Plans

Plan Review: Publish HTML plans to GitHub Pages

Reviewed 2026-06-07 16:09 UTC · 5 core reviewers (architecture, completeness, testability, risk, conventions) · No UI signals detected
Approved with Revisions

Executive Summary: The plan is architecturally sound, well-aligned with project conventions, and appropriately scoped. All 5 reviewers approved with revisions. Three cross-reviewer concerns dominated: (1) test files described in the Tests section had no corresponding creation step, (2) Pages enablement ordering was implicit rather than enforced, and (3) no pre-deploy CI validation existed. Additional issues: hardcoded “32 plans” in acceptance criteria and underscore test filenames against the project’s kebab-case convention. All issues addressed with 12 inline edits to the source plan.

Role-by-Role Findings

Architecture Review

Fit: Architecturally sound — a thin static-site deployment layer that correctly avoids touching the existing hook-driven content pipeline.

Completeness Review

Completeness: Well-structured with good specificity, but had two notable gaps around test file creation and prerequisite validation.

Testability Review

Test coverage: Present but thin — tests existed on paper but not as executable files, with no pre-merge CI gate.

Risk Review

Risk level: Medium overall.

Conventions Review

Fit: Good alignment with project patterns. Workflow naming, concurrency groups, and permissions blocks all mirror existing workflows.

Agreements & Conflicts

Confirmed concerns (flagged by 2+ reviewers independently):

  1. Missing test file creation step (Completeness + Testability)
  2. Pages enablement ordering must be explicit (Completeness + Risk)
  3. No pre-deploy CI validation (Architecture + Testability)
  4. Hardcoded plan count is fragile (Completeness + Testability)
  5. Workflow path filter should include itself (Architecture + Risk)

Conflicts: None. All reviewers aligned on recommendations.

Highest-Risk Issues

1. Pages must be enabled before merge — Risk reviewer (high). The workflow fails silently if Pages is not enabled when it first triggers. Fixed: Step 4 now requires completion before PR merge, with admin access fallback guidance.
2. Test files must be created, not just described — Completeness reviewer (high). Three test scripts were specified in the Tests section with no corresponding creation step. Fixed: new Step 6 creates all three files with specific assertions.
3. No pre-deploy CI gate — Testability reviewer (high). A broken artifact could reach production with no pre-merge check. Mitigated: .nojekyll build assertion + locally-runnable unit/integration tests.
4. Public content exposure is irreversible — Risk reviewer (medium). Plans become publicly accessible and search-indexable immediately after first deploy. Recommend content audit before enabling Pages.
5. Gallery index staleness in CI — Risk reviewer (medium). The hook-maintained index may be stale for commits made without the PostToolUse hook. Recommend adding CI-side index regeneration before upload-pages-artifact.

Edits Applied to Source Plan

TargetActionChange
AC6 labeleditReplaced “All 32 plan files” with “All plan files present in docs/plans/ at deploy time”
Step 3 whyeditAdded workflow self-trigger path, .nojekyll assertion, SHA lookup guidance
Step 3 verifyeditAdded path-filter and .nojekyll assertion checks
Step 4 whyeditAdded “must be completed before PR is merged” and admin access note
After Step 5insertNew Step 6: Create test files in tests/pages/
Old Step 6editRenumbered to Step 7
All test filenameseditRenamed from underscore to kebab-case (test_* to test-*)
Objective testeditDynamic plan count + retry loop for propagation delay
VerificationeditRemoved hardcoded “32”; added troubleshooting paragraph
AC1 labeleditAdded workflow self-trigger and .nojekyll assertion mentions
Criteria listappendNew AC8: test scripts exist and pass locally
Progress labeleditUpdated from 0/7 to 0/8