Skip to content
approved Visibility internal Owner erik@uvilo.com Approver _ Created 2026-07-19 Updated 2026-07-29

Knowledge Consistency Plan Eval 8

Project: Forge/Knowledge_Consistency

Phase Evaluated: Plan_Eval_8

Plan Documents Evaluated: Knowledge_Consistency_Plan_1.md through Knowledge_Consistency_Plan_8.md

Primary Plan 8 Work Product: Forge/Projects/Knowledge_Consistency/Knowledge_Consistency_Plan_8.md

Evaluator Role: Project Evaluator

Evaluation Skill: project-plan-eval

Run Date: 2026-07-29


Plan Eval 8 Verdict

Approved after auto-fix convergence.

Plan 8 had two mechanical task-quality defects during the initial review. Project Thinker auto-fixed both in commit 56f1cd2, the plan was re-evaluated, and all checklist items now pass.


Plan Eval 8 Checklist

#CriterionResultNote
1Self-containedPlan 8 names every target file, includes current/new replacement snippets, and provides verification commands.
2Procedural, not declarativeTasks give ordered edit steps and verification commands rather than only target-state descriptions.
3Single sessionThe scope is a focused stale-reference cleanup across 10 named files, followed by build/commit/push.
4Spec coveragePlans 1-7 already cover the approved Spec matrix; Plan 8 adds post-Verify coverage for stale references mapped to S1.3, S1.5, S1.6, S1.8, S1.10, S4.4, and S7.2-S7.3.
5No gaps or overlapsPlan 8 addresses E2-E10: E2-E8 through Tasks 1-6, E9 as already resolved, and E10 through the comprehensive Plan 8 scope. Re-edits to prior files are post-Verify corrections, not redundant overlap.
6OrderedIndependent file-edit tasks precede the build/commit/push task; there are no forward references.
7Task qualityAfter auto-fix, every task has a Spec context quote or Spec-section context and actionable steps.
8No checkboxesNo plan-state checkboxes appear outside code fences. Checkbox snippets occur only inside quoted target-file examples.
9Planning scope ruleThis is an implementation plan and may direct edits to explicitly named implementation files.
10Testable outputEach task has grep-style verification, and Task 7 verifies build plus git commit/push. The Task 1 grep false-positive was auto-fixed.
11File structureThe project has sequential Knowledge_Consistency_Plan_1.md through Knowledge_Consistency_Plan_8.md, exactly one Plan per file. No combined bare Knowledge_Consistency_Plan.md is present.

Plan Eval 8 Items

#TypeDescriptionStatusDisposition
PE8-1DefectTask 1’s verification command used grep -n 'list_skills|find_skill|get_skill_details', which would false-positive on the desired forge-discovery__list_skills value.🟢 ResolvedFix
PE8-2DefectTask 7’s context quote block did not reference Spec sections, contrary to the Plan Eval task-quality checklist.🟢 ResolvedFix

Plan Eval 8 Resolution Log

#DispositionAction takenResolved
PE8-1FixProject Thinker replaced the Task 1 verification command with `grep -nP ’(?<!forge-discovery__)(list_skillsfind_skill
PE8-2FixProject Thinker added a Spec-section context quote to Task 7 covering S1.3, S1.5, S1.6, S1.8, S1.10, S4.4, and S7.2-S7.3. Commit: 56f1cd2.Yes

Plan Eval 8 Run / Cost Evidence

Exact token and cost evidence is unavailable in this session. Available evidence:

  • Current phase at evaluation start: Plan_Eval_8_Started.
  • Evaluation skill loaded via forge-discovery__get_skill: project-plan-eval.
  • Auto-fix sub-agent conversation: cnv_cms6d6gv4002001odd8vy09t0.
  • Auto-fix commit pushed to dev: 56f1cd2.
  • Auto-fix build evidence reported by Project Thinker: npm run build --prefix .internal succeeded with 942 pages.
  • Local re-evaluation script confirmed sequential plan files 1-8, no outside-fence checkboxes, and no tasks missing Spec context quotes after auto-fix.
  • Final evaluator build succeeded with 942 pages and report/phase commit a11986e was pushed to dev.
  • Human gate todo created: tdi_cms6dh53y002q01od9l3kr6zm on user todo list tdl_cmqjm0ui6000922uyc5yj6o9w.

Plan Eval 8 Next Step

Plan_Eval is listed in human_gates, so this approval requires the G4 human gate before execution. Human gate todo: tdi_cms6dh53y002q01od9l3kr6zm. If approved, route to Project Worker for Execute Plan 8. If changes are requested, return to Plan 8 revision.


Previous Plan Eval History

Knowledge Consistency Plan Eval 1 (Prior History)

Project: Forge/Knowledge_Consistency

Phase Evaluated: Plan_Eval

Plan Document: Forge/Projects/Knowledge_Consistency/Knowledge_Consistency_Plan.md

Evaluator Role: Project Evaluator

Evaluation Skill: project-plan-eval

Run Date: 2026-07-19


Verdict

Rejected — auto-fix required before Plan_Eval can pass.


Checklist

#CriterionResultNote
1Self-contained⚠️Several tasks require implementers to discover unspecified targets (likely Forge/sidebar.ts or similar, non-exhaustive file lists), and key Spec targets are not named at all.
2Procedural, not declarativeMost tasks give concrete edit/create steps rather than only target-state descriptions.
3Single session⚠️Plan 3 is already broad, and the missing Spec targets require enough additional skill, prompt, and documentation work that the Plan set should be repartitioned.
4Spec coverage⚠️The Plan set does not cover multiple approved Spec sections, especially skills, Bot prompts, Persistent Knowledge prompt updates, and follow-up todos.
5No gaps or overlaps⚠️Major coverage gaps exist; overlaps are not the primary issue.
6Ordered⚠️Plan 3 Task 11 can eliminate Forge/README.md before Task 12 attempts to edit it. Plan ordering otherwise correctly makes Plan 1 prerequisite to Plans 2 and 3.
7Task quality⚠️Several tasks lack exact target paths, complete file lists, or a context quote block referencing the Spec.
8No checkboxes⚠️The Plan document contains unchecked completion-criteria checkboxes. Completion criteria must not use checkboxes; those belong in Execute_State.
9Planning scope ruleThe Plan is an implementation plan and may direct edits to explicitly named implementation files.
10Testable output⚠️Many file-edit tasks include grep-style checks, but missing prompt/todo work cannot be verified because it is absent from the Plan. npm run build failure due to missing package script is a known infrastructure issue and is not counted as a Plan content defect.

Items

#TypeDescriptionStatusDisposition
E1GapSpec coverage is incomplete. Missing or incomplete coverage includes S1.1 OrchestrationAgentic_Prompts, S1.2 Update_Infrastructure, S1.3 skill references to Forge_Chat_Prompt.md, S1.4 LibreChat references in MCP skills, S1.5 path fixes in four skills beyond Forge_Setup.md, S1.8 MongoDB removal, S1.9 MCP references/available-skills handling, S1.10 affected skills and Bot prompts, S3.1 Project Runner prompt alignment, S3.2-S3.4 Bot prompt fixes/publication, S5 Available Skills prompt updates, S7.3 skill model-reference cleanup, S9 handoff/run-cost evidence consistency, S11 follow-up todos, and S12 Project_Flow/Runner prompt Pending-state cleanup.🔴 OpenUpdate plan
E2DefectThe Plan claims Plan 1 covers S1.1, S1.2, and S11.1, but Plan 1 tasks do not implement those Spec sections. S11.1 in the Spec is the git-changes artifact follow-up todo, not phase-state guidance.🔴 OpenUpdate plan
E3DefectSome target paths are wrong or ambiguous. Forge/Forge_Project/Projects/Admin_Panel/Admin_Panel_Plan.md conflicts with the Spec’s Forge/Output/Admin_Panel_Plan.md; Plan 2 says the sidebar file is “likely” Forge/sidebar.ts; Plan 3 Task 2 uses a non-exhaustive file list.🔴 OpenUpdate plan
E4DefectThe Plan contains completion-criteria checkboxes (- [ ] ...). The Plan Eval skill forbids checkboxes in Plans because Execute_State owns checklist state.🔴 OpenUpdate plan
E5DefectSeveral tasks lack a context quote block referencing the Spec section, especially build/commit tasks. The Plan Eval checklist requires every task to include a context quote block referencing the Spec section.🔴 OpenUpdate plan
E6DefectPlan ordering has an internal conflict: Plan 3 Task 11 may eliminate Forge/README.md, while Task 12 later requires editing Forge/README.md.🔴 OpenUpdate plan
E7GapPlan 3 is too broad once missing skill, Bot prompt, Persistent Knowledge prompt, and follow-up-todo work is added. The Plan set should be repartitioned into single-session implementation plans with independently testable outputs.🔴 OpenUpdate plan
E8DefectSome verification criteria are not self-contained enough for execution, including “all knowledge files” without a complete target list and README/AGENTS consolidation without a required output record.🔴 OpenUpdate plan

Resolution Log

#DispositionAction takenResolved
E1Update planAdded Spec Coverage Matrix to Overview mapping every Spec section to Plan and Task; repartitioned into 7 Plans covering all Spec sections.Yes
E2Update planCorrected Plan 1 Spec coverage claim to S7.1 and S7.3 only; S11.1 moved to Plan 7 Task 8 as a follow-up todo, not phase-state guidance.Yes
E3Update planReplaced all ambiguous paths with verified paths: Admin_Panel_Plan.md at Forge/Output/, no sidebar.ts file (Page Manager via spawnAgent), explicit 14-file and 16-file lists.Yes
E4Update planRemoved all completion-criteria checkboxes; replaced with plain prose completion criteria.Yes
E5Update planAdded context quote block (> Spec …) to every task including build/commit/push tasks.Yes
E6Update planReordered Plan 6: Task 4 (S1.10 doc edits) executes before Task 5 (S10.1 README/AGENTS consolidation); added explicit ordering note.Yes
E7Update planRepartitioned from 5 Plans to 7 Plans, each scoped to a single artifact type and single-session implementable.Yes
E8Update planMade all file lists explicit and complete (14 skill files, 16 knowledge files); added required output record for S10.1 consolidation to Knowledge_Consistency_README_Consolidation.md.Yes

Run / Cost Evidence

Exact token and cost evidence is unavailable in this session. Available evidence:

  • Project discovery returned phase Plan_1_Completed before evaluation.
  • Phase was set to Plan_Eval_Started in Knowledge_Consistency_Phase.md.
  • npm run build was attempted from /workspace/erik@uvilo.com/uvilo-os and failed with Missing script: "build"; this is a known issue recorded by the user and is not a Plan content defect.
  • Phase-start commit created: aa3487c (Start Knowledge Consistency Plan Eval) and pushed to dev.

Next Step

Project Thinker should revise Knowledge_Consistency_Plan.md to resolve E1-E8, then return for Plan_Eval re-evaluation. No human decision is required at this stage because the findings are mechanical coverage, ordering, and task-quality defects with clear Spec-based corrections.