A dev's i_will_work_on stored a flat {text} plan and routed steps to
progress, so the dev leaf's Plan tab rendered empty (no approach,
sub_tasks, technical_considerations, risks) — zero audit/tracing on the
task that does the actual work.
i_will_work_on now captures the same rich plan a PM authors via
i_will_plan: plan(>=150) doubles as approach, steps become sub_tasks,
plus technical_considerations + risks (open_questions optional). A new
_dev_plan_gate enforces them on FRESH claims only (re-entry/recovery
short-circuit before it). set_plan gains a no-downgrade guard so a
flaked-then-recovered dev can't clobber its rich plan back to flat (the
actual mechanism behind the empty leaf).
The dev plan was a free string with only a presence gate, so the
executing dev had no checklist for plan-driven progress (#173).
- IWillWorkOnRequest gains `steps` (same SubTask shape as a PM's
sub_tasks); flow_dev route threads it through.
- i_will_work_on layers steps onto the narrative plan via the same
panel-shaped path PMs use, so task.plan.sub_tasks is populated
(panel render + #173 progress).
- New _dev_steps_gate (mirrors _pm_sub_tasks_gate, runs after the spec
gate): a developer FRESH claim must supply a non-empty steps list
with every description >= _PM_SUBTASK_DESC_MIN_LEN. Re-entry/recovery
short-circuit before the gate (extracted _dev_reentry +
_fresh_dev_claim keep i_will_work_on within the
return-count + cyclomatic gates).
- developer role prompt: steps template + "thin steps rejected" + the
progress(plan_step=...) handoff.
- Updated every dev-fresh-claim test fixture across the suite to pass
substantive steps; added dedicated _dev_steps_gate coverage.
Commit 2 of 3 for the plan/progress quality work (#171/#172/#173).
Plans were vague because the gate accepted the bare minimum: PM
approach >=20 chars and title-only sub_tasks. minimax wrote exactly
the minimum.
- IWillPlanRequest.approach min_length 20 -> 150 (kept in sync with
_PM_APPROACH_MIN_LEN; the gate enforces it at the choreographer
layer too so direct/MCP callers can't bypass the HTTP boundary).
- New _thin_subtask_hint: every PM sub_task must have a title and a
description >= _PM_SUBTASK_DESC_MIN_LEN (60) saying what the step
does — each sub_task is both a delegate target AND a
progress-checklist item, so a title alone is not a plan.
- cell_pm/main_pm role prompts: explicit "the gate REJECTS thin plans"
framing + concrete sub_task example + the new minimums.
- Updated all affected test fixtures across the suite to use
substantive approaches/descriptions; added thin-sub_task rejection
coverage.
Commit 1 of 3 for the plan/progress quality work (#171/#172/#173).
Pre-gateway parity. Smoke run 3 showed task.work_session_id null on
every task — the choreographer's claim/plan/start path didn't create
the row that downstream subsystems (panel, PR tracking, merge chain)
need to track agent-per-task git activity.
Add TaskService.ensure_work_session(task_id, agent_id) as a public
wrapper around the existing _create_work_session_if_needed logic.
Role restriction lifted to None so both developers and PMs get a
session (pre-gateway always created sessions for all claimants).
Built-in re-entry guard prevents duplicate rows on re-claim.
Wire the call into both _claim_plan_start_run and _resume_from_claimed
immediately before _touch, so every successful in_progress transition
(including the stuck-claimed recovery path) creates the row.
Spec ref: Wave C task C4 (2026-05-12).
Renn F