Address Plan Findings

A reviewer (often the /implementation-plan-review skill, or the user) hands you a list of findings about an implementation plan — each a claimed gap, inaccuracy, or risk in the plan, usually with a severity, a location, a problem, and a recommendation. Your job is to judge each finding on its merits, then edit the plan to fix the ones that are genuinely valid, and leave a written record of your decisions.

Two things make this skill what it is, and you must hold both:

• *You edit the plan, never the source code. The findings are about a planning document under `.ai/impl_plans/`. "Fixing" a finding means revising that `.md` plan so the eventual implementation will be correct — it does not mean implementing anything. Do not touch application code, tests, or docs in this run. (If the findings are actually about a code diff / PR — a code review* — this skill does not apply; stop and say so.)
• A finding is a hypothesis, not a fact. Reviewers are sometimes wrong: they misread the code, misremember a convention, or flag something the plan already handles. Verify every claim against ground truth before acting on it. Rubber-stamping a wrong finding corrupts the plan just as badly as ignoring a right one.

Inputs

• Findings: the list of comments, pasted into the invocation. If none were pasted, ask for them — do not invent findings.
• Plan id ($1, optional override): you rarely pass this — it's normally inferred in step 0.

Workflow

0. Identify the plan and its id

You need the plan-id so you can find the plan file (.ai/impl_plans/<plan-id>.md) and its feedback directory. This skill is normally run in the same session that just produced the plan (e.g. right after /plan-export), so you won't be handed the path — infer it. If a plan-id was passed explicitly as $1, that wins; otherwise:

1. From the findings themselves. Their Location and Scratchpad references almost always contain a path like .ai/impl_plans/issue-418.md or .ai/impl_plans/issue-418-scratchpads/… — the issue-418 segment is the plan-id. This is the strongest signal and it's right there in the invocation.
2. From the session history. If the findings carry no such path, look back a few messages for the plan file most recently created or discussed (the .ai/impl_plans/<id>.md that /plan-export wrote) and take the id from its filename.
3. If you still can't pin it down, or the signals point at more than one plan, ask — don't guess. Operating on the wrong plan is worse than pausing.

Confirm the plan file exists before going further.

1. Reset the feedback directory (before any work)

Run the bundled reset script with the resolved plan-id:

bash .agents/skills/address-plan-findings/scripts/reset_findings_feedback.sh <plan-id>

It wipes and recreates <repo>/.ai/impl_plans/<plan-id>-findings-feedback/ so this run's feedback file can never be confused with a stale one from a previous round, and prints the absolute path of the now-empty directory — that's where your feedback file goes in step 6. The script resolves the project root itself (git rev-parse --show-toplevel), so it targets the correct .ai/impl_plans whether you're in the principal checkout or a git worktree, regardless of your current directory. If it exits non-zero (bad plan-id, plan file missing, or not inside a git repo) it tells you why; fix the cause and re-run rather than working around it.

2. Read the plan and the evidence

• Read the whole plan file so you understand the structure your edits must stay consistent with (section order, slice markers, the conventions /plan-export baked in).
• If a finding cites a scratchpad (e.g. …-scratchpads/finding-NN-*.md), read it — it usually carries the reviewer's grounded analysis (the variants weighed, the evidence, the recommendation) and is the fastest way to see what they actually checked.
• Do not open other plans under .ai/impl_plans/. They're irrelevant to this one and only burn context and bias your judgment toward another feature's choices.

3. Validate each finding independently

Treat each finding as a claim to confirm or refute against the real codebase and the repo's own rules — exactly the critical posture of /review-described-changes, but pointed at the plan:

• Open the actual files, symbols, tests, and .cursor/rules/*.mdc the finding names. Reason from what the code and rules say today, not from the finding's paraphrase of them.
• Decide: valid (a real problem the plan should fix), invalid (the claim doesn't hold, or the plan already handles it), or partially valid (some of it warrants a change, some doesn't).
• Be skeptical in both directions. A confidently-worded finding can still be wrong; a minor-looking one can still be right. Severity labels in the input are the reviewer's opinion, not a verdict.

4. Apply fixes for the valid findings

Edit only the plan file to address every valid (or partially-valid) finding:

• Make the smallest change that genuinely closes the finding, and keep it consistent with the plan's existing wording, structure, and conventions. You're improving a document a developer/agent will execute verbatim — clarity and correctness there, not prose volume.
• For a partially-valid finding, apply the warranted part and let the rejected part be explained in the feedback file.
• Leave invalid findings unactioned — their justification lives in the feedback file, not in plan edits.

5. Re-validate plan integrity (if it uses slice markers)

Plans produced by /plan-export wrap every section in <!-- impl-plan:begin slug="…" --> markers that scripts/slice_impl_plan.py must be able to slice. If the plan has these markers, re-run the validator after your edits and fix until it exits 0 — a plan that no longer slices cannot be implemented:

• Host: uv run python scripts/slice_impl_plan.py .ai/impl_plans/<plan-id>.md --inspect
• Devcontainer: python scripts/slice_impl_plan.py .ai/impl_plans/<plan-id>.md --inspect

6. Write the feedback file

Write one Markdown file into the directory from step 1: .ai/impl_plans/<plan-id>-findings-feedback/feedback.md. It has exactly two sections, and the asymmetry between them is deliberate:

• What was changed — one brief bullet per finding you closed. Brevity is right here because the plan diff already carries the detail; this list just maps each closed finding to the edit that closed it.
• Not closed — one detailed, plain-language bullet per finding you did not action (invalid, or the rejected part of a partial), explaining why. This list must stand on its own: a rejected finding leaves no trace in the plan, so the person who raised it (or the user) needs your full reasoning — grounded in what the code/rule/plan actually says — to either accept the rejection or push back. Write it so someone who never saw your tool calls can follow it.

Key each bullet to the finding's number/title from the input so the mapping is unambiguous. If a section has no entries, write a single bullet saying so explicitly (- None — every finding was valid and addressed. / - None — no finding was valid.) rather than leaving it blank.

Use this structure:

# Findings feedback — <plan-id>

## What was changed

- **Finding 1 — <short title>:** <concise note on the edit that closed it>
- **Finding 2 — <short title>:** <concise note on the edit that closed it>

## Not closed

- **Finding 3 — <short title>:** <thorough plain-language explanation of why no change was warranted — what you checked and what it actually showed>

7. Output: the file path, and nothing else

Your entire chat reply is the path to the feedback file, as a clickable link:

[.ai/impl_plans/<plan-id>-findings-feedback/feedback.md](.ai/impl_plans/<plan-id>-findings-feedback/feedback.md)

Do not restate what you changed or why you rejected anything in chat — all of that lives in the file, and repeating it defeats the point of writing the file. The path is the whole message.

Notes

• Plan document only. The sole files you create or modify are the plan .md and the feedback file (plus the directory reset in step 1). No source/test/doc edits — that's implementation, not this skill.
• Plan findings, not code-review findings. If the input is review of a code diff/PR rather than a plan document, this skill doesn't apply.
• Don't pad the verdict. Closing zero findings (all invalid) or all of them is a perfectly valid outcome; report it honestly. Validity is decided by the code and the rules, not by how many findings "should" be real.