fix(gateway): A1 review-fixes — re-entry ordering, gate unit-coverage, approach check

Three fixes from the code-quality review of a1009c0:

1. Critical: _pm_sub_tasks_gate ran before _handle_pm_reentry, breaking
   idempotent re-entry for PMs whose containers crashed mid-run. Moved
   the gate to after the re-entry short-circuit so initial-claim is the
   only path that hits the gate.

2. Critical: gate had no direct unit test (the HTTP-layer test mocked
   the choreographer). Added tests/unit/gateway/test_i_will_plan_sub_tasks_gate.py
   with six tests: empty sub_tasks → incomplete_input, missing rich_plan
   → incomplete_input, filled sub_tasks → gate passes, developer with
   empty sub_tasks → gate passes (devs don't decompose), sub_tasks filled
   but approach empty → incomplete_input, in_progress re-entry short-
   circuits before gate even with no sub_tasks.

3. Important: approach was only enforced at the HTTP Pydantic boundary.
   Direct service-layer callers (MCP, test fixtures, orchestrator-
   internal) could persist a plan with no approach. Gate now also checks
   approach >= 20 chars (_PM_APPROACH_MIN_LEN constant) and includes it
   in the rejection's missing list when absent.

Plus: stale docstring on i_will_plan corrected; _handle_pm_reentry
docstring rewritten to lead with the domain reason (re-entry contracts)
not the PLR0911 linter justification; unused pytest import removed from
test_i_will_plan_rich_required.py; pre-existing PLR2004/PLC0415 issues
in that file fixed.

roboco/services/gateway/choreographer/_impl.py

@@ -45,6 +45,10 @@ from roboco.services.gateway.remediation import (
 
 logger = structlog.get_logger()
 
+# Minimum character length enforced on rich_plan["approach"] by the PM sub-tasks
+# gate. Must match the Pydantic min_length on IWillPlanRequest.approach.
+_PM_APPROACH_MIN_LEN = 20
+
 
 def _normalize_sub_task(st: dict[str, Any], order: int) -> dict[str, Any]:
     """Shape a sub_task entry to panel/src/types/index.ts::SubTask."""
@@ -343,16 +347,22 @@ class Choreographer:
         role_str: str,
         briefing: dict[str, Any],
     ) -> Envelope | None:
-        """Handle i_will_plan re-entry cases so the caller stays within PLR0911.
+        """Handle two distinct re-entry contracts for i_will_plan.
 
-        Returns an Envelope for two short-circuit paths:
+        Idempotent heartbeat: the PM already owns the task in in_progress —
-        - Idempotent re-entry: PM already owns the task in in_progress — touch
+        touch the heartbeat and return OK without re-running the spec gate.
-          the heartbeat and return OK without re-running the spec gate.
+        This is the crash-recovery path: a PM container that respawns after a
-        - Recovery re-entry: task stuck in claimed after a crash — skip re-claim
+        mid-run crash re-calls i_will_plan with thin args ("resume") and must
-          (CLAIMED is not a valid source state for claim) and run set_plan+start.
+        receive OK so it can proceed from where it left off.
 
-        Returns None when neither re-entry condition applies, signalling the
+        Crash-recovery claim: task is stuck in claimed after a crash — skip
-        caller should continue to the normal claim-plan-start path.
+        re-claim (claimed is not a valid source for the claim transition) and
+        run set_plan+start to complete the interrupted sequence.
+
+        Returns None when neither condition applies, signalling the caller to
+        continue to the normal claim-plan-start path. PLR0911 budget is the
+        secondary reason this lives in a helper; the domain contract above is
+        the primary one.
         """
         status = str(t.status)
         if status == "in_progress" and t.assigned_to == pm_agent_id:
@@ -380,30 +390,43 @@ class Choreographer:
         task_id: UUID,
         briefing: dict[str, Any],
     ) -> Envelope | None:
-        """Wave A1 gate: PMs must supply at least one sub_task in i_will_plan.
+        """Wave A1 gate: PMs must supply approach (>= 20 chars) and sub_tasks.
 
-        Returns a rejection Envelope when the caller is a PM role and
+        Enforces both fields at the choreographer layer so direct service-layer
-        rich_plan.sub_tasks is absent or empty; returns None to signal
+        callers (MCP server, test fixtures, orchestrator-internal Python) cannot
-        the gate passed and the caller should continue.
+        persist a plan that bypassed the HTTP Pydantic boundary.
+
+        Returns a rejection Envelope when the caller is a PM role and either
+        field is absent/insufficient; returns None to signal the gate passed.
         """
         if role_str not in ("cell_pm", "main_pm"):
             return None
-        if rich_plan and rich_plan.get("sub_tasks"):
+        missing: list[str] = []
+        field_hints: dict[str, str] = {}
+        approach_raw = (rich_plan or {}).get("approach", "")
+        if len(str(approach_raw).strip()) < _PM_APPROACH_MIN_LEN:
+            missing.append("approach")
+            field_hints["approach"] = (
+                "approach must be a non-empty string of at least 20 characters "
+                "describing how the PM will decompose and route this task."
+            )
+        if not (rich_plan and rich_plan.get("sub_tasks")):
+            missing.append("sub_tasks")
+            field_hints["sub_tasks"] = (
+                "PMs must list at least one sub_task — a "
+                "non-empty list of {title, description}. "
+                "Each becomes a delegate target after i_will_plan."
+            )
+        if not missing:
             return None
         return await self._emit_rejection(
             Envelope.incomplete_input(
-                missing=["sub_tasks"],
+                missing=missing,
-                field_hints={
+                field_hints=field_hints,
-                    "sub_tasks": (
-                        "PMs must list at least one sub_task — a "
-                        "non-empty list of {title, description}. "
-                        "Each becomes a delegate target after i_will_plan."
-                    )
-                },
                 remediate=(
                     "re-issue i_will_plan(task_id, plan, approach, "
                     "sub_tasks=[{'title': '...', 'description': '...'}, ...]) "
-                    "with a non-empty sub_tasks list."
+                    "with approach >= 20 chars and a non-empty sub_tasks list."
                 ),
                 context_briefing=briefing,
             ).with_introspection(task=task, role=role_str),
@@ -1952,17 +1975,18 @@ class Choreographer:
         Atomic: spec.can_invoke_intent runs before any state mutation;
         the composed (claim, set_plan, start) sequence is wrapped in a
         savepoint by the runner so a mid-sequence failure rolls back
-        the DB. Idempotent re-entry: a respawned PM re-calling on a
+        the DB.
-        task they already own in claimed/in_progress just refreshes
-        the heartbeat.
 
-        The rich-plan kwargs (``approach``, ``technical_considerations``,
+        PM callers must supply ``approach`` (>= 20 chars) and a non-empty
-        ``risks``, ``open_questions``) populate the panel's Plan tab
+        ``sub_tasks`` list inside ``rich_plan`` — these are enforced in
-        (pre-gateway parity). When any are non-empty/non-default they
+        ``_pm_sub_tasks_gate``. Developer callers may omit ``sub_tasks``
-        are persisted as a structured ``TaskPlan``-shaped dict via
+        (their plan is execution-shaped) but still need ``approach`` via
-        ``TaskService.set_plan``; otherwise ``plan`` is stored as a
+        the HTTP schema layer.
-        narrative string. Empty defaults keep behavior backward-compatible
+
-        for callers that don't pass rich fields.
+        Control flow: re-entry check → if not re-entry → sub_tasks gate
+        → spec gate → claim+plan+start. The re-entry check must come first
+        so a respawned PM calling with thin args ("resume", no sub_tasks)
+        is short-circuited before the gate can reject them.
         """
         t = await self.task.get(task_id)
         if t is None:
@@ -1975,18 +1999,6 @@ class Choreographer:
         agent = await self.task.agent_for(pm_agent_id)
         role_str = str(agent.role) if agent is not None else "cell_pm"
         briefing = await self._briefing_for(pm_agent_id, task_id)
-        # Wave A1 (2026-05-12) — pre-gateway parity for _validate_claimed_start.
-        # PMs decompose; their plan MUST include at least one sub_task. Devs
-        # execute; sub_tasks list can be empty (their plan is execution-shaped).
-        if rejection := await self._pm_sub_tasks_gate(
-            role_str=role_str,
-            rich_plan=rich_plan,
-            task=t,
-            agent_id=pm_agent_id,
-            task_id=task_id,
-            briefing=briefing,
-        ):
-            return rejection
         try:
             role = spec_module.Role(role_str)
         except ValueError:
@@ -2032,12 +2044,24 @@ class Choreographer:
             plan=effective_plan,
             verb_name="i_will_plan",
         )
-        # Re-entry paths (idempotent + recovery) are handled in a shared helper
+        # Re-entry check runs first — a respawned PM with thin args ("resume",
-        # so i_will_plan stays within the PLR0911 return-statement budget.
+        # no sub_tasks) must short-circuit here before the sub_tasks gate.
         if reentry := await self._handle_pm_reentry(
             ctx, t, pm_agent_id, task_id, role_str, briefing
         ):
             return reentry
+        # Gate runs only for initial-claim paths (not re-entry).
+        # PMs decompose; their plan MUST include approach + at least one sub_task.
+        # Devs execute; sub_tasks list can be empty (their plan is execution-shaped).
+        if rejection := await self._pm_sub_tasks_gate(
+            role_str=role_str,
+            rich_plan=rich_plan,
+            task=t,
+            agent_id=pm_agent_id,
+            task_id=task_id,
+            briefing=briefing,
+        ):
+            return rejection
         if rejection := await self._claim_plan_start_gate(ctx, role, spec_ctx):
             return rejection
         envelope = await self._claim_plan_start_run(ctx, agent, spec_ctx)

tests/unit/api/routes/v2/test_i_will_plan_rich_required.py

@@ -9,16 +9,17 @@ from __future__ import annotations
 from unittest.mock import AsyncMock, MagicMock
 from uuid import uuid4
 
-import pytest
 from fastapi import FastAPI
 from fastapi.testclient import TestClient
-
 from roboco.api.deps import get_choreographer
 from roboco.api.routes.v2.flow_main_pm import router
-
+from roboco.api.schemas.v2.flow import IWillPlanRequest
 
 _AGENT_ID = "00000000-0000-0000-0004-000000000001"
 _HEADERS = {"X-Agent-ID": _AGENT_ID, "X-Agent-Role": "main_pm"}
+_HTTP_UNPROCESSABLE = 422
+_HTTP_OK = 200
+_MIN_APPROACH_LEN = 20
 
 
 def _make_envelope(error: str, missing: list[str] | None = None) -> MagicMock:
@@ -52,7 +53,7 @@ def test_i_will_plan_rejects_missing_approach() -> None:
             # no approach, no sub_tasks
         },
     )
-    assert resp.status_code == 422, resp.text
+    assert resp.status_code == _HTTP_UNPROCESSABLE, resp.text
     detail = resp.json()
     assert any(
         "approach" in str(err.get("loc", []))
@@ -87,7 +88,7 @@ def test_i_will_plan_rejects_empty_subtasks_for_pm() -> None:
     # The gateway-side gate returns an envelope with error='incomplete_input'
     # and missing=['sub_tasks']. HTTP status is 200 (envelope carries error).
     body = resp.json()
-    if resp.status_code == 200:
+    if resp.status_code == _HTTP_OK:
         assert body.get("error") == "incomplete_input", body
         assert "sub_tasks" in (body.get("missing") or []), body
     else:
@@ -98,8 +99,6 @@ def test_i_will_plan_rejects_empty_subtasks_for_pm() -> None:
 
 def test_i_will_plan_schema_accepts_rich_plan() -> None:
     """Pydantic schema accepts a fully-formed request with rich plan fields."""
-    from roboco.api.schemas.v2.flow import IWillPlanRequest
-
     req = IWillPlanRequest(
         task_id=uuid4(),
         plan="Route to backend",
@@ -113,5 +112,5 @@ def test_i_will_plan_schema_accepts_rich_plan() -> None:
         risks=[],
         open_questions=[],
     )
-    assert len(req.approach) >= 20
+    assert len(req.approach) >= _MIN_APPROACH_LEN
     assert len(req.sub_tasks) == 1

tests/unit/gateway/test_i_will_plan_sub_tasks_gate.py

@@ -0,0 +1,382 @@
+"""Direct choreographer-layer unit tests for _pm_sub_tasks_gate.
+
+Critical #2: the HTTP-layer test (test_i_will_plan_rich_required.py) mocks
+the choreographer and only exercises Pydantic validation. These tests call
+Choreographer.i_will_plan() directly so the gate logic in _pm_sub_tasks_gate
+is exercised at the correct layer.
+
+Also covers Important #1: approach is now enforced inside the gate (not only
+at the HTTP Pydantic boundary) so direct service-layer callers (MCP, test
+fixtures, orchestrator-internal) cannot bypass it.
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from typing import Any
+from unittest.mock import AsyncMock, MagicMock
+from uuid import uuid4
+
+import pytest
+from roboco.services.gateway.choreographer import Choreographer, ChoreographerDeps
+
+_MIN_APPROACH_LEN = 20
+
+
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+# Shared fixture helpers — same pattern as test_choreographer_pm_extras.py
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+
+def _make_deps(**overrides: Any) -> ChoreographerDeps:
+    base: dict[str, Any] = {
+        "task": AsyncMock(),
+        "work_session": AsyncMock(),
+        "git": AsyncMock(),
+        "a2a": AsyncMock(),
+        "journal": AsyncMock(),
+        "audit": AsyncMock(),
+        "evidence_repo": AsyncMock(),
+    }
+    base.update(overrides)
+    task = base["task"]
+    task.session = MagicMock()
+    task.session.begin_nested = MagicMock(
+        return_value=MagicMock(
+            __aenter__=AsyncMock(return_value=None),
+            __aexit__=AsyncMock(return_value=False),
+        )
+    )
+    repo = base["evidence_repo"]
+    for method in (
+        "list_unread_a2a",
+        "list_unread_mentions",
+        "list_pending_notifications",
+        "task_metadata_gaps",
+        "recent_team_activity",
+        "blockers_in_lane",
+        "journal_highlights_for_task",
+    ):
+        getattr(repo, method).return_value = []
+    return ChoreographerDeps(**base)
+
+
+def _pm_task_svc(task_id: object, *, role: str = "cell_pm") -> AsyncMock:
+    """Build a TaskService mock for a PM caller with a pending planning task."""
+    task_svc = AsyncMock()
+    task_svc.get.return_value = MagicMock(
+        id=task_id,
+        status="pending",
+        plan=None,
+        assigned_to=None,
+        task_type="planning",
+        parent_task_id=None,
+        sequence=0,
+        team="backend",
+        commits=[],
+        pr_number=None,
+        branch_name=None,
+        quick_context=None,
+    )
+    task_svc.agent_for.return_value = MagicMock(
+        id=uuid4(), role=role, team="backend", slug=None
+    )
+    task_svc.list_in_progress_for_agent.return_value = []
+    task_svc.list_paused_for_agent.return_value = []
+    task_svc.get_subtasks.return_value = []
+    task_svc.session = MagicMock()
+    task_svc.session.begin_nested = MagicMock(
+        return_value=MagicMock(
+            __aenter__=AsyncMock(return_value=None),
+            __aexit__=AsyncMock(return_value=False),
+        )
+    )
+    return task_svc
+
+
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+# Test 1: PM with empty sub_tasks → incomplete_input (sub_tasks in missing)
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+
+@pytest.mark.asyncio
+async def test_pm_with_empty_sub_tasks_gets_incomplete_input() -> None:
+    """cell_pm with rich_plan.sub_tasks=[] must be rejected by _pm_sub_tasks_gate.
+
+    The gate fires for PM roles when sub_tasks is absent or empty; the returned
+    envelope must carry error='incomplete_input' with 'sub_tasks' in missing.
+    """
+    pm_id = uuid4()
+    task_id = uuid4()
+    task_svc = _pm_task_svc(task_id, role="cell_pm")
+    deps = _make_deps(task=task_svc)
+    c = Choreographer(deps)
+
+    env = await c.i_will_plan(
+        pm_id,
+        task_id,
+        plan="decompose work",
+        rich_plan={
+            "approach": "Single-cell decomposition covering the full vertical slice.",
+            "sub_tasks": [],  # empty — gate must fire
+        },
+    )
+    body = env.as_dict()
+    assert body["error"] == "incomplete_input", body
+    assert "sub_tasks" in (body.get("missing") or []), body
+
+
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+# Test 2: PM with rich_plan=None → incomplete_input
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+
+@pytest.mark.asyncio
+async def test_pm_with_missing_rich_plan_gets_incomplete_input() -> None:
+    """main_pm passing rich_plan=None must be rejected by _pm_sub_tasks_gate.
+
+    The gate treats missing rich_plan the same as missing sub_tasks: the
+    envelope must carry error='incomplete_input' with 'sub_tasks' in missing.
+    """
+    pm_id = uuid4()
+    task_id = uuid4()
+    task_svc = _pm_task_svc(task_id, role="main_pm")
+    deps = _make_deps(task=task_svc)
+    c = Choreographer(deps)
+
+    env = await c.i_will_plan(
+        pm_id,
+        task_id,
+        plan="decompose work",
+        rich_plan=None,  # not supplied at all
+    )
+    body = env.as_dict()
+    assert body["error"] == "incomplete_input", body
+    assert "sub_tasks" in (body.get("missing") or []), body
+
+
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+# Test 3: PM with filled sub_tasks → gate passes
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+
+@pytest.mark.asyncio
+async def test_pm_with_filled_sub_tasks_passes_gate() -> None:
+    """cell_pm with at least one sub_task must NOT be rejected by the gate.
+
+    The call may still fail on downstream gates (spec lifecycle, journal
+    decision), but the sub_tasks gate itself must not fire. We assert
+    error != 'incomplete_input' and that the gate did not block.
+    """
+    pm_id = uuid4()
+    task_id = uuid4()
+    task_svc = _pm_task_svc(task_id, role="cell_pm")
+    claimed = MagicMock(
+        id=task_id,
+        status="claimed",
+        plan=None,
+        assigned_to=pm_id,
+        task_type="planning",
+    )
+    started = MagicMock(
+        id=task_id,
+        status="in_progress",
+        plan={"text": "x"},
+        assigned_to=pm_id,
+        task_type="planning",
+    )
+    task_svc.claim.return_value = claimed
+    task_svc.set_plan.return_value = claimed
+    task_svc.start.return_value = started
+    deps = _make_deps(task=task_svc)
+    c = Choreographer(deps)
+
+    env = await c.i_will_plan(
+        pm_id,
+        task_id,
+        plan="decompose work",
+        rich_plan={
+            "approach": "Three-cell decomposition: backend, frontend, ux.",
+            "sub_tasks": [{"title": "Backend slice", "description": "API + DB"}],
+        },
+    )
+    body = env.as_dict()
+    # The gate must not have fired; the call may fail on other checks but not
+    # with incomplete_input from the sub_tasks gate.
+    assert body.get("error") != "incomplete_input", body
+
+
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+# Test 4: Developer with empty sub_tasks → gate does NOT fire
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+
+@pytest.mark.asyncio
+async def test_developer_with_empty_sub_tasks_passes_gate() -> None:
+    """Developers are not required to supply sub_tasks; the gate must skip them.
+
+    A developer calling i_will_plan with an empty sub_tasks list should NOT
+    get incomplete_input from _pm_sub_tasks_gate. The gate is PM-only;
+    developers' plans are execution-shaped.
+    """
+    dev_id = uuid4()
+    task_id = uuid4()
+    task_svc = AsyncMock()
+    code_task = MagicMock(
+        id=task_id,
+        status="pending",
+        plan=None,
+        assigned_to=None,
+        task_type="code",
+        parent_task_id=None,
+        sequence=0,
+        team="backend",
+        commits=[],
+        pr_number=None,
+        branch_name=None,
+        quick_context=None,
+    )
+    task_svc.get.return_value = code_task
+    task_svc.agent_for.return_value = MagicMock(
+        id=dev_id, role="developer", team="backend", slug=None
+    )
+    task_svc.list_in_progress_for_agent.return_value = []
+    task_svc.list_paused_for_agent.return_value = []
+    task_svc.get_subtasks.return_value = []
+    task_svc.session = MagicMock()
+    task_svc.session.begin_nested = MagicMock(
+        return_value=MagicMock(
+            __aenter__=AsyncMock(return_value=None),
+            __aexit__=AsyncMock(return_value=False),
+        )
+    )
+    claimed = MagicMock(
+        id=task_id,
+        status="claimed",
+        plan=None,
+        assigned_to=dev_id,
+        task_type="code",
+    )
+    started = MagicMock(
+        id=task_id,
+        status="in_progress",
+        plan={"text": "x"},
+        assigned_to=dev_id,
+        task_type="code",
+    )
+    task_svc.claim.return_value = claimed
+    task_svc.set_plan.return_value = claimed
+    task_svc.start.return_value = started
+    deps = _make_deps(task=task_svc)
+    c = Choreographer(deps)
+
+    env = await c.i_will_plan(
+        dev_id,
+        task_id,
+        plan="implement the feature",
+        rich_plan={
+            "approach": "step-by-step TDD approach for the feature.",
+            "sub_tasks": [],
+        },
+    )
+    body = env.as_dict()
+    # Gate must NOT fire for developers.
+    assert body.get("error") != "incomplete_input", body
+
+
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+# Test 5 (Important #1): PM with sub_tasks filled but approach missing → rejection
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+
+@pytest.mark.asyncio
+async def test_pm_with_sub_tasks_but_missing_approach_gets_incomplete_input() -> None:
+    """cell_pm with non-empty sub_tasks but no approach must be rejected.
+
+    The gate enforces approach (>= _MIN_APPROACH_LEN chars) as well as
+    sub_tasks. Direct service-layer callers bypass Pydantic so the gate is
+    the last line of defense.
+    """
+    pm_id = uuid4()
+    task_id = uuid4()
+    task_svc = _pm_task_svc(task_id, role="cell_pm")
+    deps = _make_deps(task=task_svc)
+    c = Choreographer(deps)
+
+    env = await c.i_will_plan(
+        pm_id,
+        task_id,
+        plan="decompose work",
+        rich_plan={
+            "approach": "",  # empty — gate must fire
+            "sub_tasks": [{"title": "Backend slice", "description": "API + DB"}],
+        },
+    )
+    body = env.as_dict()
+    assert body["error"] == "incomplete_input", body
+    assert "approach" in (body.get("missing") or []), body
+
+
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+# Test 6 (Critical #1 ordering): re-entry by in_progress PM short-circuits
+# BEFORE the gate, even with thin args (no sub_tasks)
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+
+@pytest.mark.asyncio
+async def test_pm_reentry_in_progress_short_circuits_before_gate() -> None:
+    """A PM whose container crashed re-calls i_will_plan with thin args (no sub_tasks).
+
+    If the task is already in_progress and assigned to this PM, the idempotent
+    re-entry path must fire and return OK before _pm_sub_tasks_gate is reached.
+    Without the ordering fix the gate would fire first and reject with
+    incomplete_input, breaking crash recovery.
+    """
+    pm_id = uuid4()
+    task_id = uuid4()
+    task_svc = AsyncMock()
+    in_progress_task = MagicMock(
+        id=task_id,
+        status="in_progress",
+        plan={"text": "already set"},
+        assigned_to=pm_id,  # same PM — triggers re-entry
+        task_type="planning",
+        parent_task_id=None,
+        sequence=0,
+        team="backend",
+        commits=[],
+        pr_number=None,
+        branch_name="feature/backend/abc",
+        quick_context=None,
+    )
+    task_svc.get.return_value = in_progress_task
+    task_svc.agent_for.return_value = MagicMock(
+        id=pm_id, role="cell_pm", team="backend", slug=None
+    )
+    task_svc.list_in_progress_for_agent.return_value = []
+    task_svc.list_paused_for_agent.return_value = []
+    task_svc.get_subtasks.return_value = []
+    task_svc.session = MagicMock()
+    task_svc.session.begin_nested = MagicMock(
+        return_value=MagicMock(
+            __aenter__=AsyncMock(return_value=None),
+            __aexit__=AsyncMock(return_value=False),
+        )
+    )
+    deps = _make_deps(task=task_svc)
+    c = Choreographer(deps)
+
+    # Thin args: just plan="resume", no sub_tasks — as a respawned PM would send.
+    env = await c.i_will_plan(
+        pm_id,
+        task_id,
+        plan="resume",
+        rich_plan=None,  # no sub_tasks because PM is resuming, not planning
+    )
+    body = env.as_dict()
+    # Re-entry must short-circuit to OK; incomplete_input means gate fired first.
+    assert body.get("error") is None, (
+        f"Expected OK (re-entry short-circuit) but got "
+        f"error={body.get('error')!r}. "
+        "The gate is firing before _handle_pm_reentry — ordering bug not fixed."
+    )
+    assert body.get("status") == "in_progress", body