continue without executing any unvalidated input.
In `@src/commands/5/review.md`:
- Around line 75-79: The current review output marks question-type findings as
fixable ([FIX]) which makes them appear auto-applicable to
/5:address-review-findings; change the emission logic so that question findings
use the [MANUAL] action marker (leave fixable issues as [FIX] and manual-only
items as [MANUAL]), and ensure the question text is preserved but NOT wrapped as
a [FIX] instruction; update the generator that builds the action marker (the
code/path that decides between "[FIX]" and "[MANUAL]" in the review emitter) to
map question-type findings -> "[MANUAL]" and keep the rest unchanged.
In `@src/commands/5/update.md`:
- Around line 1-7: The frontmatter for the command "5:update" is missing the
required context field; update the YAML frontmatter at the top of the Markdown
(the block containing name: 5:update, description, allowed-tools,
user-invocable, model) to include a context entry (for example context: workflow
or the appropriate context string used by other commands) so the command
metadata loader sees name, description, allowed-tools, context, and
user-invocable present.
In `@test/test-update-system.sh`:
- Around line 87-104: The cleanup test in test/test-update-system.sh only checks
a subset of v1 files; update the for-loop that iterates over old_file to include
the missing legacy filenames quick-implement.md, review-code.md, and
verify-implementation.md (alongside the existing
".claude/commands/5/plan-feature.md",
".claude/commands/5/plan-implementation.md",
".claude/commands/5/implement-feature.md",
".claude/agents/component-executor.md",
".claude/templates/workflow/FEATURE-SPEC.md") so the existence check (the if [
-e "$old_file" ] ... exit 1) fails if any of those legacy files remain.
---
Outside diff comments:
In `@src/commands/5/address-review-findings.md`:
- Around line 1-7: The frontmatter for the command "5:address-review-findings"
is missing the required context field; edit the Markdown frontmatter at the top
of that file to add a context property (e.g., context: repo or another valid
context used across commands) so the frontmatter includes name, description,
allowed-tools, context, and user-invocable; make sure the added context key
follows the same formatting/style as the existing YAML frontmatter entries to
restore proper metadata loading.
In `@src/commands/5/configure.md`:
- Around line 260-265: Update the prompt block titled "2m. Git-ignore
`.5/features/` folder" to remove the obsolete phrase "implementation plans" and
instead describe the actual generated contents (e.g., unified plans and state
files) so the guidance is accurate; find the prompt text containing "The
`.5/features/` folder will contain unified plans, implementation plans, and
state files. Would you like to add it to `.gitignore`?" and change it to mention
only the current artifacts (for example "unified plans and state files") and
keep the two options and recommendation wording unchanged.
In `@src/commands/5/discuss-feature.md`:
- Around line 78-88: The "Extract current state" section currently lists legacy
feature-spec headings; update it to match the unified plan used in plan.md by
replacing those items with the plan's canonical sections (for example: Goals,
Scope, Stakeholders, Requirements (functional/non‑functional), Constraints,
Success criteria/Acceptance criteria, Deliverables, Risks & Mitigations, Open
questions, Alternatives considered, and Decisions with
[DECIDED]/[FLEXIBLE]/[DEFERRED] labels) and ensure the header "Extract current
state" and the Decisions labeling remain present so downstream flow expects the
new plan structure.
In `@src/commands/5/eject.md`:
- Around line 1-6: The frontmatter for the command in src/commands/5/eject.md is
missing the required context field; update the YAML frontmatter block at the top
of the file (the existing keys: name, description, allowed-tools,
user-invocable) to include a context entry (e.g., context: repo or another
appropriate context value per project conventions) so the command metadata
loader can parse it correctly; ensure the frontmatter still contains name,
description, allowed-tools, context, and user-invocable in the same block.
In `@src/skills/configure-skills/SKILL.md`:
- Around line 50-55: The frontmatter's allowed-tools list in SKILL.md doesn't
include the skill-creator tools referenced in the body; either add
"create-skill" and "scaffold-skill" to the frontmatter allowed-tools array or
remove the conditional fast-path paragraph that mentions using the skill-creator
plugin; update the frontmatter entry named allowed-tools (currently containing
Read, Write, Bash, Glob, Grep) to include create-skill and scaffold-skill, or
delete/replace the lines that reference tools.skillCreator.available and the
create-skill/scaffold-skill examples so the doc and whitelist stay consistent.
In `@test/test-update-system.sh`:
- Around line 236-247: The test only checks for .codex/skills/5-plan/SKILL.md
and .codex/instructions.md; update the assertion block in
test/test-update-system.sh to verify the full Codex uninstall surface by
iterating over the skill folders (5-plan, 5-implement, 5-review, 5-verify) and
failing if any .codex/skills/5-*/SKILL.md exists, and keep the existing check
for .codex/instructions.md (or check it once alongside the loop) so any
remaining skill files or instructions.md cause the test to fail; locate the
existing if/else checks for .codex/skills/5-plan/SKILL.md and
.codex/instructions.md and replace them with a loop/combined checks.
---
Nitpick comments:
In `@AGENTS.md`:
- Around line 62-67: AGENTS.md currently lists capabilities/IO for each agent
but lacks usage examples; add a short invocation example for each agent entry
(step-orchestrator-agent.md, step-executor-agent.md, verification-agent.md)
showing how to run or call the agent (e.g., CLI command or JSON payload and
expected response), include one concrete sample input and the corresponding
output snippet (e.g., a minimal plan -> enriched state.json for
step-orchestrator-agent, a component assignment -> ---RESULT--- block for
step-executor-agent, and a test run -> verification.md excerpt for
verification-agent) and keep each example to 1–2 lines so the guide remains
concise.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: defaults
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: fb461d47-39cd-4410-a77e-c2f5aa4f5b92
📒 Files selected for processing (38)
AGENTS.mdCLAUDE.mdREADME.mdRELEASE_NOTES.mdbin/install.jsbin/sync-agents.jsdocs/workflow-guide.mdpackage.jsonsrc/agents/component-executor.mdsrc/agents/step-executor-agent.mdsrc/agents/step-orchestrator-agent.mdsrc/agents/verification-agent.mdsrc/commands/5/address-review-findings.mdsrc/commands/5/configure.mdsrc/commands/5/discuss-feature.mdsrc/commands/5/eject.mdsrc/commands/5/implement-feature.mdsrc/commands/5/implement.mdsrc/commands/5/plan-feature.mdsrc/commands/5/plan-implementation.mdsrc/commands/5/plan.mdsrc/commands/5/quick-implement.mdsrc/commands/5/reconfigure.mdsrc/commands/5/review-code.mdsrc/commands/5/review.mdsrc/commands/5/synchronize-agents.mdsrc/commands/5/update.mdsrc/commands/5/verify-implementation.mdsrc/commands/5/verify.mdsrc/hooks/plan-guard.jssrc/skills/configure-docs-index/SKILL.mdsrc/skills/configure-skills/SKILL.mdsrc/templates/workflow/FEATURE-SPEC.mdsrc/templates/workflow/FIX-PLAN.mdsrc/templates/workflow/PLAN.mdsrc/templates/workflow/STATE.jsonsrc/templates/workflow/VERIFICATION-REPORT.mdtest/test-update-system.sh
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (10)
- src/commands/5/synchronize-agents.md
- src/agents/component-executor.md
- src/templates/workflow/FEATURE-SPEC.md
- src/commands/5/reconfigure.md
- src/commands/5/plan-implementation.md
- src/commands/5/verify-implementation.md
- src/commands/5/plan-feature.md
- src/commands/5/review-code.md
- src/commands/5/implement-feature.md
- src/commands/5/quick-implement.md
|
Decision summary for bundled/outside-diff PR comments:
No code fix for the generated walkthrough/pre-merge summary itself. The title/docstring notes are PR metadata/reporting suggestions, not actionable code changes for this branch. |
Let the user decide which model he wants to use for the commands
- Update package.json to reflect new beta version
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 7506023dca
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| const legacyMarkerFile = path.join(targetPath, 'skills', '5-plan-feature', 'SKILL.md'); | ||
| return fs.existsSync(markerFile) || fs.existsSync(legacyMarkerFile); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Legacy Codex installs are now treated as valid (5-plan-feature marker), but uninstall still deletes only skills derived from the current command set (5-plan, 5-implement, etc.), so old directories like .codex/skills/5-plan-feature and .codex/skills/5-implement-feature are left behind while the command reports success. This creates a misleading partial uninstall specifically for users uninstalling from a v1-style Codex layout.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
Inline comments:
In `@src/commands/5/implement.md`:
- Around line 1-7: The frontmatter for the command named "5:implement" is
missing the required context field; add a context entry to the YAML frontmatter
(alongside name, description, allowed-tools, and user-invocable) with an
appropriate value (e.g., a short string like "implementation" or a specific
execution context) so the command file includes the required metadata; update
the frontmatter block at the top of the "5:implement" command markdown to
include context.
In `@src/commands/5/plan.md`:
- Around line 1-7: The frontmatter for the command named "5:plan" is missing the
required context key; update the YAML frontmatter at the top of the file (the
block containing name, description, allowed-tools, user-invocable) to include a
context entry (for example context: "feature-planning" or another appropriate
short identifier) so the metadata contract is satisfied; ensure the context key
is a simple string and placed alongside the existing keys in the frontmatter.
In `@test/test-update-system.sh`:
- Around line 190-201: The test currently only checks a subset of Codex skills
and agents; update test/test-update-system.sh to assert the full v2 skill set by
adding checks for ".codex/skills/5-review/SKILL.md" and
".codex/skills/5-implement/SKILL.md" (ensure both are required for fresh
installs and upgrades) alongside the existing ".codex/skills/5-plan/SKILL.md"
check, and mirror these additional assertions in the second block that currently
spans lines 286-291 so both install and legacy-upgrade paths validate the
complete set.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: defaults
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: 1363aa29-b9be-45a8-aa15-de7ade3e5a03
📒 Files selected for processing (25)
AGENTS.mdREADME.mdRELEASE_NOTES.mdbin/install.jsbin/sync-agents.jsdocs/findings.mddocs/workflow-guide.mdpackage.jsonsrc/agents/step-orchestrator-agent.mdsrc/agents/verification-agent.mdsrc/commands/5/address-review-findings.mdsrc/commands/5/configure.mdsrc/commands/5/discuss-feature.mdsrc/commands/5/eject.mdsrc/commands/5/implement.mdsrc/commands/5/plan.mdsrc/commands/5/review.mdsrc/commands/5/synchronize-agents.mdsrc/commands/5/update.mdsrc/hooks/check-updates.jssrc/hooks/plan-guard.jssrc/skills/configure-skills/SKILL.mdsrc/templates/workflow/STATE.jsonsrc/templates/workflow/VERIFICATION-REPORT.mdtest/test-update-system.sh
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- src/templates/workflow/VERIFICATION-REPORT.md
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (6)
- docs/findings.md
- src/commands/5/synchronize-agents.md
- src/commands/5/address-review-findings.md
- AGENTS.md
- src/commands/5/configure.md
- src/skills/configure-skills/SKILL.md
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (6)
- src/agents/verification-agent.md
- src/templates/workflow/STATE.json
- package.json
- src/hooks/plan-guard.js
- src/commands/5/review.md
- src/commands/5/eject.md
| --- | ||
| name: 5:implement | ||
| description: Executes a unified plan by spawning step-orchestrator-agent, per-step executor agents, and verification-agent. | ||
| allowed-tools: Agent, Read, Write, Glob, Grep, Bash, TaskCreate, TaskUpdate, TaskList | ||
| user-invocable: true | ||
| argument-hint: [feature-name] | ||
| --- |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add the missing context field in command frontmatter.
context is required metadata for command files and is currently absent.
✅ Suggested patch
---
name: 5:implement
description: Executes a unified plan by spawning step-orchestrator-agent, per-step executor agents, and verification-agent.
allowed-tools: Agent, Read, Write, Glob, Grep, Bash, TaskCreate, TaskUpdate, TaskList
+context: inherit
user-invocable: true
argument-hint: [feature-name]
---Based on learnings: "Commands are Markdown files with YAML frontmatter that must include: name, description, allowed-tools, context, and user-invocable properties."
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
In `@src/commands/5/implement.md` around lines 1 - 7, The frontmatter for the
command named "5:implement" is missing the required context field; add a context
entry to the YAML frontmatter (alongside name, description, allowed-tools, and
user-invocable) with an appropriate value (e.g., a short string like
"implementation" or a specific execution context) so the command file includes
the required metadata; update the frontmatter block at the top of the
"5:implement" command markdown to include context.
| --- | ||
| name: 5:plan | ||
| description: Plans a feature end-to-end, combines requirements and technical discovery, and writes a unified plan.md. Single review gate before /5:implement. | ||
| allowed-tools: Bash, Read, Write, Agent, AskUserQuestion, mcp__claude_ai_Atlassian_Rovo__getJiraIssue | ||
| user-invocable: true | ||
| argument-hint: [ticket-id-or-description] | ||
| --- |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add the missing context frontmatter key.
This command frontmatter omits context, which breaks the expected command metadata contract.
✅ Suggested patch
---
name: 5:plan
description: Plans a feature end-to-end, combines requirements and technical discovery, and writes a unified plan.md. Single review gate before /5:implement.
allowed-tools: Bash, Read, Write, Agent, AskUserQuestion, mcp__claude_ai_Atlassian_Rovo__getJiraIssue
+context: inherit
user-invocable: true
argument-hint: [ticket-id-or-description]
---Based on learnings: "Commands are Markdown files with YAML frontmatter that must include: name, description, allowed-tools, context, and user-invocable properties."
📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| --- | |
| name: 5:plan | |
| description: Plans a feature end-to-end, combines requirements and technical discovery, and writes a unified plan.md. Single review gate before /5:implement. | |
| allowed-tools: Bash, Read, Write, Agent, AskUserQuestion, mcp__claude_ai_Atlassian_Rovo__getJiraIssue | |
| user-invocable: true | |
| argument-hint: [ticket-id-or-description] | |
| --- | |
| --- | |
| name: 5:plan | |
| description: Plans a feature end-to-end, combines requirements and technical discovery, and writes a unified plan.md. Single review gate before /5:implement. | |
| allowed-tools: Bash, Read, Write, Agent, AskUserQuestion, mcp__claude_ai_Atlassian_Rovo__getJiraIssue | |
| context: inherit | |
| user-invocable: true | |
| argument-hint: [ticket-id-or-description] | |
| --- |
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
In `@src/commands/5/plan.md` around lines 1 - 7, The frontmatter for the command
named "5:plan" is missing the required context key; update the YAML frontmatter
at the top of the file (the block containing name, description, allowed-tools,
user-invocable) to include a context entry (for example context:
"feature-planning" or another appropriate short identifier) so the metadata
contract is satisfied; ensure the context key is a simple string and placed
alongside the existing keys in the frontmatter.
| if [ -f ".codex/skills/5-plan/SKILL.md" ]; then | ||
| echo "✓ Commands converted to Codex skills" | ||
| else | ||
| echo "✗ Codex skills not created" | ||
| exit 1 | ||
| fi | ||
| if [ -f ".codex/agents/step-orchestrator-agent.md" ] && [ -f ".codex/agents/step-executor-agent.md" ] && [ -f ".codex/agents/verification-agent.md" ]; then | ||
| echo "✓ Agents installed for Codex skills" | ||
| else | ||
| echo "✗ Codex agents not installed" | ||
| exit 1 | ||
| fi |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Assert the full v2 Codex skill set after install and legacy upgrade.
Line 190 and Line 286 only validate a subset of required skills, so missing 5-review (and 5-implement in fresh install) can slip through undetected.
✅ Suggested patch
-if [ -f ".codex/skills/5-plan/SKILL.md" ]; then
- echo "✓ Commands converted to Codex skills"
+if [ -f ".codex/skills/5-plan/SKILL.md" ] && [ -f ".codex/skills/5-implement/SKILL.md" ] && [ -f ".codex/skills/5-review/SKILL.md" ]; then
+ echo "✓ Commands converted to Codex skills"
else
echo "✗ Codex skills not created"
exit 1
fi
@@
-if [ -f ".codex/skills/5-plan/SKILL.md" ] && [ -f ".codex/skills/5-implement/SKILL.md" ]; then
+if [ -f ".codex/skills/5-plan/SKILL.md" ] && [ -f ".codex/skills/5-implement/SKILL.md" ] && [ -f ".codex/skills/5-review/SKILL.md" ]; then
echo "✓ New Codex v2 skills installed for legacy upgrade"
else
echo "✗ New Codex v2 skills missing after legacy upgrade"
exit 1
fiAlso applies to: 286-291
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
In `@test/test-update-system.sh` around lines 190 - 201, The test currently only
checks a subset of Codex skills and agents; update test/test-update-system.sh to
assert the full v2 skill set by adding checks for
".codex/skills/5-review/SKILL.md" and ".codex/skills/5-implement/SKILL.md"
(ensure both are required for fresh installs and upgrades) alongside the
existing ".codex/skills/5-plan/SKILL.md" check, and mirror these additional
assertions in the second block that currently spans lines 286-291 so both
install and legacy-upgrade paths validate the complete set.
Workflow review findingsI reviewed the current workflow, installer/update path, Claude-to-Codex conversion, and token-heavy command/skill files. Bugs / inconsistencies
Token / speed improvement opportunities
Suggested reductions:
Verification
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: d5658a96cd
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| skills: [ | ||
| 'configure-docs-index', | ||
| 'configure-project', | ||
| 'configure-skills', | ||
| 'generate-readme' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Because codexUninstall() deletes utility skills by iterating getWorkflowManagedFiles().skills, removing configure-project from this list means legacy Codex installs now keep .codex/skills/configure-project even after a reported successful uninstall. This regression appears when uninstalling a pre-v2 layout (now detected as installed via legacy markers), and leaves workflow-owned artifacts behind.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| 'workflow/PLAN.md', | ||
| 'workflow/STATE.json', | ||
| 'workflow/VERIFICATION-REPORT.md', | ||
| 'workflow/REVIEW-FINDINGS.md', | ||
| 'workflow/REVIEW-SUMMARY.md', | ||
| 'workflow/FIX-PLAN.md' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Codex uninstall removes templates using getWorkflowManagedFiles().templates; after dropping legacy entries from this list, uninstalling a legacy Codex install no longer deletes workflow templates like workflow/FEATURE-SPEC.md and workflow/VERIFICATION-REPORT.md. The command still prints success, so users are left with stale workflow-managed files that should have been removed.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
- Updated `verification-agent` to account for both `sourceFile` and `file` in rename checks. - Modified `workflow/STATE.json` to include `sourceFile` field. - Clarified `rename` behavior in `plan.md`. - Enhanced `step-executor-agent` to handle `sourceFile` for renames during execution. - Adjusted `step-orchestrator-agent` to set `sourceFile` and `file` for rename components.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
♻️ Duplicate comments (1)
src/commands/5/plan.md (1)
1-7:⚠️ Potential issue | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick winFrontmatter is missing required
contextkey.
5:planstill violates the command metadata contract withoutcontext, which can break command loading/behavior in tooling expecting the full schema.Suggested patch
--- name: 5:plan description: Plans a feature end-to-end, combines requirements and technical discovery, and writes a unified plan.md. Single review gate before /5:implement. allowed-tools: Bash, Read, Write, Agent, AskUserQuestion, mcp__claude_ai_Atlassian_Rovo__getJiraIssue +context: inherit user-invocable: true argument-hint: [ticket-id-or-description] ---Based on learnings: "Commands are Markdown files with YAML frontmatter that must include: name, description, allowed-tools, context, and user-invocable properties."
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed. In `@src/commands/5/plan.md` around lines 1 - 7, The frontmatter for the command "5:plan" is missing the required context key; update the YAML frontmatter at the top of src/commands/5/plan.md to include a context entry (e.g., context: <appropriate context string or object>) so the metadata contains name, description, allowed-tools, context, and user-invocable; ensure the new context key follows the same format/style as other commands in the repo and validate the frontmatter parsing after the change.
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
Inline comments:
In `@src/agents/step-executor-agent.md`:
- Line 16: The rename step currently requires reading both sourceFile and file
which fails when destination doesn't exist; update the rename handling (the
logic that processes the "rename" step) to make the destination read
conditional: always read sourceFile first to obtain content, then check if
destination file (file) exists before attempting to read it—if it exists, read
and compute the smallest coherent change between sourceFile and file; if it does
not exist, proceed to move/rename using sourceFile content without failing.
Adjust any functions or methods that reference sourceFile and file in the rename
flow to tolerate a missing destination and ensure state.json semantics
(sourceFile = original, file = destination) remain unchanged.
In `@src/agents/step-orchestrator-agent.md`:
- Around line 65-68: The example orchestrator state schema is missing the
verification status fields; update the schema example (the JSON snippet
containing "verificationResults", "commitResults", "startedAt", "lastUpdated")
to include "verificationStatus" (e.g., values like "pending"/"passed"/"failed")
and "verifiedAt" (ISO timestamp) so the recorded state.json matches the
canonical workflow shape produced by verification-agent and supports downstream
verification updates.
---
Duplicate comments:
In `@src/commands/5/plan.md`:
- Around line 1-7: The frontmatter for the command "5:plan" is missing the
required context key; update the YAML frontmatter at the top of
src/commands/5/plan.md to include a context entry (e.g., context: <appropriate
context string or object>) so the metadata contains name, description,
allowed-tools, context, and user-invocable; ensure the new context key follows
the same format/style as other commands in the repo and validate the frontmatter
parsing after the change.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: defaults
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: 9ae671a6-5807-4b3c-ab27-6a909f090064
📒 Files selected for processing (10)
bin/install.jspackage.jsonsrc/agents/step-executor-agent.mdsrc/agents/step-orchestrator-agent.mdsrc/agents/verification-agent.mdsrc/commands/5/plan.mdsrc/hooks/check-updates.jssrc/hooks/statusline.jssrc/templates/workflow/STATE.jsontest/test-version-compare.sh
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (2)
- src/agents/verification-agent.md
- src/templates/workflow/STATE.json
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
- package.json
- src/hooks/check-updates.js
|
|
||
| 1. Read every file listed in `patternFiles` or `Read First` before editing. | ||
| 2. For `modify`, read the target file first and make the smallest coherent change. | ||
| 3. For `rename`, read both `sourceFile` and `file` first, then move content with the smallest coherent change. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Rename step currently requires reading a file that often does not exist
For rename, requiring a pre-read of both sourceFile and destination file is brittle: destination paths typically do not exist yet, so this can cause valid renames to fail. Make destination read conditional (only if it already exists), and otherwise proceed with source read + rename.
Suggested wording update
-3. For `rename`, read both `sourceFile` and `file` first, then move content with the smallest coherent change.
+3. For `rename`, read `sourceFile` first. If destination `file` already exists, read it to avoid clobbering; otherwise create/move to `file` with the smallest coherent change.Based on learnings: step-orchestrator-agent.md writes state.json with rename components using sourceFile as original path and file as destination path.
📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| 3. For `rename`, read both `sourceFile` and `file` first, then move content with the smallest coherent change. | |
| 3. For `rename`, read `sourceFile` first. If destination `file` already exists, read it to avoid clobbering; otherwise create/move to `file` with the smallest coherent change. |
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
In `@src/agents/step-executor-agent.md` at line 16, The rename step currently
requires reading both sourceFile and file which fails when destination doesn't
exist; update the rename handling (the logic that processes the "rename" step)
to make the destination read conditional: always read sourceFile first to obtain
content, then check if destination file (file) exists before attempting to read
it—if it exists, read and compute the smallest coherent change between
sourceFile and file; if it does not exist, proceed to move/rename using
sourceFile content without failing. Adjust any functions or methods that
reference sourceFile and file in the rename flow to tolerate a missing
destination and ensure state.json semantics (sourceFile = original, file =
destination) remain unchanged.
| "verificationResults": {}, | ||
| "commitResults": [], | ||
| "startedAt": "{ISO-timestamp}", | ||
| "lastUpdated": "{ISO-timestamp}" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add missing verification status fields to the orchestrator state schema.
The schema example omits verificationStatus and verifiedAt, which makes the orchestrator output contract drift from the canonical workflow state shape and can break downstream verification updates.
Suggested patch
"baseline": {},
+ "verificationStatus": "pending",
"verificationResults": {},
+ "verifiedAt": null,
"commitResults": [],
"startedAt": "{ISO-timestamp}",
"lastUpdated": "{ISO-timestamp}"Based on learnings: "verification-agent.md verifies completeness, correctness, build/tests, acceptance criteria, and test coverage, then records concise status in state.json."
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
In `@src/agents/step-orchestrator-agent.md` around lines 65 - 68, The example
orchestrator state schema is missing the verification status fields; update the
schema example (the JSON snippet containing "verificationResults",
"commitResults", "startedAt", "lastUpdated") to include "verificationStatus"
(e.g., values like "pending"/"passed"/"failed") and "verifiedAt" (ISO timestamp)
so the recorded state.json matches the canonical workflow shape produced by
verification-agent and supports downstream verification updates.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 23ba14094f
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| const WORKFLOW_MANAGED_SKILLS = new Set([ | ||
| 'configure-docs-index', | ||
| 'configure-project', | ||
| 'configure-skills', | ||
| 'generate-readme' | ||
| ]); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
configure-project excluded from skill sync
Removing configure-project from WORKFLOW_MANAGED_SKILLS makes sync-agents treat that legacy workflow skill as user-owned content, so /5:synchronize-agents can copy stale configure-project directories between .claude and .codex. This affects repos that still carry legacy artifacts during migration and can reintroduce deprecated workflow-owned files after they were supposed to be cleaned up; the legacy skill should remain excluded from user-content sync.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 77d94637fc
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| '1. "Install now" — not supported automatically in Codex; install Context7 using your Codex MCP setup outside this workflow, then rerun configuration' | ||
| ) | ||
| .replace( | ||
| /- If user selects "Install now": execute the install command/g, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The broad replacement /- If user selects "Install now": execute the install command/g also matches the skill-creator line in configure.md, so the later skill-creator-specific rewrite never matches. In the generated Codex 5-configure skill this leaves a mixed instruction (leave tools.context7... then set tools.skillCreator.available = true) even though Codex cannot run the installer, which can drive incorrect config state during /5:configure.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
- Update package.json version from 2.0.0-beta-2 to 2.0.0-beta-3
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: ea95dd1627
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| 'step-executor-agent.md', | ||
| 'step-orchestrator-agent.md', | ||
| 'verification-agent.md' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
codexUninstall() deletes agents by iterating getWorkflowManagedFiles().agents, but this list now omits the legacy component-executor.md file. Because legacy installs are now detected as valid, uninstalling a legacy Codex layout reports success while leaving .codex/agents/component-executor.md behind, creating a partial uninstall state for migrated users.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
- Introduced the `/5:split` command to split a feature plan into smaller independent child plans. - Documented the new command in `README.md` and `AGENTS.md`. - Updated installation scripts and test cases to include the split command. - Added split manifest generation for tracking parent-child feature relationships. - Enabled Codex skill support for the split workflow.
- Update package.json version from 2.0.0-beta-3 to 2.0.0-beta-4
- Update package.json version from 2.0.0-beta-4 to 2.0.0-beta-5
- Update package.json version from 2.0.0-beta-5 to 2.0.0-beta-6
|
Fixed: added |
1 participant
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
/5:configure,/5:plan,/5:implement,/5:review,/5:address-review-findingsDocumentation
Chores