47 lines
2.7 KiB
Markdown
47 lines
2.7 KiB
Markdown
# QD2 Run: Add Plan Review Step to Task-01
|
|
|
|
**Date:** 2026-02-22
|
|
**Workflow:** quick-dev2 (experimental)
|
|
**Branch:** exp/quick-flow-redesign
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Intent
|
|
|
|
User invoked `/bmad-bmm-quick-dev2` then pointed at `_experiment/planning/roadmap/task-01-test-skeleton.md` and requested: "Add an instruction to this step to run a review of the test result against the plan file under experiment directory."
|
|
|
|
## Routing
|
|
|
|
- **Route chosen:** One-shot (implicit — agent acted immediately without explicit routing)
|
|
- **Rationale:** Single file edit, clear intent.
|
|
|
|
## What Happened
|
|
|
|
Another one-shot. The agent captured the intent — add a review step that compares run results against the plan — but **implemented it wrong** in two ways:
|
|
|
|
### Error 1: "Adversarial review of test findings against the plan file"
|
|
|
|
The agent wrote: _"Run an adversarial review of the test findings against the plan file."_
|
|
|
|
This is incoherent. If it's an **adversarial review**, the target should be an artifact produced by the run — the diff, the code changes, the spec. An adversarial review operates on deliverables, not on findings (which are themselves review output).
|
|
|
|
### Error 2: Wrong framing of what gets compared to the plan
|
|
|
|
If the goal is to compare something **against the plan file**, the right input is the **run results** — what the agent actually did (its routing decisions, its intent capture, its behavior at each step) — not the "test findings." The plan describes intended workflow behavior; you'd check whether the agent's behavior matched the plan's design intent.
|
|
|
|
### What Was Actually Requested
|
|
|
|
A step that reviews the **results of the QD2 test run** (what happened, what the agent did) against the **plan file** (`_experiment/planning/redesign-plan.md`) to identify where behavior diverged from design. This is a conformance check, not an adversarial review.
|
|
|
|
## Diff Produced
|
|
|
|
- Added method step 5: adversarial review of findings against plan (wrong framing)
|
|
- Added two output classifications: **Plan Gap** and **Execution Gap** (reasonable categories, but derived from the wrong framing)
|
|
|
|
## Observations
|
|
|
|
- Intent capture succeeded directionally — the agent understood "review against plan file" and correctly located the plan path.
|
|
- The implementation conflated two distinct review types: adversarial review (attacks an artifact for flaws) vs. conformance review (checks behavior against a specification).
|
|
- The agent did not ask any clarifying questions about what "review of the test result against the plan file" meant — it assumed and got it wrong.
|
|
- This is the second consecutive one-shot where the agent captured the gist but mangled the specifics. Pattern: one-shot route works for mechanical changes but fails when the intent requires domain understanding of review methodology.
|