3.6 KiB

Raw Blame History

QD2 Run: Remove ambiguous "with argument" from help task chaining

Date: 2026-02-22 Workflow: quick-dev2 (experimental) Branch: exp/quick-flow-redesign

Intent

User provided GitHub issue #1637: remove the with argument clause from 7 workflow completion steps that chain to help.md. The clause caused LLMs to interpret the file-read instruction as a skill/function invocation.

Routing

Route chosen: Plan-code-review (after correction)
Rationale: Initially routed as one-shot. User challenged this ("One shot, really?") — the issue says "figure out the right approach," which requires a design decision, plus there are two sub-bugs to investigate (File #1 wrong argument, File #7 casing mismatch). Re-routed to plan-code-review.

What Happened

Step 1 (Clarify & Route): Loaded issue #1637 via gh issue view. Captured intent correctly. Initially routed as one-shot — user corrected this. Re-routed to plan-code-review.

Step 2 (Plan): Investigated all 7 files, help.md, and the CSV catalog. Generated spec proposing to drop with argument entirely since the preceding "[Workflow] complete." text provides sufficient context for help.md's inference. User questioned whether dropping it was truly consequence-free. Agent initially said "yes, really" with a confident explanation. User pushed back: "I don't really believe that. I'd like to see where in git history these were added." Agent traced the full commit history:

37346079 created whats-after.md with Execute task ... with argument as a deliberate input mechanism
ec8ab0c6 renamed to bmad-help.md, preserved with argument
def8da0a changed Execute → Read fully and follow: but left with argument dangling

This revealed it was a legacy input channel from whats-after.md, not meaningless decoration. Agent corrected its earlier dismissive framing. User approved the spec.

Step 3 (Implement): Applied 7 identical single-line edits. Validated with grep — zero remaining instances.

Step 4 (Review): Ran adversarial code review in context-free subagent. 10 findings returned. Classified: 0 intent_gap, 0 bad_spec, 0 patch, 3 defer (pre-existing structural issues), 5 reject (out of scope or already documented).

Step 5 (Present): Summarized work, committed, user pushed, PR #1739 created against upstream main.

Diff Produced

7 files, each with a single-line change removing with argument \[workflow name]`` from the help.md chaining line. Net: 7 insertions, 7 deletions.

Human Notes

This flowed reasonably well. Took four minutes give or take and tens of thousands of tokens to complete an adversarial review run. Against what is a fairly simple, trivial change.

Observations

Agent initially over-confidently dismissed the user's skepticism about dropping the argument. The git history investigation was the user's idea, not the agent's. The agent should have investigated provenance before asserting "no consequences."
Routing correction worked well — user challenged one-shot, agent accepted and re-routed without friction.
The workflow plumbing (config loading, step transitions, checkpoint halts) was followed correctly through all 5 steps.
This is the first QD2 run to complete the full plan-code-review path (previous runs were one-shots).
The adversarial review found real pre-existing issues (duplicate next-steps sections, missing step numbers) that are worth separate tickets but correctly classified as out of scope for this change.
The spec was approved on first presentation (no edit cycles at Checkpoint 1).
No spec-loop iterations were needed (no bad_spec findings from review).

3.6 KiB Raw Blame History