# 🔎 Cross Code Review — Job f8ded7fe

- **Reviewer**: cline (session: herdr:reviewer-cline-01)
- **Job ID**: `f8ded7fe`
- **Subject**: Architecture Debate & Consensus Report — Orthogonal vs. Coupled CLI Design for `multi-agent-mux-loop` (ANALYSIS ONLY — no production code touched)
- **Primary artifact under review**: `.agents/reports/cli_redesign_debate_consensus.md` (new untracked file, 97 lines, job `53ff6303`, author `creator-agy-01`)
- **Cumulative change set**: `git status` → 4 untracked `.md` files (no tracked files modified, no production code touched):
  - `?? .agents/reports/cli_redesign_debate_consensus.md` (97 lines — **NEW, primary artifact**)
  - `?? .agents/reports/cli_redesign_opinion.md` (232 lines — original CLI redesign proposal, reviewed by me in job `75c06a1e`)
  - `?? .agents/reports/planner-reviewer-claude-01/report-10a3201c.md` (37 lines — Claude's review)
  - `?? .agents/reports/reviewer-cline-01/report-75c06a1e.md` (126 lines — my prior review)
- **Mode**: ANALYSIS-ONLY per brief — production files must NOT be modified; this review judges the consensus document and the cumulative doc set, not applied code.

---

## 1. Scope, Methodology & Verification Performed

### 1.1 What was checked
| Axis | Status | Note |
|---|---|---|
| **Lint** | N/A (trivially clean) | All 4 artifacts are Markdown prose + illustrative bash/text blocks; no production shell/Python changed. Markdown well-formed (headings, tables, fenced code all valid). No lint tool applies to untracked `.md` proposals. |
| **Operability** | No runtime impact | Zero production code modified → system behavior unchanged. Findings below are *consensus-document-completeness* advisories for a future Creator, NOT live breakage. |
| **Loss** | None | No existing functionality removed or weakened at the repo level (nothing applied). |

### 1.2 Evidence gathered
- Read full consensus document (`cli_redesign_debate_consensus.md`, 97 lines) from disk.
- Read all 3 supporting documents in the cumulative change set from disk.
- Read actual `run_loop.sh`: parser (lines 40–88), B-13 freeze + `log_*` definitions (85–160), `resolve_planner_session` + TARGET/planner validation (295–370), `--reviewer`/`--all-reviewer` interaction (170–185).
- Cross-checked consensus claims against the actual codebase and against the referenced reviewer reports.
- Confirmed `git status` shows only 4 untracked `.md` files; no tracked files modified.

---

## 2. Findings

Severity legend: 🔴 MEDIUM (must address before/at implementation) · 🟡 LOW (advisory/accuracy).

### 🟡 F1 — Cross-document inconsistency: opinion says Coupled, consensus says Orthogonal — both coexist with no supersession note
The original opinion document (`.agents/reports/cli_redesign_opinion.md`, Edge Case 3.2) specifies:
> Passing `--planner my-planner --creator my-creator --task "..."` → "Automatically set `PLAN_MODE=true` and `PLANNER_SESSION="my-planner"`." — **Coupled (implicit activation)**.

The consensus document (Section 4.1, Rule 3) specifies the **opposite**:
> If `--planner <name>` is passed **without** `--plan` → **Fail-fast with exit code 1**. — **Orthogonal (explicit)**.

Both files coexist in the working tree as untracked documents. A future Creator reading both would face **contradictory guidance** for the exact same scenario (`--planner` without `--plan`). The consensus document does not state that it supersedes the opinion's Edge Case 3.2, and the opinion document is not annotated as partially superseded. **Fix:** add a one-line note to the consensus (e.g., "Section 4 supersedes Edge Case 3.2 of `cli_redesign_opinion.md`") or annotate the opinion document.

### 🟡 F2 — Consensus does not carry forward F4/F5 from the prior Cline review (reviewer-tier findings)
My prior review (job `75c06a1e`, report `report-75c06a1e.md`) found:
- **F4**: The opinion's "100% backward-compatible" claim is an overclaim (`--reviewer` changes from last-value-overwrite to append-on-repeat).
- **F5**: The `--reviewer` + `--all-reviewer` interaction is omitted from the opinion's edge-case list.

The consensus document focuses on the `--plan`/`--planner` orthogonality debate and does not address these reviewer-tier findings. This is within the consensus's scope (it was a focused debate, not a comprehensive implementation spec), but a Creator implementing from this consensus would **still need to address F4/F5** from the opinion document. The consensus should note this carry-forward obligation (e.g., "Reviewer-tier findings F4/F5 from `report-75c06a1e.md` remain open and must be addressed at implementation time").

### 🟡 F3 — Consensus provides specification rules but no concrete implementation blueprint
The opinion document (Section 4) contains actual bash code for the parser — a Creator can copy-paste and modify. The consensus document (Section 4.1) provides specification rules and an error message template, but **no parser code**. A Creator would need to **combine** the consensus's orthogonal spec rules with the opinion's Section 4 blueprint, specifically:
- Remove `PLAN_MODE=true` from the `--planner)` case (the opinion's blueprint has `PLAN_MODE=true; PLANNER_SESSION_OVERRIDE="$2"; shift 2` — the consensus requires only `PLANNER_SESSION_OVERRIDE="$2"; shift 2`).
- Add a post-parser (pre-freeze) check: `if [ -n "$PLANNER_SESSION_OVERRIDE" ] && [ "$PLAN_MODE" = false ]; then echo "ERROR: --planner was specified without --plan."; exit 1; fi`.

The consensus should note that its spec rules require modifications to the opinion's blueprint, so a Creator doesn't implement the (now-superseded) coupled blueprint by mistake.

### 🟡 F4 — Section 3.2 underrepresents Claude's actual position (Claude explicitly endorsed Coupled, not neutral)
The consensus (Section 3.2) summarizes Claude's perspective as:
> "Endorsed role symmetry. Acknowledged that user intent is rarely to specify a planner session and not execute planning, but emphasized that conflicting states must be prevented."

However, Claude's actual report (`report-10a3201c.md`, Section 2.1 and Section 3.2) **explicitly recommends the Coupled (implicit) design**:
> "`--planner <name>`: Explicitly binds the Planner session and **implicitly sets `PLAN_MODE=true`**."
> "Providing `--planner <session>` should **automatically set `PLAN_MODE=true`**, but passing `--planner <session>` while simultaneously passing a hypothetical `--no-plan` should be rejected as contradictory."

The consensus adopted the **Orthogonal** design (the opposite of Claude's recommendation), but Section 3.2's summary makes Claude sound neutral/aligned rather than noting that Claude explicitly recommended the approach the consensus ultimately **rejected**. This matters for debate traceability — a reader should understand that the consensus moved *away from* Claude's initial position *toward* Grok's position. **Fix:** add a note like "Claude initially favored the coupled (implicit) approach; the consensus adopted Grok's orthogonal approach with fail-safe validation to address the UX concern Claude raised."

### Minor / non-issues (noted for completeness)
- **`--plan-talk` without `--plan` warns, doesn't fail-fast**: The existing codebase (run_loop.sh:183–184) already has an orthogonality pattern — `--plan-talk` without `--plan` produces `log_warn '--plan-talk was specified but --plan mode is not enabled. Discussion turns will be ignored.'` (warn-only, not fail-fast). The consensus recommends fail-fast for `--planner` without `--plan`. The rationale for the difference is sound (tuning parameter vs session identity — silently ignoring a session binding is dangerous; silently ignoring a tuning param is harmless), but the consensus doesn't explicitly note this distinction. A Creator should document why the two behaviors differ.
- **Claude's report uses "agent-sessions.yaml" (imprecise)**: Claude's report (Section 3.3) says "verify that the specified session exists and has `status: running` in `agent-sessions.yaml`" — the actual mechanism is `load_state_json()` (lib.sh:945 via `env_python`), not a direct yaml scan. This is the same imprecision I noted as F6 in my prior review of the opinion document. The consensus correctly uses `load_state_json` (Section 4.1 Rule 1), so the consensus itself is accurate. Not a finding against the consensus.
- **Markdown formatting**: All 4 documents are well-formed Markdown (headings, tables, fenced code blocks). No structural issues. ✓
- **No name collisions or phantom flags**: The consensus references only flags that exist or are proposed (`--plan`, `--planner`, `--creator`, `--target-agent`, `--reviewer`, `--all-reviewer`, `--task`). ✓

---

## 3. What the Consensus Gets Right
- **Architecturally sound recommendation.** The "Orthogonal with Fail-Safe Validation" model is a well-reasoned synthesis — it adopts Grok's orthogonality principle (no hidden side-effects) while adding a fail-fast guard that addresses the UX safety concern (preventing accidental omission). The fail-fast error message (Section 4.1 Rule 3) is clear, actionable, and includes a corrected invocation example.
- **Accurately carries forward F1/F2/F3 from my prior review.** Section 3.3 correctly summarizes the three implementation realities: (a) input validation guards must be preserved, (b) B-13 freeze ordering means pre-freeze errors must use `echo`, (c) planner session validation must be post-freeze. ✓
- **Correctly fixes F6 from my prior review.** Section 4.1 Rule 1 correctly references `load_state_json` and `resolve_planner_session` (not "yaml scan"). ✓
- **Trade-off table (Section 2) is balanced and accurate.** Both the Coupled and Orthogonal columns present legitimate strengths/weaknesses without strawmanning either side.
- **Summary Matrix (Section 5) is internally consistent.** All 6 rows correctly reflect the specification rules in Section 4.1. The "Misconfiguration Guard" row (`--planner p1` without `--plan` → fail-fast) correctly implements the orthogonal principle.
- **Existing codebase supports the orthogonality direction.** The `--plan-talk` without `--plan` warning (run_loop.sh:183–184) and the `--reviewer`/`--all-reviewer` warn-and-precedence (run_loop.sh:179–181) already follow a pattern of separating switches from identity flags. The consensus extends this existing pattern.
- **ANALYSIS-ONLY constraint honored.** `git status` confirms only 4 untracked `.md` files; zero production code touched. ✓

---

## 4. Cross-Axis Summary
| Axis | Result |
|---|---|
| Lint | N/A — all 4 artifacts are doc-only Markdown; well-formed; no production code linted. |
| Operability | **No runtime impact** — zero production code changed. The 🟡 findings are consensus-document-completeness advisories for a future Creator, not live breakage. |
| Loss | **None** — no existing functionality removed or weakened at the repo level. |
| Spec/Doc integrity | Consensus is internally consistent and architecturally sound. 🟡 F1 (cross-doc inconsistency with opinion) and 🟡 F4 (Claude position underrepresentation) are the notable accuracy gaps. |

---

## 5. Recommendation
The consensus document is a **sound, non-mutating architectural recommendation** and is acceptable as the basis for a future implementation cycle. None of the findings require design-level rework or replanning — every 🟡 item is an advisory refinement:
- F1 → add a supersession note (consensus supersedes opinion's Edge Case 3.2).
- F2 → note that F4/F5 from `report-75c06a1e.md` remain open for implementation.
- F3 → note that the opinion's Section 4 blueprint must be modified for the orthogonal design (remove `PLAN_MODE=true` from `--planner` case; add pre-freeze fail-fast check).
- F4 → correct Section 3.2 to note Claude explicitly endorsed the Coupled approach, which the consensus moved away from.

Because this is analysis-only and the repository is not affected, there is nothing to break and no replanning is warranted.

[VERDICT: PASS]
