Imported from jankneumann/agentic-content-analyzer (.gemini/skills/iterate-on-plan/SKILL.md). Install upstream with npx skills add jankneumann/agentic-content-analyzer --skill iterate-on-plan. Copyright stays with the author.

Iterate on Plan

Iteratively refine an OpenSpec proposal after /plan-feature creates it. Each iteration reviews the proposal documents, identifies plan quality issues, implements fixes, and commits — repeating until only low-criticality findings remain or max iterations are reached.

Arguments

$ARGUMENTS - OpenSpec change-id (required), optionally followed by --max <N> (default: 3) and --threshold <level> (default: "medium"; values: "critical", "high", "medium", "low")

Prerequisites

• OpenSpec proposal exists at openspec/changes/<change-id>/ with at least proposal.md, tasks.md, and one spec delta
• Run /plan-feature first if no proposal exists
• Proposal has NOT yet been approved (this skill refines before approval)

OpenSpec Execution Preference

Use OpenSpec-generated runtime assets first, then CLI fallback:

• Claude: .claude/commands/opsx/*.md or .claude/skills/openspec-*/SKILL.md
• Codex: .codex/skills/openspec-*/SKILL.md
• Gemini: .gemini/commands/opsx/*.toml or .gemini/skills/openspec-*/SKILL.md
• Fallback: direct openspec CLI commands

Coordinator Integration (Optional)

Use docs/coordination-detection-template.md as the shared detection preamble.

• Detect transport and capability flags at skill start
• Execute hooks only when the matching CAN_* flag is true
• If coordinator is unavailable, continue with standalone behavior

Steps

0. Detect Coordinator, Read Handoff, Recall Memory

At skill start, run the coordination detection preamble and set:

• COORDINATOR_AVAILABLE
• COORDINATION_TRANSPORT (mcp|http|none)
• CAN_LOCK, CAN_QUEUE_WORK, CAN_HANDOFF, CAN_MEMORY, CAN_GUARDRAILS

If CAN_HANDOFF=true, read recent handoff context:

• MCP path: read_handoff
• HTTP path: "<skill-base-dir>/../coordination-bridge/scripts/coordination_bridge.py" try_handoff_read(...)

If CAN_MEMORY=true, recall relevant plan-iteration memories:

• MCP path: recall
• HTTP path: "<skill-base-dir>/../coordination-bridge/scripts/coordination_bridge.py" try_recall(...)

On recall/handoff failure, continue with standalone iteration and log informationally.

1. Determine Change ID and Configuration

# Parse change-id from argument
CHANGE_ID=${ARGUMENTS%% *}

# Defaults
MAX_ITERATIONS=3
THRESHOLD="medium"  # critical > high > medium > low

Parse optional flags from $ARGUMENTS:

• --max <N> overrides MAX_ITERATIONS
• --threshold <level> overrides THRESHOLD

2. Verify Proposal Exists

# Verify proposal exists
openspec show $CHANGE_ID

# Verify core files exist
ls openspec/changes/$CHANGE_ID/proposal.md
ls openspec/changes/$CHANGE_ID/tasks.md
ls openspec/changes/$CHANGE_ID/specs/

If any core files are missing, abort and recommend running /plan-feature first.

3. Run Baseline Validation

# Strict validation as starting point
openspec validate $CHANGE_ID --strict

Record any validation failures. These become automatic critical-level findings in the first iteration.

3.5. Prepare Findings Artifact

Preferred path:

• Use the runtime-native continue/findings workflow (opsx:continue equivalent) to create or extend plan-findings.

CLI fallback path:

openspec instructions plan-findings --change "$CHANGE_ID"
openspec status --change "$CHANGE_ID"

Ensure openspec/changes/<change-id>/plan-findings.md exists and append each iteration's findings there.

4. Begin Iteration Loop

ITERATION=1

5. Review and Analyze (Parallel Analysis Option)

Read all proposal documents to understand intent and current quality. For complex proposals, use parallel Task(Explore) agents to analyze different quality dimensions:

Sequential approach (default for simple proposals):

• Read openspec/changes/<change-id>/proposal.md
• Read openspec/changes/<change-id>/tasks.md
• Read openspec/changes/<change-id>/design.md (if exists)
• Read all spec deltas in openspec/changes/<change-id>/specs/*/spec.md
• Read existing specs in openspec/specs/ for capabilities referenced in the proposal's Impact section

Parallel approach (for complex proposals with 5+ tasks or 3+ spec deltas):

# Launch parallel analysis agents (single message, multiple Task calls)
Task(subagent_type="Explore", prompt="Analyze openspec/changes/$CHANGE_ID/ for COMPLETENESS issues: missing requirements, unaddressed edge cases, gaps in impact analysis, requirements without scenarios", run_in_background=true)
Task(subagent_type="Explore", prompt="Analyze openspec/changes/$CHANGE_ID/ for CLARITY and CONSISTENCY issues: ambiguous wording, vague scenarios, contradictions between documents", run_in_background=true)
Task(subagent_type="Explore", prompt="Analyze openspec/changes/$CHANGE_ID/tasks.md for FEASIBILITY and PARALLELIZABILITY: task size, dependencies, file overlap that would cause merge conflicts", run_in_background=true)
Task(subagent_type="Explore", prompt="Analyze openspec/changes/$CHANGE_ID/ for TESTABILITY: scenarios that can't be verified, subjective language like 'properly' or 'correctly'", run_in_background=true)

Analysis Synthesis:

1. Wait for all TaskOutput results (if parallel)
2. Merge findings, deduplicate, and assign criticality levels
3. Produce the structured plan analysis below

Produce a structured plan analysis with findings in this format:

Type categories:

• completeness: Missing requirements, unaddressed edge cases, gaps in impact analysis, missing spec deltas for affected capabilities, requirements without scenarios
• clarity: Ambiguous requirement wording, vague WHEN/THEN scenarios, unclear task descriptions, missing context in proposal.md Why section, requirements not using SHALL/MUST
• feasibility: Tasks too large to implement atomically, unrealistic scope, missing technical constraints, undocumented dependencies between tasks
• scope: Scope creep beyond stated goals, mixing unrelated concerns, non-goals that should be explicit, tasks that don't trace back to any requirement
• consistency: Contradictions between proposal.md and design.md, requirement wording mismatches across documents, affected specs listed in Impact but no corresponding delta (or vice versa), duplicate requirements
• testability: Scenarios that can't be verified, requirements without measurable acceptance criteria, WHEN/THEN using subjective language ("properly", "correctly", "as expected")
• parallelizability: How well the task decomposition supports parallel multi-agent execution via /parallel-implement. Evaluates whether tasks have explicit dependency declarations, whether task scopes are isolated to separate modules/files (no shared-file overlap that would cause merge conflicts), whether tasks are granular enough for independent agent assignment, and whether sequencing maximizes concurrent execution width

Criticality levels:

• critical: openspec validate --strict failures, missing spec deltas for capabilities listed in Impact, requirements without any scenarios, proposal.md missing required sections (Why, What Changes, Impact)
• high: Ambiguous requirements that could be implemented multiple valid ways, tasks not traceable to requirements, scenarios using subjective/unmeasurable criteria, contradictions between documents, tasks with implicit shared-state or shared-file dependencies that would cause merge conflicts if parallelized
• medium: Missing edge-case scenarios (only success path covered), tasks too coarse for single-commit implementation, design.md needed but absent, incomplete impact analysis, tasks missing explicit dependency annotations, tasks that could be split into independent units for better parallelism
• low: Wording polish, minor formatting, task ordering optimization for parallel execution, optional design.md sections

Plan smells to check for:

• Giant task (spans multiple systems or modules)
• Orphan requirement (requirement in spec delta with no corresponding task)
• Orphan task (task with no corresponding requirement)
• Vague scenario (WHEN/THEN using words like "appropriate", "correctly", "properly", "as expected")
• Missing failure path (only success scenarios, no error/edge-case scenarios)
• Scope leak (tasks or requirements that extend beyond the stated What Changes)
• Impact mismatch (affected specs listed in proposal.md but no spec delta created, or vice versa)
• Design gap (multiple complex decisions without a design.md)
• Implicit dependency (tasks that modify the same files or shared state without explicit ordering — would cause merge conflicts in parallel execution)
• Monolithic task (single task that could be decomposed into independent subtasks for parallel agents)
• Missing dependency graph (tasks lack explicit dependency annotations needed by /parallel-implement and Beads --blocked-by)
• Coupled scope (tasks that modify overlapping files or modules, preventing isolated worktree execution)

6. Check Termination Conditions

Stop iterating if:

• All findings are below the criticality threshold → present summary and list remaining low-criticality findings for optional manual review
• ITERATION > MAX_ITERATIONS → present summary and list any unaddressed findings

If stopping, skip to the After Loop section below.

Otherwise, continue to step 7.

7. Implement Improvements

Fix all findings at or above the criticality threshold by modifying the proposal documents:

• proposal.md: Add missing Why context, expand What Changes, correct Impact section
• tasks.md: Split giant tasks, add missing tasks for orphan requirements, add explicit ordering and dependency notes, improve verifiability, restructure for parallel execution where possible
• design.md: Create if needed (per criteria below), add missing decision rationale, document alternatives considered, add risks/trade-offs
• Spec deltas: Add missing requirements, add WHEN/THEN scenarios for uncovered paths, fix requirement wording to use SHALL/MUST, add failure/edge-case scenarios, split monolithic spec files

When to create design.md (if one does not exist):

• Change affects multiple capabilities or introduces a new pattern
• New external dependency or significant data model changes
• Security, performance, or migration concerns
• Multiple technical decisions that need documented rationale

For findings that are outside the scope of the current proposal:

• Flag as "out of scope"
• Recommend creating a new OpenSpec proposal
• Do NOT expand the current proposal to address them

8. Run Quality Checks

# Validate proposal structure
openspec validate $CHANGE_ID --strict

Additionally verify:

• Scenario coverage: Every requirement has at least one success and one failure/edge scenario
• Requirement completeness: All requirements use SHALL/MUST, all have clear subjects
• Task granularity: Each task could reasonably be completed in a single commit
• Task traceability: Every task maps to at least one requirement, every requirement maps to at least one task
• Cross-document consistency: Impact section matches actual spec deltas, proposal.md describes all spec delta changes
• Design rationale: If design.md exists, each decision has at least one alternative considered
• Parallelizability: Every task either (a) is independent (no shared files/state with other tasks) or (b) has explicit dependency annotation. Produce a dependency graph summary:
  • Independent: N tasks | Sequential chains: M | Max parallel width: W
  • Identify tasks that modify the same files — these need explicit sequencing or scope restructuring to avoid merge conflicts during /parallel-implement
  • If all tasks are purely sequential with no parallelism possible, flag as medium finding

Fix any failures before proceeding. If fixes introduce new issues, address them within this iteration.

9. Commit Iteration

# Review all changes
git status
git diff

# Stage proposal document changes only
git add openspec/changes/$CHANGE_ID/

# Commit with structured message
git commit -m "$(cat <<'EOF'
refine(plan): iteration <N> - <summary of key changes>

Iterate-on-plan: <change-id>, iteration <N>/<max>

Findings addressed:
- [<criticality>] <type>: <description>
- [<criticality>] <type>: <description>

Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
EOF
)"

# Increment and loop
ITERATION=$((ITERATION + 1))

Loop back to Step 5.

After Loop

Present a summary of all iterations:

If `CAN_MEMORY=true`, remember iteration outcomes (for example findings counts, key fixes, and residual risks):

- MCP path: `remember`
- HTTP path: `"<skill-base-dir>/../coordination-bridge/scripts/coordination_bridge.py"` `try_remember(...)`

If `CAN_HANDOFF=true`, write a completion handoff containing:

- Iterations performed and findings addressed
- Remaining below-threshold findings (if any)
- Validation status and proposal readiness
- Recommended next command
## Plan Iteration Summary

### Iteration 1
- Findings: <count> (<count by criticality>)
- Fixed: <list>

### Iteration 2
- Findings: <count> (<count by criticality>)
- Fixed: <list>

...

### Final State
- Total iterations: <N>
- Total findings addressed: <count>
- Remaining findings (below threshold): <list or "none">
- Termination reason: <threshold met | max iterations reached>
- Validation status: <openspec validate --strict result>

### Parallelizability Assessment
- Independent tasks: <N>
- Sequential chains: <M>
- Max parallel width: <W>
- File overlap conflicts: <list or "none">

### Proposal Readiness
- [ ] openspec validate --strict passes
- [ ] All requirements have success + failure scenarios
- [ ] All tasks are traceable to requirements
- [ ] All tasks are single-commit sized
- [ ] Impact section matches spec deltas
- [ ] design.md present if complexity warrants it
- [ ] Task dependencies are explicit (ready for /parallel-implement)
- [ ] No file-overlap conflicts between independent tasks

Output

• Iteration commits modifying openspec/changes/<change-id>/ documents
• Structured findings summary for each iteration
• Parallelizability assessment with dependency graph summary
• Final proposal readiness checklist
• Validated, refined OpenSpec proposal ready for human approval

Next Step

Present the refined proposal for approval. After approval:

/implement-feature <change-id>