[kixelated]

Plans quest/m0/checkpoint-first-principles.md: at /quest-review's design checkpoint, the agent steps back and works out the best long-term approach from first principles before making another fix.

The checkpoint already exists (from #154, narrowed in #498), but the next checkpoint line that agents actually follow only says "reconsider the approach". This quest strengthens that line and the skill's paragraph. The trigger and the hand-off to the user stay the same.

Decisions

Recorded in the quest's Plan:

• What should change? ✅ Strengthen the existing checkpoint's printed line and skill paragraph (rejected: also counting /quest-iterate fix cycles; having the agent self-reflect and hand off only on a change of course)
• Which milestone? ✅ m0 (rejected: m1, m2)

Validation

quest check passes. This PR has no behavior to exercise: it only adds a quest.

Models

Size: XS
Implementer: Claude Code, claude-opus-5-5, unknown

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

(Written by Claude Opus 5.5)

Review

Rewritten by quest review after each round.

• Head: ebc752d, named in full once no reviewer reports a finding

• Base: origin/main at bbacba1

• Reviewer: Codex, gpt-6.1-sol, medium effort

• Session: 01a1d145-3a16-7133-ad1a-89964b2f24b7, round 2

• Score: 10/10, The incremental changes clarify the planning document’s existing checkpoint behavior and test expectations without introducing executable changes or new issues.

• Findings: none

• Reviewer: opencode, opencode-go/deepseek-v4.1-flash, high effort

• Session: ses_e2ebac1d9ffeaICi31nXJIzRin, round 2

• Score: 9/10, All three earlier findings are addressed; only a newly introduced ungrammatical trigger sentence remains, which is a low-severity wording fix.

• Findings, open until the next round settles them:

  • Low, quest/m0/checkpoint-first-principles.md:12: The revised trigger sentence is ungrammatical and ambiguous

• The last round's findings, at 117676f:

  • Fixed: medium, quest/m0/checkpoint-first-principles.md:12: The plan misstates when the design checkpoint fires; The head removes the inaccurate trigger paraphrase and points at `nextStep`; the specific retained-history scenario was refuted because `nextStep` receives only the current run's one-round-per-reviewer array from `src/cli/main.ts:1307-1331`.
  • Fixed: medium, quest/m0/checkpoint-first-principles.md:42: The test guidance does not verify the new checkpoint wording; The Plan now notes that the tests match only the `next checkpoint: ` prefix and requires them to assert that the line carries the step back.
  • Fixed: low, quest/m0/checkpoint-first-principles.md:39: The preservation list omits the restart after a design change; The Plan now lists restarting the count with `quest review --new` among the behavior the reword must preserve.

Head c14afb7 fixes the round-2 low finding: fixed, the Goal now reads "The checkpoint's trigger stays as nextStep in src/cli/review.ts decides it today".

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review.

Walkthrough

This change adds a design checkpoint proposal for /quest-review. It describes a review sequence, retained outcomes, and recommended follow-up edits to instructions, skill text, CLI help, and tests. It states that nextStep continues to control the checkpoint trigger. It excludes /quest-iterate cycles and online reviewer comments. No implementation changes are included.

Merge Risk: Minimal · up to c14af

This change adds a planning document for the review checkpoint and does not alter runtime behavior. No merge-blocking risk remains.

Pre-merge checks: 4

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check		The title names the main change: planning a first-principles step back at the design checkpoint of /quest-review. The raw summary, objectives, and description all describe this plan document, so the t…
Description check		The description states that the PR plans a first-principles step back at the /quest-review design checkpoint and explains the decisions, scope (m0), and validation. It matches the changeset, which add…
Linked Issues check		Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check		Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.

Full details: Title check

Explanation

The title names the main change: planning a first-principles step back at the design checkpoint of /quest-review. The raw summary, objectives, and description all describe this plan document, so the title is related to the changeset.

Full details: Description check

Explanation

The description states that the PR plans a first-principles step back at the /quest-review design checkpoint and explains the decisions, scope (m0), and validation. It matches the changeset, which adds a single plan document.

Finishing Touches

Simplify code

• Commit to this branch
• Create a new PR

• Autofix · Keep fixing CodeRabbit findings and required CI, and resolving merge conflicts

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.

Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

Recent review info

Run configuration

• Source mode: Auto
• Repository: Unavailable
• Branch: Unavailable
• File: No configuration file from this repository applied
• Commit: Unavailable
• Layers: Organization UI
• Review profile: CHILL
• Plan: Advanced
• Run ID: 60fa7b1c-4386-44ca-a177-709f445a281c

Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between e4b35f7 and c14afb7.

Files selected for processing: 1

• quest/m0/checkpoint-first-principles.md

Included review availability: This review used your included allowance. Your plan provides up to 1 included review per hour; 0 remain after this review.

[pullfrog]

✅ No new issues found.

Reviewed changes: the single new quest file in this PR, read in full.

• New quest checkpoint-first-principles: plans strengthening the /quest-review design checkpoint's next checkpoint line and the skill paragraph so the agent steps back to a first-principles design before another fix. The scope, the trigger, the hand-off, and the test and --help follow-ups are stated clearly.

  ^{｜ View workflow run ｜ Using claude-sonnet-5-5 ｜ 𝕏}