execution-plan-review

execution-plan-review

Present the per-issue ordering and execution assignments as one table, absorb the user's revisions, and keep the GitHub issues — the single source of truth cold agents read — in sync.

Steps

1. Render the table from the issues, not from memory

Fetch every issue in the milestone (gh issue list --milestone ... --json number,title,body) and parse the ## Execution blocks. The table:

Issue	C	Depends on	Runs after	Build model	Effort	Validate effort	fableplan first?

(Validate effort defaults to high when an issue's block omits the line — show the effective value. Display an absent ordering field as missing, not none, so legacy prose inference is not silently discarded.)

Follow with 2–3 sentences on the pattern (which Capability bands dominate, where fableplan bridges Capability 2, what the review trigger is) — enough for the user to sanity-check against the prd-to-issues / validate-issue band table, not a lecture.

2. Take revisions

• The user revises in shorthand ("11 should be medium", "12 depends on 8 and 9", "13 runs after 12", "clear 14's dependencies"). Resolve ambiguous references (row position vs issue number) against the table just shown; when genuinely ambiguous, confirm in half a sentence.
• Push back once when a revision conflicts with the score band (canonical table in validate-issue step 6 / prd-to-issues) — e.g. fableplan on Capability 0–1, or dropping below Fable/Opus on a money/security/irreversible-deletion issue (high Risk → Capability 2–3). One recommendation with the reason, then the user decides. Money/security/irreversible-deletion issues dropping below the top model deserve an explicit warning.
• Batch multiple revisions; don't round-trip to GitHub per message.
• Preserve the edge kind exactly: a Depends on revision remains a hard prerequisite, while a Runs after revision remains ordering-only. Never move an issue between the fields merely to simplify the graph.
• Before writing, verify every referenced issue exists, reject self-references, deduplicate each list, and reject a predecessor present in both fields. Recursively fetch referenced issues outside the milestone until the explicit ordering graph closes so every reachable typed edge participates in validation.
• Reject the whole revision batch before write-back if the combined graph contains a cycle; the graph is the union of every Depends on and Runs after edge, including unchanged and externally referenced issues.

3. Write back

Load github-issue-format before editing. For each changed issue: gh issue edit preserving the entire body, updating only the intended Execution block lines; footer verb flips to Updated. Strip \r from gh-fetched bodies before editing (the API returns CRLF). Re-run the graph validation after any concurrent-edit re-fetch and before retrying a write.

4. Confirm

Re-render the final table once after all revisions land. This table is what the milestone workflow will execute — say so.

Failure modes

Situation	Do this
An issue lacks an Execution block	Add one by deriving model/effort/fableplan from the [C..] band per prd-to-issues, flag it in the table
An issue lacks one or both ordering fields	Backfill from the approved prd-to-issues graph when available; otherwise infer from Approach/Problem, mark the value as inferred in the table, and confirm it before write-back
User revision references a row that doesn't exist	Show the table again, ask which issue they meant
A revision creates a cycle across either edge kind	Reject the batch without editing any issue and show the cycle path
Revision would put effort at low	Set medium and say why (effort floor)
Revision would put an Opus 4.8 build at medium	Set high, or switch the build to Fable 5 if medium was the point — Opus runs at high/xhigh only
Revision would put validate effort at xhigh	Set high and say why — validate effort is only ever medium or high
Edits collide with someone else's concurrent issue edits	Re-fetch, re-apply only your delta