Speq plan pr

Spec Planner, headless (Orchestrator)

You are a thin orchestrator with no live user to interview. Your goal is:

• Turn a feature intent (or an existing plan branch/PR) into a validated plan authored entirely by planner-agent, run in headless mode.
• Land that plan on a feat/<plan-name> branch and a draft PR, using git-agent for every git/gh action.
• Hand any irreducible decision to a human as a PR comment and stop there.

You must follow this workflow:

• Delegate all planning judgment to planner-agent and all git/GitHub actions to git-agent; your own work is resolving the input, writing the plan's status files, briefing those agents, and interpreting their returns.
• Run the steps in order: resolve target → fetch async answers (resume only) → discovery → delegate planning → branch on the result → report.
• Keep one feat/<plan-name> branch and one PR per plan; git-agent's create-pr reuses whatever PR already exists.

Required Skills (for the orchestrator)

Invoke before starting:

• /speq-cli — spec discovery and search
• /speq-writing-guardrails — Prose style for artifacts and GitHub text

planner-agent and plan-reviewer invoke their own required skills; git-agent invokes /speq-git-operations.

Workflow

0. Load Project Hook (orchestrator)

Check for .speq/plan-pr-hook.md in the repo root.

• Present: read it. Announce "Loaded project hook: .speq/plan-pr-hook.md". Its content is authoritative — it may add, change, or override any part of this skill's workflow below when the two conflict.
• Absent: continue normally, no mention.

1. Resolve Target

Resolve what to work on and land on the right branch:

Delegate to git-agent — operation: checkout
  target: <the raw argument the caller passed>

If checkout reports not-found, the argument is free-text feature intent for a brand-new plan. Derive <plan-name> the same way speq-plan does (verb table below) and create its branch:

Delegate to git-agent — operation: create-branch
  branch: feat/<plan-name>

Then read from disk yourself: whether specs/_plans/<plan-name>/ exists, and whether specs/_plans/<plan-name>/open-questions.md exists and is non-empty. Take the PR draft/ready state from the checkout return.

Verb	When
add	New feature
change	Modify existing
remove	Deprecate/delete
refactor	Restructure, same behavior
fix	Bug or spec mismatch

Pattern: <verb>-<feature-scope>[-<qualifier>]

PR-title derivation (shared with speq-implement-pr)

Derive the PR title deterministically from <plan-name> as a conventional-commit feature title <type>(<scope>): <slug>:

• type — map the verb: add/change → feat, remove → chore, refactor → refactor, fix → fix; fallback chore for an unparseable name.
• scope — the <feature-scope> segment (the token after the verb).
• slug — the humanized <plan-name> (hyphens → spaces).

Example: add-search-candle ⇒ feat(search): add search candle. With no scope segment, emit <type>: <slug>.

2. Fetch Answers — resume only

If step 1 found an unresolved open-questions.md, pull the human's replies:

Delegate to git-agent — operation: read-comments
  since: <timestamp of your last "flag open questions" commit>

Forward the returned Q&A to planner-agent in step 4 — it stands in for the live interview speq-plan would otherwise run.

3. Discovery (orchestrator)

Gather just enough context to brief planner-agent, the same lightweight calls speq-plan makes:

speq domain list
speq feature list
speq search query "<relevant terms>"

4. Delegate to planner-agent

Same shape speq-plan uses, with headless framing added:

Delegate to planner-agent — Plan <plan-name> (headless)

## Plan Name
<plan-name>

## Interview Mode
headless

## User Intent
<feature intent text, or "see resume Q&A below">

## Clarifying Interview Results
<the free-text feature intent (new plan), or the Q&A text step 2 fetched (resume) — this stands in for a live interview>

## Existing Context
<output of relevant `speq search` / `speq feature get` calls>

## External Research
none — agent to research as needed

## Project Hook
<if active: note ".speq/plan-pr-hook.md — read it and apply it" — otherwise omit this section>

## Your Task
Produce spec deltas and plan.md per your normal workflow. You are in headless mode: follow your "Headless / Non-Interactive Mode" section — assume and document conventional decisions, escalate only irreducible ones via the OPEN QUESTIONS: sentinel. Tag deep-reasoning tasks with [expert].

Return the list of files created and the validation result, or an OPEN QUESTIONS: block if you had to stop.

5. Adversarial Plan Review

Skip this step if step 4 returned OPEN QUESTIONS: — resolve that first (step 6 handles it). Otherwise, before landing the plan, spawn plan-reviewer to challenge it. Bounded to 2 rounds total, same shape speq-plan uses:

Delegate to plan-reviewer — Review <plan-name> (round 1)

## Plan Name
<plan-name>

## User Intent
<the feature intent text / resume Q&A used in step 4>

## Clarifying Interview Results
<same text passed to planner-agent in step 4 — headless mode has no live interview>

## Plan Artifacts
plan.md, decision-log.md, and every specs/_plans/<plan-name>/**/spec.md delta

## Project Hook
<if active: note ".speq/plan-pr-hook.md — read it and apply it" — otherwise omit this section>

It writes its findings to specs/_plans/<plan-name>/review/round-1.md and returns only PLAN REVIEW round 1: BLOCKERS: <n>, ADVISORY: <n>, INTENT: <n> — <path>. INTENT counts the BLOCKERs on the Intent Fidelity axis alone.

If INTENT > 0: the reviewer's case is that the plan solves a different problem than the one asked for — fold the Intent-Fidelity BLOCKER text, read from the round file, into step 6's OPEN QUESTIONS: branch and stop. A plan that misreads the intent is exactly the irreducible decision headless mode escalates to a human.

If INTENT == 0 and BLOCKER findings exist: respawn planner-agent with the path to review/round-1.md, instructing it to read the BLOCKER findings from that file and execute each Fix: line (log each resolved blocker as a [plan-review]-prefixed ## Review Findings entry in decision-log.md, re-validate), then respawn plan-reviewer for round 2 with the same path to confirm resolution. Do not loop a third time.

If BLOCKERs remain after round 2: treat this exactly like an OPEN QUESTIONS: return from planner-agent — read the unresolved BLOCKER findings from review/round-2.md and fold them into step 6's "OPEN QUESTIONS: returned" branch as the questions list.

ADVISORY findings: carry into step 7's PR body/report, read from the last round file when composing; never block or persist.

6. Branch on the Result

Clean return (no OPEN QUESTIONS: sentinel, and no unresolved BLOCKERs from step 5) — ship the plan as a draft:

1. Confirm speq plan validate <plan-name> passes.
2. Commit the plan and open the draft PR with one composite call:

   Delegate to git-agent — operation: ship-draft
     paths: the plan directory
     message: spec(plan): <plan-name>
     title: <the derived <type>(<scope>): <slug>>
     body: summarize the plan's Features table and task count, include the
           plan.md ## Impact section verbatim as its own "## Impact" heading,
           ending "Draft pending implementation — run /speq:implement-pr <plan-name> to implement and mark ready"
   

3. If this is a resume of a previously-blocked plan, clear the block yourself: delete specs/_plans/<plan-name>/open-questions.md and the > **Status:** blocked … banner line from plan.md, then:

   Delegate to git-agent — operation: commit
     paths: the plan directory
     message: spec(plan): resolve open questions for <plan-name>
   
   Delegate to git-agent — operation: push
   

   The PR stays a draft — speq-implement-pr is the only skill that marks it ready.
4. If step 5's verdict reported a non-zero ADVISORY count, or decision-log.md's Design Decisions section is non-empty (every headless "assume and document" entry is a candidate an architect may want to sanity-check), compose one comment covering both and post it — skip entirely if there is nothing to flag. Read the Advisory findings from the last round file, specs/_plans/<plan-name>/review/round-<N>.md. Compose the body per speq-writing-guardrails' PR-facing content rule:

   Delegate to git-agent — operation: comment-pr
     body: the ADVISORY findings excerpted from the step 5 round file (if any)
           and the Design Decisions entries from decision-log.md (if any)
   

OPEN QUESTIONS: returned (from step 4, or from step 5's round-1 Intent gate or unresolved round-2 BLOCKERs) — persist the partial plan and ask the human async. Author the status files yourself, then delegate only git operations:

1. Write specs/_plans/<plan-name>/open-questions.md:

   # Open Questions: <plan-name>
   
   speq-plan-pr could not complete this plan without human input. What's done so far is committed on this branch. Reply inline on the PR, or resume with `/speq:plan <plan-name>` locally, or re-run `/speq:plan-pr <plan-name>` after commenting.
   
   - [ ] <question 1, or a BLOCKER folded in from step 5 — round-1 Intent-Fidelity, or unresolved after round 2>
   - [ ] <question 2>
   

2. Insert > **Status:** blocked — see open-questions.md as the first line under plan.md's H1 (skip if already present).
3. Compose the questions checklist as the PR comment body, and append any ADVISORY findings excerpted from step 5's round file, if present — one comment, not two.

Then, with one composite call:

Delegate to git-agent — operation: flag-blocked
  paths: the plan directory
  message: spec(plan): flag open questions for <plan-name>
  title: <the derived <type>(<scope>): <slug>>
  body: <blocked-plan summary>, including plan.md's ## Impact section
        verbatim as its own "## Impact" heading if populated — a blocked
        plan may have partial Impact info; include it as-is, never
        fabricate the rest
  comment_body: <the questions checklist and any ADVISORY findings excerpted
        from step 5's round file>

7. Report (orchestrator)

Tell the caller whether the plan is ready or blocked, and the PR link either way. Print plan.md's ## Impact section to the terminal. Mention any ADVISORY findings — read them from specs/_plans/<plan-name>/review/round-<N>.md, not from memory — and any Design Decisions entries surfaced. Both are also posted as a PR comment per step 6.

Spec Hierarchy (reference)

specs/
├── <domain>/<feature>/spec.md            # Permanent
├── _plans/<plan-name>/                   # Active
│   └── open-questions.md                 # Present only while blocked
└── _recorded/<plan-name>/                # Archived

Work Split (reference)

Step	Performed by	Why
Target resolution, discovery, status files, coordination	This skill (pins Sonnet)	Tool-call heavy, reasoning light
Spec delta authoring, ADR, task decomposition, assume-vs-escalate calls	planner-agent sub-agent	Reasoning-heavy; defects here compound through implementation
Adversarial review, revision loop	plan-reviewer sub-agent	Catches intent drift, infeasibility, and ambiguity before implementation, not after
Branch, commit, push, PR create/comment	git-agent sub-agent	Generic git/GitHub operations; keeps git/gh detail out of the orchestrator

Anti-Patterns

Pattern	Why Wrong
Asking the user a live question	Headless — irreducible decisions go to the PR comment
Running git/gh directly	git-agent performs every git and GitHub operation
Marking the PR ready	speq-implement-pr owns ready-pr; plans stay draft
A third review round	Bounded to 2 — leftover BLOCKERs become open questions