FEAT-92: add revision summary feedback loop between Claude and Codex

.github/workflows/ci.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+name: CI
+
+on:
+  push:
+    branches: [main]
+  pull_request:
+
+jobs:
+  lint:
+    name: Lint
+    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
+    steps:
+      - uses: actions/checkout@v4
+      - uses: actions/setup-python@v5
+        with:
+          python-version: "3.13"
+      - run: pip install ruff
+      - run: ruff check .
+
+  typecheck:
+    name: Type Check
+    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
+    steps:
+      - uses: actions/checkout@v4
+      - uses: actions/setup-python@v5
+        with:
+          python-version: "3.13"
+      - run: pip install pyright pyyaml anthropic mcp pytest
+      - run: pyright
+
+  test:
+    name: Tests
+    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
+    steps:
+      - uses: actions/checkout@v4
+      - uses: actions/setup-python@v5
+        with:
+          python-version: "3.13"
+      - run: pip install pytest pyyaml anthropic
+      - run: pytest plugins/

CHANGELOG.md

@@ -6,6 +6,15 @@ The format is based on [Keep a Changelog](https://keepachangelog.com/en/1.1.0/).
 
 ## [Unreleased]
 
+### code v1.2.1
+
+#### Changed
+- `plan-agent` now verifies Codex findings against the codebase before acting -- rejects findings that don't hold up with evidence, writes a revision summary for cross-round context
+- `codex-review` skill accepts `--revisions-file` parameter, injecting Claude's revision summary into Codex's prompt on rounds > 1 so rejected findings are not re-raised
+
+#### Fixed
+- Fixed `plan-with-codex` resume path triggering a redundant user review checkpoint when the user had already confirmed by choosing "resume with existing plan"
+
 ### code v1.2.0
 
 #### Added

plugins/code/.claude-plugin/plugin.json

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 {
   "name": "code",
   "description": "Code and planning framework plugin",
-  "version": "1.2.0",
+  "version": "1.2.1",
   "author": {
     "name": "ClosedLoop",
     "email": "support@closedloop.ai"

plugins/code/README.md

@@ -300,9 +300,9 @@ Implements the validation loop for agents registered in `loop-agents.json`. When
 
 Injects tool-specific learnings just before tool execution. Filters `org-patterns.toon` by tool type (Bash patterns get build/test tags; Write/Edit patterns get language-specific tags based on file extension). Injects up to 10 matching patterns as `additionalContext`. Also auto-allows tool calls targeting `.closedloop-ai/` workspace paths without prompting.
 
-### `plan-review.sh` (PostToolUse on ExitPlanMode)
+### `plan-review.sh` (not currently registered in `hooks.json`)
 
-Triggers when Claude exits plan mode to get a second opinion via Codex. Extracts plan content from `tool_response.plan`, sends it to Codex (`gpt-5.3-codex-spark`) for review, and injects the feedback as `additionalContext` so Claude sees Codex's concerns inline. Exits silently if no plan content is present or Codex returns empty. Debug logs kept in `.closedloop-ai/plan-review-logs/` (max 15 files).
+Triggers when Claude exits plan mode to get a second opinion via Codex. Extracts plan content from `tool_response.plan`, sends it to Codex (`gpt-5.3-codex-spark`) for review, and injects the feedback as `additionalContext` so Claude sees Codex's concerns inline. Exits silently if no plan content is present or Codex returns empty. Debug logs kept in `.closedloop-ai/plan-review-logs/` (max 15 files). This script exists in `hooks/` but is not wired into `hooks.json` -- it would require a PostToolUse entry matching ExitPlanMode to activate.
 
 ### `validate-plan.sh` (validation script, not a hook directly)
 

plugins/code/agents/plan-agent.md

@@ -88,7 +88,21 @@ Structure plans with these sections:
 When given feedback to address:
 
 1. Read the current plan file and the feedback file
-2. Address ALL concerns raised in the feedback
-3. If you disagree with a point, note your reasoning in the plan but still consider the underlying concern
-4. If the reviewer proposed a concrete fix, adopt it directly unless you have a strong reason not to
+2. **Verify each finding against the codebase before acting on it.** Use `Grep`, `Glob`, and `Read` to check whether the reviewer's claims are accurate (e.g., does the file/function they reference actually exist? Is the behavior they describe real?). Reviewers can hallucinate or misunderstand the codebase.
+3. For verified findings: address the concern. If the reviewer proposed a concrete fix, adopt it directly unless you have a strong reason not to.
+4. For findings that don't hold up: reject them with a brief explanation and evidence (e.g., "Finding 2 claims X is missing, but `path/to/file:42` already implements it").
 5. Write the updated plan back to the same file path using the `Write` tool
+6. **If a revisions file path was provided**, write a revision summary to it. Format:
+
+```markdown
+## Round N Revisions
+
+### Accepted
+- **Finding 1** (title): [what changed in the plan]
+- **Finding 3** (title): [what changed in the plan]
+
+### Rejected
+- **Finding 2** (title): [why, with evidence -- e.g., "X already exists at `path/to/file:42`"]
+```
+
+This file is read by the reviewer on the next round so they have full context on what was addressed and what was pushed back on.

plugins/code/commands/plan-with-codex.md

@@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ Arguments: $ARGUMENTS
 
 Derive sidecar paths from the plan file stem (e.g., for `debate-plan.md`):
 - `{stem}.feedback` -- Codex feedback text
+- `{stem}.revisions` -- Claude's revision summary (changes made + pushback on rejected findings)
 - `{stem}.state` -- phase/round/session state
 - `{stem}.prompt` -- original prompt (plain text)
 
@@ -185,6 +186,7 @@ Activate `code:codex-review` skill and run:
 bash <base_directory>/scripts/run_codex_review.sh \
   --plan-file {plan-file-abs} \
   --feedback-file {feedback-file-abs} \
+  --revisions-file {revisions-file-abs} \
   --round {N} \
   --codex-model {codex-model} \
   [--session-id {codex_session_id}] \
@@ -213,7 +215,7 @@ Update TodoWrite: "Round {N}/{max}: Revising plan..."
 
 Resume the plan-agent:
 - description: "Revise plan based on Codex feedback"
-- prompt: "Revise the plan at {plan-file-abs} based on feedback at {feedback-file-abs}. Address ALL concerns raised."
+- prompt: "Revise the plan at {plan-file-abs} based on feedback at {feedback-file-abs}. Verify each finding against the codebase before acting on it -- reject any that don't hold up. After updating the plan, write a revision summary to {revisions-file-abs}."
 
 Verify plan was updated. Write state: `ROUND={N+1}, PHASE=codex_review`, preserve current `CODEX_SESSION_ID` and `LOG_ID`. Continue to next round.
 
@@ -226,7 +228,7 @@ Report outcome:
 
 Clean up ALL sidecar files (prompt sidecar deleted intentionally to prevent stale intent on future runs):
 ```bash
-rm -f {state_file} {feedback_file} {prompt_file}
+rm -f {state_file} {feedback_file} {revisions_file} {prompt_file}
 ```
 
 Update TodoWrite: mark all remaining items completed.

plugins/code/skills/codex-review/SKILL.md

@@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ The `scripts/` directory is relative to this skill's base directory (shown above
 bash <base_directory>/scripts/run_codex_review.sh \
   --plan-file <path> \
   --feedback-file <path> \
+  --revisions-file <path> \
   --round <N> \
   --codex-model <model> \
   [--session-id <thread_id>] \
@@ -34,6 +35,7 @@ bash <base_directory>/scripts/run_codex_review.sh \
 |----------|----------|---------|-------------|
 | `--plan-file` | Yes | -- | Absolute path to the plan file Codex should review |
 | `--feedback-file` | Yes | -- | Path where full feedback text will be written |
+| `--revisions-file` | No | -- | Path to Claude's revision summary (accepted/rejected findings). If present and round > 1, Codex reads it for context. |
 | `--round` | No | 1 | Current debate round (affects review prompt intro) |
 | `--codex-model` | No | gpt-5.4 | Codex model to use |
 | `--session-id` | No | -- | Thread ID from a previous round for session resume |

plugins/code/skills/codex-review/scripts/run_codex_review.sh

@@ -24,19 +24,21 @@ set -euo pipefail
 
 PLAN_FILE=""
 FEEDBACK_FILE=""
+REVISIONS_FILE=""
 ROUND=1
 CODEX_MODEL="gpt-5.4"
 SESSION_ID=""
 LOG_ID=""
 
 while [[ $# -gt 0 ]]; do
   case $1 in
-    --plan-file)    PLAN_FILE="$2"; shift 2 ;;
-    --feedback-file) FEEDBACK_FILE="$2"; shift 2 ;;
-    --round)        ROUND="$2"; shift 2 ;;
-    --codex-model)  CODEX_MODEL="$2"; shift 2 ;;
-    --session-id)   SESSION_ID="$2"; shift 2 ;;
-    --log-id)       LOG_ID="$2"; shift 2 ;;
+    --plan-file)      PLAN_FILE="$2"; shift 2 ;;
+    --feedback-file)  FEEDBACK_FILE="$2"; shift 2 ;;
+    --revisions-file) REVISIONS_FILE="$2"; shift 2 ;;
+    --round)          ROUND="$2"; shift 2 ;;
+    --codex-model)    CODEX_MODEL="$2"; shift 2 ;;
+    --session-id)     SESSION_ID="$2"; shift 2 ;;
+    --log-id)         LOG_ID="$2"; shift 2 ;;
     *)
       echo "Unknown option: $1" >&2
       exit 1
@@ -80,14 +82,22 @@ prompt_file="$tmp_dir/prompt.txt"
 
 # ── Build the review prompt ──────────────────────────────────────────────────
 
+REVISIONS_BLOCK=""
 if [[ "$ROUND" -eq 1 ]]; then
   REVIEW_INTRO="Claude has created an implementation plan. Review it and provide feedback."
 else
   REVIEW_INTRO="Claude has addressed your previous feedback and updated the plan. Re-review the plan for remaining issues."
+  if [[ -n "$REVISIONS_FILE" ]] && [[ -s "$REVISIONS_FILE" ]]; then
+    REVISIONS_BLOCK="
+
+Claude's revision summary (including any findings that were rejected with evidence) is at: ${REVISIONS_FILE}
+Read it before reviewing the plan -- if Claude rejected a finding with valid evidence, do not re-raise it."
+  fi
 fi
 
 cat > "$prompt_file" <<PROMPT_EOF
 ${REVIEW_INTRO}
+${REVISIONS_BLOCK}
 
 Read the plan at: ${PLAN_FILE}
 

pyproject.toml

@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+[tool.ruff]
+target-version = "py311"
+
+[tool.pyright]
+pythonVersion = "3.11"