customType: subagent-slash-result

content: "what can you plan ?"

type: text

text: "what can you plan ?"

mode: single

agent: ollama-planner

task: "what can you plan ?"

status: running


content:
## Subagent result

# Implementation Plan

## Goal
Answer 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.

## Tasks
This 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.

1. **Task 1 — Read context (already done)**
   - File: `/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/agents/ollama-planner.md`
   - Changes: read my own role definition to ground the answer in my actual system prompt
   - Acceptance: confirmed I am a read-only planner paired with `ollama-coder`
2. **Task 2 — Write capability summary to the required artifact path**
   - File: `/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/agents/.pi-subagents/artifacts/outputs/4059014e/plan.md`
   - Changes: produce this document
   - Acceptance: file written, addresses the question concretely

## Files to Modify
- None. This run is read-only and produces a single artifact.

## New Files
- `agents/.pi-subagents/artifacts/outputs/4059014e/plan.md` — this capability summary (the deliverable)

## Dependencies
- None. No follow-up `ollama-coder` dispatch is appropriate for a meta-question.

## Risks
- 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.
- Risk: scope is misstated. Mitigation: I derived the scope from the role prompt and the available toolset, not from general assistant claims.

## What I can plan (in-scope)
Concrete software-engineering deliverables where I can produce a file-level, ordered plan that `ollama-coder` can execute without re-deriving intent:

1. **Feature implementation** — new endpoints, UI panels, CLI flags, integrations. I name files, exact changes, and per-task acceptance checks.
2. **Refactors** — extract module/class, rename, restructure a directory tree, decouple a dependency, move code across a package boundary.
3. **Bug fixes with multi-file surface** — when the cause spans 2+ files, I plan the diagnostic + fix + regression test as ordered steps.
4. **Migrations** — framework upgrades (e.g. React 18→19, Node 18→20), database schema migrations, codemod rollouts, lockfile/dep upgrades with breaking changes.
5. **Test strategy and scaffolding** — which test files to add, which existing tests to update, fixtures, mocks, and what command to run for verification.
6. **API design and contract changes** — request/response shape changes, version bumps, deprecation policy, and the diff plan across producer + consumers.
7. **Build / CI / DevEx changes** — pipeline edits, new GitHub Actions, monorepo scripts, pre-commit hooks, dev-container / Nix changes.
8. **Documentation and migration notes** — when paired with code changes, I can plan the README/changelog/runbook updates that must ship alongside.
9. **Cross-cutting concerns as plans, not edits** — auth/authorization model, error-handling strategy, logging/observability rollout, feature-flag introduction.
10. **Greenfield project bootstrap** — directory layout, package manifests, minimal entry points, for a stated stack.

For every plan I produce:
- One ordered task list with file path, exact change, and a one-line acceptance check per task.
- A "Files to Modify" / "New Files" inventory.
- A "Dependencies" section so ordering is unambiguous.
- A "Risks" section with mitigations.
- A "Validation Contract" naming the commands/tests the coder must run and the evidence to return.

## Out-of-scope (I will refuse or escalate, not invent)
- **Non-software deliverables** — business strategy, legal text, marketing copy, life decisions. If asked, I'll say so and ask the parent to re-route.
- **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.
- **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.
- **Ambiguous requirements** — instead of guessing, I write an "Open Questions" section and stop, so the parent can ask the user.

## How to brief me for best results
To get a tight, executable plan, give me any subset of:
- **Goal**: one-sentence outcome.
- **Code pointers**: file paths, line ranges, relevant symbols, or a tree of the affected area.
- **Constraints**: framework version, must-keep APIs, performance budget, backwards-compat requirements.
- **Definition of done**: tests that must pass, commands the coder should run, or a user-visible behavior that must hold.
- **Screenshots / diagrams**: I can read images and reference what I see, so a mockup or architecture sketch is useful UI input.

If 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.

## Format of what I produce
Single `plan.md` (or a path you specify) with these sections, in this order:
`# Implementation Plan` → `## Goal` → `## Tasks` (numbered, file-scoped) → `## Files to Modify` → `## New Files` → `## Dependencies` → `## Risks` → `## Open Questions` → `## Validation Contract`.

The 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.

## Open Questions
1. 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.
2. Is there a stack/language/framework you want me to bias toward? (I am language-agnostic; explicit constraints produce tighter plans.)

## Validation Contract
- **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.
- **Tests / commands the coder would run**: not applicable — no code is produced in this run.
- **Evidence the coder should return**: the path of this file and a one-line confirmation that the content addresses the question.

---
*No code was changed. No follow-up `ollama-coder` task was dispatched. This artifact is the deliverable.*

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.

## Child session exports

- `/home/liph/.pi/agent/sessions/--home-liph-dotfiles-pi-.pi-agent-agents--/2026-07-04T12-09-45-672Z_019f2d08-e5c8-7bea-86a1-a07081da6bbd.jsonl`

## Saved outputs

- `/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/agents/.pi-subagents/artifacts/outputs/4059014e/plan.md`

## Artifact outputs

- `/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/agents/.pi-subagents/artifacts/4059014e_ollama-planner_0_output.md`

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.

Task:
"what can you plan ?"

---
**Output:**
Write your findings to exactly this path: /home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/agents/.pi-subagents/artifacts/outputs/4059014e/plan.md
This path is authoritative for this run.
Ignore any other output filename or output path mentioned elsewhere, including output destinations in the base agent prompt, system prompt, or task instructions.

outputMode: inline

status: rejected

level: checked

must: Implement the requested change without widening scope

evidence: changed-files tests-added commands-run residual-risks no-staged-files

severity: required

status: passed

message: Required criterion 'criterion-1' satisfied.

message: changed-files evidence present.

status: failed

message: tests-added evidence missing from child report.

message: commands-run evidence present.

message: residual-risks evidence present.

message: no-staged-files evidence present.

message: No staged files detected.

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.

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).

validationOutput: 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.

residualRisks: 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.

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.

reviewFindings: 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).

text: ls {"path":"/home/liph/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agen...

text: write ~/dotfiles/pi/.pi/agent/agents/.pi-subagents/artifacts/outputs/4059014e/plan.md

context: fork