feat: isolate delivery plan validation#2556
Conversation
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThis PR adds documentation on internal roles beneath named agents and introduces a new "Delivery Plan Auditor" reference contract for the bmad-create-epics-and-stories skill. Step 4 (Final Validation) is rewritten to isolate epic/story audit logic from the authoring conversation, dispatching a bounded audit contract with a preferred isolated-subagent path and a sequential fallback, writing structured findings reports, and gating completion on resolved critical findings. ChangesIsolated Delivery-Plan Audit Role
Estimated code review effort: 3 (Moderate) | ~25 minutes Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant User
participant Facilitator as Step4 Facilitator
participant Subagent as Isolated Auditor Subagent
participant Report as delivery-plan-audit.md
User->>Facilitator: Trigger final validation
Facilitator->>Facilitator: Verify Inputs (epics.md, inputDocuments, contract)
Facilitator->>Subagent: Dispatch isolated audit (epics.md, declared inputs, contract)
Subagent->>Report: Write full audit report
Subagent-->>Facilitator: Return compact verdict + top findings
Facilitator->>User: Present verdict, triage critical/high findings
User-->>Facilitator: Accept corrections / risk
Facilitator->>Subagent: Re-run bounded confirmation audit (if corrections applied)
Subagent->>Report: Write confirmation report
Facilitator->>User: Confirm completion (HALT for input)
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers: 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In
`@src/bmm-skills/3-solutioning/bmad-create-epics-and-stories/steps/step-04-final-validation.md`:
- Around line 108-113: The final validation gate in step-04-final-validation.md
only checks for unresolved critical findings, so a BLOCKED audit can still
complete. Update the completion criteria to also fail when the audit verdict is
BLOCKED, and keep the step halted until the audit can be rerun with usable
evidence. Use the existing audit-report validation logic in
step-04-final-validation.md and align it with the BLOCKED status already emitted
by delivery-plan-auditor.md.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: c133f3d4-3a91-4d21-b4a6-a026920c68cb
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
docs/explanation/named-agents.mdsrc/bmm-skills/3-solutioning/bmad-create-epics-and-stories/references/delivery-plan-auditor.mdsrc/bmm-skills/3-solutioning/bmad-create-epics-and-stories/steps/step-04-final-validation.md
What
Separates epic/story authoring from final delivery-plan auditing inside
bmad-create-epics-and-stories.The outward-facing agent and user workflow remain unchanged. Internally, final
validation runs under a bounded Delivery Plan Auditor role that receives the
completed
epics.md, its declared source documents, and an explicit auditrubric, but not the authoring conversation.
The auditor writes structured findings to a separate artifact and does not
modify
epics.mddirectly.Why
This is a narrow vertical-slice test of internal modularization beneath stable
outward-facing personas.
The practical motivation is that artifact production and validation can benefit
from different instructions, context boundaries, and objectives. The broader
hypothesis is that selected responsibilities currently bundled inside one
outward-facing role may become more reliable when separated through explicit
interfaces.
This does not propose splitting every workflow. Broader adoption should depend
on demonstrated audit value relative to token, latency, and maintenance cost.
The research basis for this design hypothesis is summarized in #2552.
Fixes #2552
Testing
git diff --check— passednpm run lint:md— passednpm run validate:refs— failed on one unrelated existing reference outsidethe changed workflow
npm run validate:skills— failed on repository-wideSKILL.mdvalidationfindings unrelated to these files