{"task_id":"st_01a02ee9","status":"completed","residency_state":"evicted","parent_session_id":"01a00387-aaf8-7f2f-89e3-e24c1af24859","root_session_id":"01a00387-aaf8-7f2f-89e3-e24c1af24859","depth":1,"execution_mode":"in-process","model":"openai-codex/gpt-5.6-sol","notify_on_terminal":true,"created_at":"2026-08-23T13:57:14.810Z","updated_at":"2026-08-25T06:58:07.423Z","notification":{"run_epoch":0,"notified_epoch":0},"name":"st_01a02ee9","task_summary":"Audit v1.4.0 plan gaps before detailed todo writing","description":"Analyze weekly operations plan gaps","agent_type":"metis","tool_allow":["read","find","grep","ls","bash","lsp_diagnostics","lsp_goto_definition","lsp_find_references","lsp_symbols"],"requested_model":{"provider":"openai-codex","model_id":"gpt-5.6-sol","display":"openai-codex/gpt-5.6-sol","source":"agent","reasoning_effort":"xhigh"},"resolved_model":{"provider":"openai-codex","model_id":"gpt-5.6-sol","display":"openai-codex/gpt-5.6-sol","source":"agent","reasoning_effort":"xhigh","reasoning":"xhigh"},"spawn_spec":{"version":1,"cwd":"/home/cube/projects/richard/traning coach","prompt":"TASK: Act as the pre-plan gap analyst for the approved NutriCoach v1.4.0 weekly operations plan. DELIVERABLE: A concise, evidence-cited list of contradictions, missing constraints, scope-creep risks, unvalidated assumptions, and missing acceptance criteria, each with a proposed reversible default or a clearly identified unsafe owner-decision. SCOPE: Read `.omo/drafts/nutricoach-v140-weekly-operations.md`, `.omo/plans/nutricoach-v140-weekly-operations.md`, and the concrete repository/runtime paths cited by the draft. Respect all approved decisions: default-OFF v1.4.0, topic-59 sanitized daily projection, owner-DM approval, Monday weekly summary, 20:00 KST one reminder, 23:00 KST missed cutoff, exactly-once delivery, no monthly aggregation, no automatic customer delivery, synthetic seven-day proof before bounded live observation. Do not edit files and do not implement. VERIFY: Every finding must cite a concrete path and identify whether it blocks a decision-complete plan; sweep budget/spend, mandated stack, expected scale, target audience/privacy/compliance, migration, rollback, crash recovery, dirty worktree isolation, and agent-executable QA.","instructions":"# Metis - Pre-Planning Consultant\n\n## CONSTRAINTS\n\n- **READ-ONLY**: You analyze, question, advise. You do NOT implement or modify files.\n- **OUTPUT**: Your analysis feeds the planner that called you. Be actionable.\n- **NO DELEGATION**: You cannot spawn other agents. Do all exploration yourself with your read-only tools (grep, find, read, bash).\n\n---\n\n## PHASE 0: INTENT CLASSIFICATION (MANDATORY FIRST STEP)\n\nBefore ANY analysis, classify the work intent. This determines your entire strategy.\n\n### Step 1: Identify Intent Type\n\n- **Refactoring**: \"refactor\", \"restructure\", \"clean up\", changes to existing code - SAFETY: regression prevention, behavior preservation\n- **Build from Scratch**: \"create new\", \"add feature\", greenfield, new module - DISCOVERY: explore patterns first, informed questions\n- **Mid-sized Task**: Scoped feature, specific deliverable, bounded work - GUARDRAILS: exact deliverables, explicit exclusions\n- **Collaborative**: \"help me plan\", \"let's figure out\", wants dialogue - INTERACTIVE: incremental clarity through dialogue\n- **Architecture**: \"how should we structure\", system design, infrastructure - STRATEGIC: long-term impact, advisor recommendation\n- **Research**: Investigation needed, goal exists but path unclear - INVESTIGATION: exit criteria, parallel probes\n\n### Step 2: Validate Classification\n\nConfirm:\n- [ ] Intent type is clear from request\n- [ ] If ambiguous, ASK before proceeding\n\n---\n\n## PHASE 1: INTENT-SPECIFIC ANALYSIS\n\n### IF REFACTORING\n\n**Your Mission**: Ensure zero regressions, behavior preservation.\n\n**Tool Guidance** (recommend to the planner):\n- `lsp_find_references`: Map all usages before changes\n- `lsp_rename` / `lsp_prepare_rename`: Safe symbol renames\n- `lsp_symbols` plus `grep`: Find structural patterns to preserve without relying on unavailable helpers\n\n**Questions to Ask**:\n1. What specific behavior must be preserved? (test commands to verify)\n2. What's the rollback strategy if something breaks?\n3. Should this change propagate to related code, or stay isolated?\n\n**Directives for the Planner**:\n- MUST: Define pre-refactor verification (exact test commands + expected outputs)\n- MUST: Verify after EACH change, not just at the end\n- MUST NOT: Change behavior while restructuring\n- MUST NOT: Refactor adjacent code not in scope\n\n---\n\n### IF BUILD FROM SCRATCH\n\n**Your Mission**: Discover patterns before asking, then surface hidden requirements.\n\n**Pre-Analysis Actions** (do these YOURSELF before questioning, in parallel):\n1. Find similar implementations in this codebase - their structure and conventions: `grep`/`find` for the feature's key nouns, then `read` the 2-3 closest matches.\n2. Find how similar features are organized - file structure, naming patterns, architectural approach.\n3. For unfamiliar technologies, use the structured read-only `bash` broker with `{ program: \"gh\", args: [\"search\", \"code\", \"<usage pattern>\", \"--language\", \"<lang>\"] }` or `{ program: \"curl\", args: [\"--silent\", \"--location\", \"https://official-docs.example/page\"] }`.\n\n**Questions to Ask** (AFTER exploration):\n1. Found pattern X in codebase. Should new code follow this, or deviate? Why?\n2. What should explicitly NOT be built? (scope boundaries)\n\n**Directives for the Planner**:\n- MUST: Follow patterns from `[discovered file:lines]`\n- MUST: Define \"Must NOT Have\" section (AI over-engineering prevention)\n- MUST NOT: Invent new patterns when existing ones work\n- MUST NOT: Add features not explicitly requested\n\n---\n\n### IF MID-SIZED TASK\n\n**Your Mission**: Define exact boundaries. AI slop prevention is critical.\n\n**Questions to Ask**:\n1. What are the EXACT outputs? (files, endpoints, UI elements)\n2. What must NOT be included? (explicit exclusions)\n3. What are the hard boundaries? (no touching X, no changing Y)\n4. Acceptance criteria: how do we know it's done?\n\n**AI-Slop Patterns to Flag**:\n- **Scope inflation**: \"Also tests for adjacent modules\" - \"Should I add tests beyond [TARGET]?\"\n- **Premature abstraction**: \"Extracted to utility\" - \"Do you want abstraction, or inline?\"\n- **Over-validation**: \"15 error checks for 3 inputs\" - \"Error handling: minimal or comprehensive?\"\n- **Documentation bloat**: \"Added JSDoc everywhere\" - \"Documentation: none, minimal, or full?\"\n\n**Directives for the Planner**:\n- MUST: \"Must Have\" section with exact deliverables\n- MUST: \"Must NOT Have\" section with explicit exclusions\n- MUST: Per-task guardrails (what each task should NOT do)\n- MUST NOT: Exceed defined scope\n\n---\n\n### IF COLLABORATIVE\n\n**Your Mission**: Build understanding through dialogue. No rush.\n\n**Behavior**:\n1. Start with open-ended exploration questions\n2. Use your own read-only tools (grep, find, read, bash) to gather context as the user provides direction\n3. Incrementally refine understanding\n4. Don't finalize until user confirms direction\n\n**Questions to Ask**:\n1. What problem are you trying to solve? (not what solution you want)\n2. What constraints exist? (time, tech stack, team skills)\n3. What trade-offs are acceptable? (speed vs quality vs cost)\n\n**Directives for the Planner**:\n- MUST: Record all user decisions in \"Key Decisions\" section\n- MUST: Flag assumptions explicitly\n- MUST NOT: Proceed without user confirmation on major decisions\n\n---\n\n### IF ARCHITECTURE\n\n**Your Mission**: Strategic analysis. Long-term impact assessment.\n\n**Advisor Consultation** (RECOMMEND to the planner - you cannot delegate yourself):\nAdvise the planner to delegate an advisory-only architecture consultation to the `architect` category carrying:\n- the user's request\n- the context you gathered\n- the analysis ask: options, trade-offs, long-term implications, risks\n\n**Questions to Ask**:\n1. What's the expected lifespan of this design?\n2. What scale/load should it handle?\n3. What are the non-negotiable constraints?\n4. What existing systems must this integrate with?\n\n**AI-Slop Guardrails for Architecture**:\n- MUST NOT: Over-engineer for hypothetical future requirements\n- MUST NOT: Add unnecessary abstraction layers\n- MUST NOT: Ignore existing patterns for \"better\" design\n- MUST: Document decisions and rationale\n\n**Directives for the Planner**:\n- MUST: Consult the architect category before finalizing the plan\n- MUST: Document architectural decisions with rationale\n- MUST NOT: Introduce complexity without justification\n\n---\n\n### IF RESEARCH\n\n**Your Mission**: Define investigation boundaries and exit criteria.\n\n**Questions to Ask**:\n1. What's the goal of this research? (what decision will it inform?)\n2. How do we know research is complete? (exit criteria)\n3. What's the time box? (when to stop and synthesize)\n4. What outputs are expected? (report, recommendations, prototype?)\n\n**Investigation Structure** (run these probes YOURSELF, in parallel):\n1. Current approach: `grep`/`find` how X is currently handled - implementation details, edge cases, known issues.\n2. External best practices via structured read-only `bash` using `program: \"gh\"` and a `search code` argument vector.\n3. Official documentation via structured read-only `bash` using `program: \"curl\"` and an HTTPS GET argument vector.\n\n**Directives for the Planner**:\n- MUST: Define clear exit criteria\n- MUST: Specify parallel investigation tracks\n- MUST: Define synthesis format (how to present findings)\n- MUST NOT: Research indefinitely without convergence\n\n---\n\n## OUTPUT FORMAT\n\n```markdown\n## Intent Classification\n**Type**: [Refactoring | Build | Mid-sized | Collaborative | Architecture | Research]\n**Confidence**: [High | Medium | Low]\n**Rationale**: [Why this classification]\n\n## Pre-Analysis Findings\n[Results from your own exploration]\n[Relevant codebase patterns discovered]\n\n## Questions for User\n1. [Most critical question first]\n2. [Second priority]\n3. [Third priority]\n\n## Identified Risks\n- [Risk 1]: [Mitigation]\n- [Risk 2]: [Mitigation]\n\n## Directives for the Planner\n\n### Core Directives\n- MUST: [Required action]\n- MUST: [Required action]\n- MUST NOT: [Forbidden action]\n- MUST NOT: [Forbidden action]\n- PATTERN: Follow `[file:lines]`\n- TOOL: Use `[specific tool]` for [purpose]\n\n### QA/Acceptance Criteria Directives (MANDATORY)\n> **ZERO USER INTERVENTION PRINCIPLE**: All acceptance criteria AND QA scenarios MUST be executable by agents.\n\n- MUST: Write acceptance criteria as executable commands (curl, bun test, playwright actions)\n- MUST: Include exact expected outputs, not vague descriptions\n- MUST: Specify verification tool for each deliverable type (playwright for UI, curl for API, etc.)\n- MUST: Every task has QA scenarios with: specific tool, concrete steps, exact assertions, evidence path\n- MUST: QA scenarios include BOTH happy-path AND failure/edge-case scenarios\n- MUST: QA scenarios use specific data (`\"test@example.com\"`, not `\"[email]\"`) and selectors (`.login-button`, not \"the login button\")\n- MUST NOT: Create criteria requiring \"user manually tests...\"\n- MUST NOT: Create criteria requiring \"user visually confirms...\"\n- MUST NOT: Create criteria requiring \"user clicks/interacts...\"\n- MUST NOT: Use placeholders without concrete examples (bad: \"[endpoint]\", good: \"/api/users\")\n- MUST NOT: Write vague QA scenarios (\"verify it works\", \"check the page loads\", \"test the API returns data\")\n- MUST: For a PROSE deliverable (a prompt, `SKILL.md`, rule, or markdown/instruction file), make QA a human/agent READ against the intended behavior, or assert only a machine-consumed value (a parsed field, a sentinel a runtime greps, a doc JSON sample through its real validator) - the file's wording has no behavioral seam\n- MUST NOT: Turn a prompt/doc change into a text-grep acceptance criterion (`grep \"<sentence>\" SKILL.md`, word/char counts, phrase presence/absence) - that pins a diff, not behavior, and blocks every legitimate edit\n\n## Recommended Approach\n[1-2 sentence summary of how to proceed]\n```\n\n---\n\n## TOOL REFERENCE\n\n- **`lsp_find_references`**: Map impact before changes - Refactoring\n- **`lsp_rename`**: Safe symbol renames - Refactoring (recommend to the planner; you are read-only)\n- **`lsp_symbols` / `lsp_find_references`**: Find structural patterns - Refactoring, Build\n- **`grep` / `find` / `read`**: Codebase pattern discovery - Build, Research\n- **Structured read-only `bash` with `gh` / `curl`**: External docs, OSS implementations, best practices - Build, Architecture, Research\n- **`architect` category**: Advisory-only big-picture design consultation - Architecture (planner delegates; you cannot)\n\n---\n\n## CRITICAL RULES\n\n**NEVER**:\n- Skip intent classification\n- Ask generic questions (\"What's the scope?\")\n- Proceed without addressing ambiguity\n- Make assumptions about user's codebase\n- Attempt to delegate or spawn agents - explore with your own tools instead\n- Suggest acceptance criteria requiring user intervention (\"user manually tests\", \"user confirms\", \"user clicks\")\n- Leave QA/acceptance criteria vague or placeholder-heavy\n\n**ALWAYS**:\n- Classify intent FIRST\n- Be specific (\"Should this change UserService only, or also AuthService?\")\n- Explore before asking (for Build/Research intents)\n- Provide actionable directives for the planner\n- Include QA automation directives in every output\n- Ensure acceptance criteria are agent-executable (commands, not human actions)\n"},"host_pid":1082531,"final_response":"I read this as final synthesis - I’ll provide the concise blocker/default ledger from collected evidence only.\n\n## Intent Classification\n**Type**: Research  \n**Confidence**: High\n\n## Blocker / Default Ledger\n\n| Priority | Blocking gap | Concrete evidence | Decision-complete? | Reversible default / unsafe owner decision |\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n| P0 | **Plan is still a skeleton and approval metadata conflicts with “approved.”** | `.omo/plans/nutricoach-v140-weekly-operations.md:1-44`; `.omo/drafts/nutricoach-v140-weekly-operations.md:1-22,89-94` | **Blocked** | Complete scope, todos, dependencies, acceptance criteria, digest, and review metadata before implementation. |\n| P0 | **Execution authority is ambiguous.** Draft-relative source paths are absent here; production runs an installed v1.3.2 wheel, while qualification lives in another worktree. | `/home/cube/projects/richard/.worktrees/nutricoach-v111-impl/.omo/evidence/v1.3.2-daily-checkin/qualification.json`; `/home/cube/.config/systemd/user/hermes-gateway-dualcoachtest.service:7-14`; `...service.d/task26-authority.conf:1-6` | **Blocked** | Pin candidate `6c9c4394...`, then use a fresh `/home/cube/projects/richard/.worktrees/nutricoach-v140-impl`. Preserve mandated Python/Hermes/Pydantic/JSONL/Telegram stack; no new DB/plugin/upstream work. |\n| P0 | **Default-OFF boundary is undefined against active v1.3.2 scheduling.** Nutrition coaching, cron, and existing weekly work are already enabled. | `/home/cube/.hermes/profiles/dualcoachtest/config.yaml:641-681`; `cron/jobs.json:1-27`; active `checkin_cli/customer_schedule.py:208-246` | **Blocked** | Add typed `weekly_operations.enabled: false`, gating only new v1.4 effects. Preserve existing v1.3.2 daily launcher and owner-weekly behavior. |\n| P0 | **Current config cannot express recurring 20:00 reminder and 23:00 cutoff.** Reminder becomes eligible after `daily_time`; gateway accepts only an absolute deadline. | `checkin_cli/customer_schedule.py:208-246`; `gateway/platforms/telegram.py:9878-9900`; `gateway/platforms/nutrition_coaching_config.py:55-178` | **Blocked** | Typed KST fields `reminder_time=20:00:00`, `missed_cutoff_time=23:00:00`; reject naive/absolute deadlines and invalid ordering. |\n| P0 | **Live NutriCoach submissions are invisible to current reminder correlation.** Terminal detection requires a `MORNING_CHECKIN` root, while `nutrition_daily` emits `NUTRITION_CHECKIN`. | `checkin_cli/store.py:70-111`; `checkin_cli/wizard.py:1008-1015`; live draft `data/customers/pilot_20260820_01/wizard/drafts/a594ba00240399c36f366e83fff8e405.json` | **Blocked** | Treat accepted `NUTRITION_CHECKIN` correction lineages as NutriCoach responses; retain morning compatibility. |\n| P0 | **`submitted`/`missed`/`late_submitted` semantics and cutoff races are unspecified.** Strict canonical schemas contain no such event types. | `checkin_cli/models.py:31-56,864-967`; `contracts/checkin-event.schema.json:22-47`; draft `:59-65` | **Blocked** | Use a rollback-safe append-only v1.4 sidecar pinned to canonical sequence/digest. By 23:00 => `submitted`; absent at cutoff => `missed`; first valid submission after cutoff => `late_submitted`. Corrections preserve original timeliness. |\n| P0 | **Seven-day operation conflicts with weekday-only adherence.** | v1.3.2 `qualification.json` (`daily_checkin_days=all_calendar_days`); `customer_reporting.py:409-450,617-623` | **Blocked** | Weekly operations use exactly seven calendar days. Do not alter the existing weekday-based 28-day KPI helper. |\n| P0 | **Reminder success and factual absence are conflated.** Review currently requires `sent_audited`; known failure may be retried under new approval. | `customer_schedule.py:1520-1690`; `tests/test_customer_schedule.py:241-370`; `customer_coaching.py:639-672` | **Blocked** | Record `missed` independently at 23:00. Create “reminded/no response” only for `sent_audited`; otherwise create a delivery incident. Never replace a same-day v1.4 reminder attempt. |\n| P0 | **Literal exactly-once Telegram visibility is unsupported.** Current contract is provider-at-most-once with terminal uncertainty; Topic-59 publication claims before I/O and can lose a card after a crash. | `PILOT_RUNBOOK.md:146-171`; `nutrition_coaching.py:21200-21251`; `telegram.py:5180-5230` | **Blocked** | Define exactly-once as one logical reservation and at most one provider call, ending in receipt or terminal unknown. **Unsafe owner decision:** literal one-visible-message guarantee requires a different provider contract. |\n| P0 | **Existing Topic-59 service cannot provide one mutable daily card.** It supports only risk/reminder event cards, not `(customer, day)` bindings or state edits. | `gateway/platforms/nutrition_coaching.py:21029-21251`; `gateway/platforms/telegram.py:5180-5230` | **Blocked** | Add a separate status projector with deterministic customer/day key, send/edit receipts, terminal unknown state, and no approval buttons. |\n| P1 | **“No automatic customer delivery” conflicts with the automatic reminder.** | Draft `:43,59-65,73-75`; live `data/scheduled-deliveries.jsonl:1-4` | **Blocked** | Define prohibition as no automatic coaching/plan/weekly-summary delivery. The approved static reminder is the sole new operational exception; existing launchers remain baseline. |\n| P1 | **Weekly AI grounding and failure behavior are undefined.** Current weekly source is deterministic, not a specified knowledge-grounded AI pipeline. | `customer_reporting.py:115-166`; `gateway/platforms/nutrition_coaching.py:3831-3890`; `HANDOFF.md:22-43` | **Blocked** | Code locks all facts, numbers, decisions, and actions. AI explains only approved source fields; invalid/model-outage output falls back to deterministic Korean text. Owner DM remains authoritative. |\n| P1 | **Migration, downgrade, and crash recovery are absent.** Adding strict canonical types would break v1.3.2 readers. | `models.py:31-56`; v1.3.2 `deployment-receipt.json:43-57`; `store.py:460-565`; `PILOT_RUNBOOK.md:195-203` | **Blocked** | Separate sidecar, feature OFF during install, no backfill, immutable pre/post digests, crash injection at every append/fsync/provider boundary, trusted snapshot rollback, and v1.3.2 reader proof. |\n| P1 | **Privacy/compliance approval is unproven.** Existing consent is `privacy-v1`; global PII redaction is false; new staff-room processing and sidecars are not inventoried. | live `config.yaml:306-307`; registry consent around `:250-275`; `PILOT_RUNBOOK.md:67-94,203-228` | **Live blocked** | Closed card whitelist only; no customer name/address/raw values. Add sidecars to retention/deletion/backup inventory. **Unsafe owner/legal decision:** approve Topic-59 visibility, reminder purpose, AI processing, provider terms, and retention before live enablement. |\n| P1 | **Budget and scale are unspecified.** Current proof surface is one enabled customer, one-minute scheduler, and 16-card drain limit. | live registry `:250-275`; `cron/jobs.json:1-27`; `telegram.py:5180-5228` | **Closed by default** | Exactly one live customer for seven days, no load redesign, no new paid service, zero network in synthetic QA. **Owner decision:** weekly-AI call/spend cap before live. |\n| P1 | **Dirty-worktree isolation is missing.** | `HANDOFF.md:160-181`; `.omo/evidence/dualcoach-task-19-evidence.md:81-89` | **Blocked** | Fresh isolated worktree; baseline status digest; no reset, stash, clean, rebase, unrelated commit, or upstream PR. |\n| P1 | **QA is non-executable and internally inconsistent.** Draft requires F1-F5; plan has F1-F4 and “Real manual QA.” | Draft `:73-76`; plan `:20-44` | **Blocked** | Add F5 provenance/privacy/migration audit. F3 becomes agent-driven fake-Telegram real-handler QA. Live actions remain owner gates; agents only validate immutable receipts. |\n| P2 | **Monthly scope could creep into schema cleanup.** Legacy `monthly_day` remains required although monthly scheduling is dormant. | `customer_schedule.py:17-19,208-246`; `tests/test_customer_schedule.py:196-207` | **Not blocked** | Preserve legacy fields; assert zero monthly tasks, rows, or messages. Do not redesign/remove monthly schema. |\n| P2 | **Live observation has no start authority or abort criteria.** Existing customer and scheduler are active. | live registry `:250-275`; `cron/jobs.json:1-27`; draft `:44-45,73-76` | **Live blocked** | Owner chooses the seven-day start only after synthetic seal, legal, budget, migration, and rollback gates. Abort on privacy leak, duplicate, unknown delivery, corruption, or authority drift. |\n\n## Required Agent-Executable Acceptance\n\n1. **Default OFF:** zero new v1.4 rows, reminders, Topic-59 calls, monthly work, or activation changes.\n2. **Synthetic week:** `2026-08-17` through `2026-08-23`; final counts:\n   - submitted `4`\n   - late submitted `1`\n   - missed `2`\n   - completed `5/7`\n   - adherence `71.43%`\n   - reminders `4`, duplicate calls `0`\n   - logical Topic-59 cards `7`\n   - Monday owner cards `1`\n   - automatic coaching customer calls `0`\n   - privacy leaks `0`\n3. **Edges:** 19:59/20:00, 22:59/23:00, cutoff/check-in race, late correction, reminder/card unknown, restart at every durable boundary, stale authority, wrong topic/user, duplicate ticks, torn/interior corruption.\n4. **Migration/rollback:** byte-identical v1.3.2 authority and receipts; v1.3.2 reads successfully with preserved v1.4 sidecar; provider calls remain zero during rehearsal.\n5. **Ordering:** synthetic seal must cryptographically precede live-observation authorization.\n\nNo monthly aggregation, automatic coaching delivery, automatic activation, fabricated history, new database, generic route, or unrelated refactor belongs in v1.4.0.","run_stats":{"runtime_ms":659088,"turns":18,"tool_calls":124,"output_tokens":26381,"total_tokens":3590362,"generation_ms":647325,"tokens_per_second":41,"cost_usd":5.372233,"cache_hit_rate_last":0.9626318259280299,"cache_hit_rate_run":0.9060609470140273}}