{"type":"session","version":3,"id":"019f2d08-6d49-79cc-85e2-89b3f5960c34","timestamp":"2026-07-04T12:09:14.825Z","cwd":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/agents"}
{"type":"model_change","id":"ed66d302","parentId":null,"timestamp":"2026-07-04T12:09:17.350Z","provider":"ollama","modelId":"minimax-m3:cloud"}
{"type":"thinking_level_change","id":"783781d9","parentId":"ed66d302","timestamp":"2026-07-04T12:09:17.350Z","thinkingLevel":"medium"}
{"type":"custom_message","customType":"subagent-slash-result","content":"\"what can you plan ?\"","display":true,"details":{"requestId":"32dc835d-3202-4b8e-8656-cbaa558a4ceb","result":{"content":[{"type":"text","text":"\"what can you plan ?\""}],"details":{"mode":"single","results":[{"agent":"ollama-planner","task":"\"what can you plan ?\"","exitCode":0,"messages":[],"usage":{"input":0,"output":0,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"cost":0,"turns":0},"progress":{"agent":"ollama-planner","status":"running","task":"\"what can you plan ?\"","recentTools":[],"recentOutput":[],"toolCount":0,"tokens":0,"durationMs":0}}],"progress":[{"agent":"ollama-planner","status":"running","task":"\"what can you plan ?\"","recentTools":[],"recentOutput":[],"toolCount":0,"tokens":0,"durationMs":0}]}}},"id":"99c89ab4","parentId":"783781d9","timestamp":"2026-07-04T12:09:45.640Z"}
{"type":"custom_message","customType":"subagent-slash-result","content":"## Subagent result\n\n# Implementation Plan\n\n## Goal\nAnswer the meta-question \"what can you plan?\" by documenting the concrete scope of this `ollama-planner` subagent — what kinds of tasks I can produce an ordered, file-level implementation plan for, and where my scope ends. No code changes are produced; this document is the deliverable.\n\n## Tasks\nThis is a meta-question, not a code change request. The \"plan\" here is the capability description itself. I do not dispatch follow-up coding tasks; the parent may use this to decide whether to delegate a real planning job to me.\n\n1. **Task 1 — Read context (already done)**\n   - File: `/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/agents/ollama-planner.md`\n   - Changes: read my own role definition to ground the answer in my actual system prompt\n   - Acceptance: confirmed I am a read-only planner paired with `ollama-coder`\n2. **Task 2 — Write capability summary to the required artifact path**\n   - File: `/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/agents/.pi-subagents/artifacts/outputs/4059014e/plan.md`\n   - Changes: produce this document\n   - Acceptance: file written, addresses the question concretely\n\n## Files to Modify\n- None. This run is read-only and produces a single artifact.\n\n## New Files\n- `agents/.pi-subagents/artifacts/outputs/4059014e/plan.md` — this capability summary (the deliverable)\n\n## Dependencies\n- None. No follow-up `ollama-coder` dispatch is appropriate for a meta-question.\n\n## Risks\n- Risk: user expected a code plan for some unstated real task. Mitigation: the \"Open Questions\" section asks the parent to confirm whether they want a real plan for a concrete task.\n- Risk: scope is misstated. Mitigation: I derived the scope from the role prompt and the available toolset, not from general assistant claims.\n\n## What I can plan (in-scope)\nConcrete software-engineering deliverables where I can produce a file-level, ordered plan that `ollama-coder` can execute without re-deriving intent:\n\n1. **Feature implementation** — new endpoints, UI panels, CLI flags, integrations. I name files, exact changes, and per-task acceptance checks.\n2. **Refactors** — extract module/class, rename, restructure a directory tree, decouple a dependency, move code across a package boundary.\n3. **Bug fixes with multi-file surface** — when the cause spans 2+ files, I plan the diagnostic + fix + regression test as ordered steps.\n4. **Migrations** — framework upgrades (e.g. React 18→19, Node 18→20), database schema migrations, codemod rollouts, lockfile/dep upgrades with breaking changes.\n5. **Test strategy and scaffolding** — which test files to add, which existing tests to update, fixtures, mocks, and what command to run for verification.\n6. **API design and contract changes** — request/response shape changes, version bumps, deprecation policy, and the diff plan across producer + consumers.\n7. **Build / CI / DevEx changes** — pipeline edits, new GitHub Actions, monorepo scripts, pre-commit hooks, dev-container / Nix changes.\n8. **Documentation and migration notes** — when paired with code changes, I can plan the README/changelog/runbook updates that must ship alongside.\n9. **Cross-cutting concerns as plans, not edits** — auth/authorization model, error-handling strategy, logging/observability rollout, feature-flag introduction.\n10. **Greenfield project bootstrap** — directory layout, package manifests, minimal entry points, for a stated stack.\n\nFor every plan I produce:\n- One ordered task list with file path, exact change, and a one-line acceptance check per task.\n- A \"Files to Modify\" / \"New Files\" inventory.\n- A \"Dependencies\" section so ordering is unambiguous.\n- A \"Risks\" section with mitigations.\n- A \"Validation Contract\" naming the commands/tests the coder must run and the evidence to return.\n\n## Out-of-scope (I will refuse or escalate, not invent)\n- **Non-software deliverables** — business strategy, legal text, marketing copy, life decisions. If asked, I'll say so and ask the parent to re-route.\n- **Destructive operations without explicit confirmation** — `git push --force`, deleting branches, wiping data, dropping tables. I'll surface these as risks and ask before planning execution.\n- **Tasks requiring capabilities I don't have** — I cannot run code, install packages, hit the network, or open PRs. I can plan those actions; I cannot perform them.\n- **Ambiguous requirements** — instead of guessing, I write an \"Open Questions\" section and stop, so the parent can ask the user.\n\n## How to brief me for best results\nTo get a tight, executable plan, give me any subset of:\n- **Goal**: one-sentence outcome.\n- **Code pointers**: file paths, line ranges, relevant symbols, or a tree of the affected area.\n- **Constraints**: framework version, must-keep APIs, performance budget, backwards-compat requirements.\n- **Definition of done**: tests that must pass, commands the coder should run, or a user-visible behavior that must hold.\n- **Screenshots / diagrams**: I can read images and reference what I see, so a mockup or architecture sketch is useful UI input.\n\nIf you give me only a goal, I'll explore the codebase, list the files I would need to read, and either produce a plan with explicit \"Open Questions\" or ask the parent for the missing context.\n\n## Format of what I produce\nSingle `plan.md` (or a path you specify) with these sections, in this order:\n`# Implementation Plan` → `## Goal` → `## Tasks` (numbered, file-scoped) → `## Files to Modify` → `## New Files` → `## Dependencies` → `## Risks` → `## Open Questions` → `## Validation Contract`.\n\nThe Validation Contract is the part the coder must satisfy before reporting done; it lists the commands, tests, and the evidence (changed files, command output, screenshots) they should return.\n\n## Open Questions\n1. Did you want a real plan for a specific task, or were you probing what I cover? If the former, please state the goal + the codebase or repo so I can explore and plan.\n2. Is there a stack/language/framework you want me to bias toward? (I am language-agnostic; explicit constraints produce tighter plans.)\n\n## Validation Contract\n- **Behavior that must hold**: this `plan.md` exists at the required path, accurately describes my planning scope grounded in the `ollama-planner.md` role prompt, and ends with a structured acceptance report.\n- **Tests / commands the coder would run**: not applicable — no code is produced in this run.\n- **Evidence the coder should return**: the path of this file and a one-line confirmation that the content addresses the question.\n\n---\n*No code was changed. No follow-up `ollama-coder` task was dispatched. This artifact is the deliverable.*\n\nOutput saved to: /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/agents/.pi-subagents/artifacts/outputs/4059014e/plan.md (6.5 KB, 84 lines). Read this file if needed.\n\n## Child session exports\n\n- `/home/liph/.pi/agent/sessions/--home-liph-dotfiles-pi-.pi-agent-agents--/2026-07-04T12-09-45-672Z_019f2d08-e5c8-7bea-86a1-a07081da6bbd.jsonl`\n\n## Saved outputs\n\n- `/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/agents/.pi-subagents/artifacts/outputs/4059014e/plan.md`\n\n## Artifact outputs\n\n- `/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/agents/.pi-subagents/artifacts/4059014e_ollama-planner_0_output.md`","display":false,"details":{"requestId":"32dc835d-3202-4b8e-8656-cbaa558a4ceb","result":{"content":[{"type":"text","text":"# Implementation Plan\n\n## Goal\nAnswer the meta-question \"what can you plan?\" by documenting the concrete scope of this `ollama-planner` subagent — what kinds of tasks I can produce an ordered, file-level implementation plan for, and where my scope ends. No code changes are produced; this document is the deliverable.\n\n## Tasks\nThis is a meta-question, not a code change request. The \"plan\" here is the capability description itself. I do not dispatch follow-up coding tasks; the parent may use this to decide whether to delegate a real planning job to me.\n\n1. **Task 1 — Read context (already done)**\n   - File: `/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/agents/ollama-planner.md`\n   - Changes: read my own role definition to ground the answer in my actual system prompt\n   - Acceptance: confirmed I am a read-only planner paired with `ollama-coder`\n2. **Task 2 — Write capability summary to the required artifact path**\n   - File: `/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/agents/.pi-subagents/artifacts/outputs/4059014e/plan.md`\n   - Changes: produce this document\n   - Acceptance: file written, addresses the question concretely\n\n## Files to Modify\n- None. This run is read-only and produces a single artifact.\n\n## New Files\n- `agents/.pi-subagents/artifacts/outputs/4059014e/plan.md` — this capability summary (the deliverable)\n\n## Dependencies\n- None. No follow-up `ollama-coder` dispatch is appropriate for a meta-question.\n\n## Risks\n- Risk: user expected a code plan for some unstated real task. Mitigation: the \"Open Questions\" section asks the parent to confirm whether they want a real plan for a concrete task.\n- Risk: scope is misstated. Mitigation: I derived the scope from the role prompt and the available toolset, not from general assistant claims.\n\n## What I can plan (in-scope)\nConcrete software-engineering deliverables where I can produce a file-level, ordered plan that `ollama-coder` can execute without re-deriving intent:\n\n1. **Feature implementation** — new endpoints, UI panels, CLI flags, integrations. I name files, exact changes, and per-task acceptance checks.\n2. **Refactors** — extract module/class, rename, restructure a directory tree, decouple a dependency, move code across a package boundary.\n3. **Bug fixes with multi-file surface** — when the cause spans 2+ files, I plan the diagnostic + fix + regression test as ordered steps.\n4. **Migrations** — framework upgrades (e.g. React 18→19, Node 18→20), database schema migrations, codemod rollouts, lockfile/dep upgrades with breaking changes.\n5. **Test strategy and scaffolding** — which test files to add, which existing tests to update, fixtures, mocks, and what command to run for verification.\n6. **API design and contract changes** — request/response shape changes, version bumps, deprecation policy, and the diff plan across producer + consumers.\n7. **Build / CI / DevEx changes** — pipeline edits, new GitHub Actions, monorepo scripts, pre-commit hooks, dev-container / Nix changes.\n8. **Documentation and migration notes** — when paired with code changes, I can plan the README/changelog/runbook updates that must ship alongside.\n9. **Cross-cutting concerns as plans, not edits** — auth/authorization model, error-handling strategy, logging/observability rollout, feature-flag introduction.\n10. **Greenfield project bootstrap** — directory layout, package manifests, minimal entry points, for a stated stack.\n\nFor every plan I produce:\n- One ordered task list with file path, exact change, and a one-line acceptance check per task.\n- A \"Files to Modify\" / \"New Files\" inventory.\n- A \"Dependencies\" section so ordering is unambiguous.\n- A \"Risks\" section with mitigations.\n- A \"Validation Contract\" naming the commands/tests the coder must run and the evidence to return.\n\n## Out-of-scope (I will refuse or escalate, not invent)\n- **Non-software deliverables** — business strategy, legal text, marketing copy, life decisions. If asked, I'll say so and ask the parent to re-route.\n- **Destructive operations without explicit confirmation** — `git push --force`, deleting branches, wiping data, dropping tables. I'll surface these as risks and ask before planning execution.\n- **Tasks requiring capabilities I don't have** — I cannot run code, install packages, hit the network, or open PRs. I can plan those actions; I cannot perform them.\n- **Ambiguous requirements** — instead of guessing, I write an \"Open Questions\" section and stop, so the parent can ask the user.\n\n## How to brief me for best results\nTo get a tight, executable plan, give me any subset of:\n- **Goal**: one-sentence outcome.\n- **Code pointers**: file paths, line ranges, relevant symbols, or a tree of the affected area.\n- **Constraints**: framework version, must-keep APIs, performance budget, backwards-compat requirements.\n- **Definition of done**: tests that must pass, commands the coder should run, or a user-visible behavior that must hold.\n- **Screenshots / diagrams**: I can read images and reference what I see, so a mockup or architecture sketch is useful UI input.\n\nIf you give me only a goal, I'll explore the codebase, list the files I would need to read, and either produce a plan with explicit \"Open Questions\" or ask the parent for the missing context.\n\n## Format of what I produce\nSingle `plan.md` (or a path you specify) with these sections, in this order:\n`# Implementation Plan` → `## Goal` → `## Tasks` (numbered, file-scoped) → `## Files to Modify` → `## New Files` → `## Dependencies` → `## Risks` → `## Open Questions` → `## Validation Contract`.\n\nThe Validation Contract is the part the coder must satisfy before reporting done; it lists the commands, tests, and the evidence (changed files, command output, screenshots) they should return.\n\n## Open Questions\n1. Did you want a real plan for a specific task, or were you probing what I cover? If the former, please state the goal + the codebase or repo so I can explore and plan.\n2. Is there a stack/language/framework you want me to bias toward? (I am language-agnostic; explicit constraints produce tighter plans.)\n\n## Validation Contract\n- **Behavior that must hold**: this `plan.md` exists at the required path, accurately describes my planning scope grounded in the `ollama-planner.md` role prompt, and ends with a structured acceptance report.\n- **Tests / commands the coder would run**: not applicable — no code is produced in this run.\n- **Evidence the coder should return**: the path of this file and a one-line confirmation that the content addresses the question.\n\n---\n*No code was changed. No follow-up `ollama-coder` task was dispatched. This artifact is the deliverable.*\n\nOutput saved to: /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/agents/.pi-subagents/artifacts/outputs/4059014e/plan.md (6.5 KB, 84 lines). Read this file if needed."}],"details":{"mode":"single","runId":"4059014e","results":[{"agent":"ollama-planner","task":"You are a delegated subagent running from a fork of the parent session. Treat the inherited conversation as reference-only context, not a live thread to continue. Do not continue or answer prior messages as if they are waiting for a reply. Your sole job is to execute the task below and return a focused result for that task using your tools.\n\nTask:\n\"what can you plan ?\"\n\n---\n**Output:**\nWrite your findings to exactly this path: /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/agents/.pi-subagents/artifacts/outputs/4059014e/plan.md\nThis path is authoritative for this run.\nIgnore any other output filename or output path mentioned elsewhere, including output destinations in the base agent prompt, system prompt, or task instructions.","exitCode":0,"usage":{"input":15536,"output":3530,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"cost":0,"turns":3},"model":"ollama/minimax-m3:cloud:high","artifactPaths":{"inputPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/agents/.pi-subagents/artifacts/4059014e_ollama-planner_0_input.md","outputPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/agents/.pi-subagents/artifacts/4059014e_ollama-planner_0_output.md","jsonlPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/agents/.pi-subagents/artifacts/4059014e_ollama-planner_0.jsonl","transcriptPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/agents/.pi-subagents/artifacts/4059014e_ollama-planner_0_transcript.jsonl","metadataPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/agents/.pi-subagents/artifacts/4059014e_ollama-planner_0_meta.json"},"transcriptPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/agents/.pi-subagents/artifacts/4059014e_ollama-planner_0_transcript.jsonl","progressSummary":{"toolCount":2,"tokens":19066,"durationMs":45809},"savedOutputPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/agents/.pi-subagents/artifacts/outputs/4059014e/plan.md","outputReference":{"path":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/agents/.pi-subagents/artifacts/outputs/4059014e/plan.md","bytes":6668,"lines":84,"message":"Output saved to: /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/agents/.pi-subagents/artifacts/outputs/4059014e/plan.md (6.5 KB, 84 lines). Read this file if needed."},"outputMode":"inline","finalOutput":"# Implementation Plan\n\n## Goal\nAnswer the meta-question \"what can you plan?\" by documenting the concrete scope of this `ollama-planner` subagent — what kinds of tasks I can produce an ordered, file-level implementation plan for, and where my scope ends. No code changes are produced; this document is the deliverable.\n\n## Tasks\nThis is a meta-question, not a code change request. The \"plan\" here is the capability description itself. I do not dispatch follow-up coding tasks; the parent may use this to decide whether to delegate a real planning job to me.\n\n1. **Task 1 — Read context (already done)**\n   - File: `/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/agents/ollama-planner.md`\n   - Changes: read my own role definition to ground the answer in my actual system prompt\n   - Acceptance: confirmed I am a read-only planner paired with `ollama-coder`\n2. **Task 2 — Write capability summary to the required artifact path**\n   - File: `/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/agents/.pi-subagents/artifacts/outputs/4059014e/plan.md`\n   - Changes: produce this document\n   - Acceptance: file written, addresses the question concretely\n\n## Files to Modify\n- None. This run is read-only and produces a single artifact.\n\n## New Files\n- `agents/.pi-subagents/artifacts/outputs/4059014e/plan.md` — this capability summary (the deliverable)\n\n## Dependencies\n- None. No follow-up `ollama-coder` dispatch is appropriate for a meta-question.\n\n## Risks\n- Risk: user expected a code plan for some unstated real task. Mitigation: the \"Open Questions\" section asks the parent to confirm whether they want a real plan for a concrete task.\n- Risk: scope is misstated. Mitigation: I derived the scope from the role prompt and the available toolset, not from general assistant claims.\n\n## What I can plan (in-scope)\nConcrete software-engineering deliverables where I can produce a file-level, ordered plan that `ollama-coder` can execute without re-deriving intent:\n\n1. **Feature implementation** — new endpoints, UI panels, CLI flags, integrations. I name files, exact changes, and per-task acceptance checks.\n2. **Refactors** — extract module/class, rename, restructure a directory tree, decouple a dependency, move code across a package boundary.\n3. **Bug fixes with multi-file surface** — when the cause spans 2+ files, I plan the diagnostic + fix + regression test as ordered steps.\n4. **Migrations** — framework upgrades (e.g. React 18→19, Node 18→20), database schema migrations, codemod rollouts, lockfile/dep upgrades with breaking changes.\n5. **Test strategy and scaffolding** — which test files to add, which existing tests to update, fixtures, mocks, and what command to run for verification.\n6. **API design and contract changes** — request/response shape changes, version bumps, deprecation policy, and the diff plan across producer + consumers.\n7. **Build / CI / DevEx changes** — pipeline edits, new GitHub Actions, monorepo scripts, pre-commit hooks, dev-container / Nix changes.\n8. **Documentation and migration notes** — when paired with code changes, I can plan the README/changelog/runbook updates that must ship alongside.\n9. **Cross-cutting concerns as plans, not edits** — auth/authorization model, error-handling strategy, logging/observability rollout, feature-flag introduction.\n10. **Greenfield project bootstrap** — directory layout, package manifests, minimal entry points, for a stated stack.\n\nFor every plan I produce:\n- One ordered task list with file path, exact change, and a one-line acceptance check per task.\n- A \"Files to Modify\" / \"New Files\" inventory.\n- A \"Dependencies\" section so ordering is unambiguous.\n- A \"Risks\" section with mitigations.\n- A \"Validation Contract\" naming the commands/tests the coder must run and the evidence to return.\n\n## Out-of-scope (I will refuse or escalate, not invent)\n- **Non-software deliverables** — business strategy, legal text, marketing copy, life decisions. If asked, I'll say so and ask the parent to re-route.\n- **Destructive operations without explicit confirmation** — `git push --force`, deleting branches, wiping data, dropping tables. I'll surface these as risks and ask before planning execution.\n- **Tasks requiring capabilities I don't have** — I cannot run code, install packages, hit the network, or open PRs. I can plan those actions; I cannot perform them.\n- **Ambiguous requirements** — instead of guessing, I write an \"Open Questions\" section and stop, so the parent can ask the user.\n\n## How to brief me for best results\nTo get a tight, executable plan, give me any subset of:\n- **Goal**: one-sentence outcome.\n- **Code pointers**: file paths, line ranges, relevant symbols, or a tree of the affected area.\n- **Constraints**: framework version, must-keep APIs, performance budget, backwards-compat requirements.\n- **Definition of done**: tests that must pass, commands the coder should run, or a user-visible behavior that must hold.\n- **Screenshots / diagrams**: I can read images and reference what I see, so a mockup or architecture sketch is useful UI input.\n\nIf you give me only a goal, I'll explore the codebase, list the files I would need to read, and either produce a plan with explicit \"Open Questions\" or ask the parent for the missing context.\n\n## Format of what I produce\nSingle `plan.md` (or a path you specify) with these sections, in this order:\n`# Implementation Plan` → `## Goal` → `## Tasks` (numbered, file-scoped) → `## Files to Modify` → `## New Files` → `## Dependencies` → `## Risks` → `## Open Questions` → `## Validation Contract`.\n\nThe Validation Contract is the part the coder must satisfy before reporting done; it lists the commands, tests, and the evidence (changed files, command output, screenshots) they should return.\n\n## Open Questions\n1. Did you want a real plan for a specific task, or were you probing what I cover? If the former, please state the goal + the codebase or repo so I can explore and plan.\n2. Is there a stack/language/framework you want me to bias toward? (I am language-agnostic; explicit constraints produce tighter plans.)\n\n## Validation Contract\n- **Behavior that must hold**: this `plan.md` exists at the required path, accurately describes my planning scope grounded in the `ollama-planner.md` role prompt, and ends with a structured acceptance report.\n- **Tests / commands the coder would run**: not applicable — no code is produced in this run.\n- **Evidence the coder should return**: the path of this file and a one-line confirmation that the content addresses the question.\n\n---\n*No code was changed. No follow-up `ollama-coder` task was dispatched. This artifact is the deliverable.*","attemptedModels":["ollama/minimax-m3:cloud:high"],"modelAttempts":[{"model":"ollama/minimax-m3:cloud:high","success":true,"exitCode":0,"usage":{"input":15536,"output":3530,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"cost":0,"turns":3}}],"sessionFile":"/home/liph/.pi/agent/sessions/--home-liph-dotfiles-pi-.pi-agent-agents--/2026-07-04T12-09-45-672Z_019f2d08-e5c8-7bea-86a1-a07081da6bbd.jsonl","acceptance":{"status":"rejected","explicit":false,"effectiveAcceptance":{"level":"checked","explicit":false,"inferredReason":["write-capable worker/task"],"criteria":[{"id":"criterion-1","must":"Implement the requested change without widening scope","evidence":["changed-files","tests-added","commands-run","residual-risks","no-staged-files"],"severity":"required"}],"evidence":["changed-files","tests-added","commands-run","residual-risks","no-staged-files"],"verify":[],"stopRules":[]},"inferredReason":["write-capable worker/task"],"criteria":[{"id":"criterion-1","must":"Implement the requested change without widening scope","evidence":["changed-files","tests-added","commands-run","residual-risks","no-staged-files"],"severity":"required"}],"runtimeChecks":[{"id":"criterion:criterion-1","status":"passed","message":"Required criterion 'criterion-1' satisfied."},{"id":"evidence:changed-files","status":"passed","message":"changed-files evidence present."},{"id":"evidence:tests-added","status":"failed","message":"tests-added evidence missing from child report."},{"id":"evidence:commands-run","status":"passed","message":"commands-run evidence present."},{"id":"evidence:residual-risks","status":"passed","message":"residual-risks evidence present."},{"id":"evidence:no-staged-files","status":"passed","message":"no-staged-files evidence present."},{"id":"no-staged-files","status":"passed","message":"No staged files detected."}],"verifyRuns":[],"childReport":{"criteriaSatisfied":[{"id":"criterion-1","status":"satisfied","evidence":"Answered the meta-question 'what can you plan?' with a capability brief written to the required artifact path. No source files were modified; no follow-up coding task was dispatched. The response describes concrete in-scope categories (feature impl, refactors, multi-file bug fixes, migrations, test strategy, API changes, build/CI, docs, cross-cutting concerns, greenfield bootstrap), the exact plan format the paired ollama-coder expects, the out-of-scope items I refuse or escalate, and the inputs I need for a tighter plan. Scope was grounded in the ollama-planner.md role prompt rather than general assistant claims."}],"changedFiles":["/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/agents/.pi-subagents/artifacts/outputs/4059014e/plan.md"],"testsAddedOrUpdated":[],"commandsRun":[{"command":"ls /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/agents (read-only directory listing to confirm role files exist before writing the artifact)","result":"passed","summary":"Confirmed ollama-planner.md, ollama-coder.md, ollama-researcher.md, ollama-reviewer.md are present in the agents directory."}],"validationOutput":["Artifact written: /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/agents/.pi-subagents/artifacts/outputs/4059014e/plan.md (6611 bytes).","Scope claim grounded in /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/agents/ollama-planner.md (read-only planner paired with ollama-coder, writes plan.md only)."],"residualRisks":["User may have intended a real plan for a specific unstated task; Open Questions section asks the parent to confirm.","Scope description is prose-only; if the user wants machine-checkable capabilities, follow-up would need a contract test, but that is out of scope for a meta-question."],"noStagedFiles":true,"diffSummary":"Created one new artifact file (.pi-subagents/artifacts/outputs/4059014e/plan.md) describing ollama-planner's planning capabilities; no source files touched.","reviewFindings":["no blockers: response is a self-contained capability brief, not a code plan, and explicitly states that no follow-up coder task was dispatched.","minor: Open Questions flags the ambiguity of whether the user wanted a real plan; surfaced for the parent rather than guessed."],"manualNotes":"If the parent wants a real implementation plan next, reply with a concrete goal plus the repo/path and I will explore and produce an ordered file-level plan in the same artifact directory (new run id)."}},"toolCalls":[{"text":"ls {\"path\":\"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agen...","expandedText":"ls {\"path\":\"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/agents\",\"limit\":50}"},{"text":"write ~/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/agents/.pi-subagents/artifacts/outputs/4059014e/plan.md","expandedText":"write ~/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/agents/.pi-subagents/artifacts/outputs/4059014e/plan.md"}]}],"artifacts":{"dir":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/agents/.pi-subagents/artifacts","files":[{"inputPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/agents/.pi-subagents/artifacts/4059014e_ollama-planner_0_input.md","outputPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/agents/.pi-subagents/artifacts/4059014e_ollama-planner_0_output.md","jsonlPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/agents/.pi-subagents/artifacts/4059014e_ollama-planner_0.jsonl","transcriptPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/agents/.pi-subagents/artifacts/4059014e_ollama-planner_0_transcript.jsonl","metadataPath":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/agents/.pi-subagents/artifacts/4059014e_ollama-planner_0_meta.json"}]},"totalChildUsage":{"input":15536,"output":3530,"cacheRead":0,"cacheWrite":0,"cost":0,"turns":3},"totalCost":{"inputTokens":15536,"outputTokens":3530,"costUsd":0},"context":"fork"}}},"id":"bf9b5adc","parentId":"99c89ab4","timestamp":"2026-07-04T12:10:32.027Z"}
