cleveragents/cleveragents-core
4
0
Fork 3
Code Issues 6.0k Pull Requests 115 Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

fix(domain): align plan lifecycle model with spec (ERRORED terminality, phase-state validation) #918

New Issue
Closed
opened 2026-03-14 00:04:58 +00:00 by freemo · 1 comment
freemo commented 2026-03-14 00:04:58 +00:00
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

Background

The plan lifecycle state machine is functionally correct for the happy path — all phase transitions, reversion paths, and automation controls match the specification. However, three model-level discrepancies exist:

1. ERRORED Not Treated as Terminal (plan.py:772-776)

The spec (lines 18253-18258) marks errored as "Terminal? Yes" in all processing phases. The code's is_terminal property excludes ERRORED:

@property
def is_terminal(self) -> bool:
    return self.processing_state in (
        ProcessingState.APPLIED,
        ProcessingState.CANCELLED,
        ProcessingState.CONSTRAINED,
    )

The code docstring (plan.py:32) says "Failed (may retry)", indicating this is intentional for retry workflows. If retry is desired, the spec should be updated; otherwise, the code should match spec.

2. No Model-Level Phase-State Validation (plan.py:738-748)

The spec defines states per-phase: applied/constrained are Apply-only; complete is Strategize/Execute only. The current model validator only handles the ACTION-phase default — it does not prevent invalid combinations like Plan(phase=STRATEGIZE, processing_state=APPLIED). The lifecycle service enforces this procedurally, but the model allows invalid states.

3. Docstring Labels COMPLETE as "Non-Terminal" (plan.py:33)

The spec labels complete as "Terminal? Yes" (per-phase). The code docstring says "Phase work finished (non-terminal)." This is a semantic interpretation difference (plan-level vs phase-level), but the docstring is misleading.

Acceptance Criteria

  • is_terminal behavior is explicitly decided: either include ERRORED (match spec) or document the retry-based deviation in an ADR
  • Model validator enforces per-phase state constraints (e.g., APPLIED/CONSTRAINED only valid in APPLY phase)
  • Docstring for COMPLETE clarifies phase-level terminality vs plan-level progression
  • Existing tests pass

Metadata

  • Suggested commit message: fix(domain): align plan lifecycle model validation with specification
  • Suggested branch name: fix/plan-lifecycle-model-validation

Definition of Done

Code merged to main, plan model enforces phase-state constraints, terminality semantics are clear.

## Background The plan lifecycle state machine is functionally correct for the happy path — all phase transitions, reversion paths, and automation controls match the specification. However, three model-level discrepancies exist: ### 1. ERRORED Not Treated as Terminal (plan.py:772-776) The spec (lines 18253-18258) marks `errored` as "Terminal? Yes" in all processing phases. The code's `is_terminal` property excludes `ERRORED`: ```python @property def is_terminal(self) -> bool: return self.processing_state in ( ProcessingState.APPLIED, ProcessingState.CANCELLED, ProcessingState.CONSTRAINED, ) ``` The code docstring (`plan.py:32`) says `"Failed (may retry)"`, indicating this is intentional for retry workflows. If retry is desired, the spec should be updated; otherwise, the code should match spec. ### 2. No Model-Level Phase-State Validation (plan.py:738-748) The spec defines states per-phase: `applied`/`constrained` are Apply-only; `complete` is Strategize/Execute only. The current model validator only handles the ACTION-phase default — it does not prevent invalid combinations like `Plan(phase=STRATEGIZE, processing_state=APPLIED)`. The lifecycle service enforces this procedurally, but the model allows invalid states. ### 3. Docstring Labels COMPLETE as "Non-Terminal" (plan.py:33) The spec labels `complete` as "Terminal? Yes" (per-phase). The code docstring says "Phase work finished (non-terminal)." This is a semantic interpretation difference (plan-level vs phase-level), but the docstring is misleading. ## Acceptance Criteria - [ ] `is_terminal` behavior is explicitly decided: either include ERRORED (match spec) or document the retry-based deviation in an ADR - [ ] Model validator enforces per-phase state constraints (e.g., APPLIED/CONSTRAINED only valid in APPLY phase) - [ ] Docstring for COMPLETE clarifies phase-level terminality vs plan-level progression - [ ] Existing tests pass ## Metadata - **Suggested commit message:** `fix(domain): align plan lifecycle model validation with specification` - **Suggested branch name:** `fix/plan-lifecycle-model-validation` ## Definition of Done Code merged to `main`, plan model enforces phase-state constraints, terminality semantics are clear.
freemo added the
Points
3
Priority
Medium
State
Verified
Type
Task
 labels 2026-03-14 00:06:04 +00:00
freemo added this to the v3.4.0 milestone 2026-03-14 00:06:13 +00:00
CoreRasurae was assigned by freemo 2026-03-14 04:27:04 +00:00
CoreRasurae added
State
In Progress
 and removed
State
Verified
 labels 2026-03-19 17:08:30 +00:00
CoreRasurae added
State
In Review
 and removed
State
In Progress
 labels 2026-03-19 20:47:40 +00:00
CoreRasurae commented 2026-03-19 20:47:59 +00:00
Member
Copy Link
Copy Source

Implementation Notes

Changes (commit 7ebb687c)

  1. ERRORED is now terminal: Added ProcessingState.ERRORED to the is_terminal tuple in Plan.is_terminal, matching the spec's "Terminal? Yes" designation for all processing phases.

  2. Per-phase state validation: Added validate_phase_state_constraints model validator:

    • APPLIED and CONSTRAINED only valid in APPLY phase
    • COMPLETE only valid in STRATEGIZE or EXECUTE phases
    • Other states (QUEUED, PROCESSING, ERRORED, CANCELLED) valid in any phase
    • Invalid combinations raise ValueError at Plan construction time

  3. COMPLETE docstring updated: Changed from "Phase work finished (non-terminal)" to "Phase work finished (terminal within phase; plan advances to next phase)" to clarify phase-level vs plan-level terminality.

  4. Service-layer fix: Fixed field assignment order in plan_lifecycle_service.py — apply_plan() and _perform_reversion() now set processing_state before phase to avoid triggering the new validator during transitions.

Test Impact

  • Updated 8 existing test files that created invalid phase-state combinations (e.g., APPLY/COMPLETE, STRATEGIZE/APPLIED, ACTION/COMPLETE)
  • Changed 1 assertion in edge_case_plan_scenarios.feature from "ERRORED is not terminal" to "ERRORED is terminal"
  • Added 13 new Behave scenarios, 5 Robot tests

Quality Gates

Session Result
lint PASS
typecheck PASS (0 errors)
unit_tests PASS (11,507 scenarios)
integration_tests PASS (1,609 tests)
coverage 97% (plan.py at 99.8%)

PR

PR #1077 — Closes #918

## Implementation Notes ### Changes (commit `7ebb687c`) 1. **ERRORED is now terminal**: Added `ProcessingState.ERRORED` to the `is_terminal` tuple in `Plan.is_terminal`, matching the spec's "Terminal? Yes" designation for all processing phases. 2. **Per-phase state validation**: Added `validate_phase_state_constraints` model validator: - `APPLIED` and `CONSTRAINED` only valid in `APPLY` phase - `COMPLETE` only valid in `STRATEGIZE` or `EXECUTE` phases - Other states (`QUEUED`, `PROCESSING`, `ERRORED`, `CANCELLED`) valid in any phase - Invalid combinations raise `ValueError` at Plan construction time 3. **COMPLETE docstring updated**: Changed from "Phase work finished (non-terminal)" to "Phase work finished (terminal within phase; plan advances to next phase)" to clarify phase-level vs plan-level terminality. 4. **Service-layer fix**: Fixed field assignment order in `plan_lifecycle_service.py` — `apply_plan()` and `_perform_reversion()` now set `processing_state` before `phase` to avoid triggering the new validator during transitions. ### Test Impact - Updated 8 existing test files that created invalid phase-state combinations (e.g., APPLY/COMPLETE, STRATEGIZE/APPLIED, ACTION/COMPLETE) - Changed 1 assertion in `edge_case_plan_scenarios.feature` from "ERRORED is not terminal" to "ERRORED is terminal" - Added 13 new Behave scenarios, 5 Robot tests ### Quality Gates | Session | Result | |---|---| | lint | PASS | | typecheck | PASS (0 errors) | | unit_tests | PASS (11,507 scenarios) | | integration_tests | PASS (1,609 tests) | | coverage | 97% (plan.py at 99.8%) | ### PR PR #1077 — `Closes #918`
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
auto/needs-reevaluation
Controller deferred this PR; awaiting Phase 6+ scope-evaluator or operator re-enablement.
 controller-managed
Auto-agents controller manages this PR/issue (see tools/controller/deploy/RUNBOOK.md). Remove this label to abandon controller management.
 overdue
auto/blocked-by-deps
PR blocked by an open issue dependency. Operator must close the dep (or remove the dependency link) before the merge driver can act. Auto-cleared by merge_drive when no open deps remain.
 auto/ci-timeout
Most recent merge cycle hit CI timeout. Driver excludes this PR while last merge_cycle row is < 30 min old; label persists thereafter as visible history.
 auto/claimed-implementer
Currently being processed by an implementer worker.
 auto/claimed-merge
Currently being processed by the merge driver.
 auto/claimed-reviewer
Currently being processed by a reviewer worker.
 auto/driver-down
Merge driver heartbeat stale; pipeline halted. Closed automatically on next clean tick.
 auto/invariant-violation
Detected master commit violating the strict merge invariant. Tracked as an issue (not a PR label); kept here for label completeness.
 auto/last-attempt-tier-0
In-cycle escalation: most recent attempt ran at the Tier 0 slot (`tier-0`). Slot's model defined in .opencode/models/tiers.yaml.
 auto/last-attempt-tier-1
In-cycle escalation: most recent attempt ran at the Tier 1 slot (`tier-1`). Slot's model defined in .opencode/models/tiers.yaml.
 auto/last-attempt-tier-2
In-cycle escalation: most recent attempt ran at the Tier 2 slot (`tier-2`). Slot's model defined in .opencode/models/tiers.yaml. Gated behind IMPLEMENTER_ESCALATION_TIER2_ENABLED.
 auto/last-attempt-tier-min
In-cycle escalation: most recent attempt ran at the Tier -1 slot (`tier-min`). Slot's model defined in .opencode/models/tiers.yaml. Suffix is ``-min`` (not ``--1``) so the Forgejo UI reads naturally.
 Automation Tracking
Tracking issues used by the AI Automation system for agents to communicate and report.
 auto/needs-conflict-resolution
Rebase conflict needs LLM conflict-resolver.
 auto/needs-implementer
Failing CI needs implementer attention.
 auto/postmortem
Documenting a driver incident or rollback.
 auto/ready-to-merge
Reviewer has APPROVED this PR and no later REQUEST_CHANGES is outstanding. The merge driver requires this label to even consider a PR for merging. Set by the reviewer worker on APPROVE; cleared on REQUEST_CHANGES.
 auto/restart-throttled
Train repeatedly lost master-tempo races. Driver excludes via merge_cycle until cooldown elapses; label persists as visible history.
 auto/revert
Revert PR backing out an invariant violation. Fast-tracked through the merge driver.
 auto/sentinel
Sentinel PR duplicated from upstream into a personal fork by tools/duplicate_prs_to_fork.py for pipeline testing. Lives only in the fork; the canonical pipeline never sees it.
 auto/stale-inactivity
No implementer activity for N days. Flagged for human review. Auto-cleared on next push to head branch.
 auto/unstable
Repeatedly fails on current master (>= 3 ci-fail-on-rebased-sha releases in 12 h). Excluded from driver until human triage.
 Blocked
A ticket in a blocked state and unable to complete until some other task is completed first.
Bounty
$100
A bounty of $100 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue
Bounty
$1000
A bounty of $1000 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue
Bounty
$10000
A bounty of $10000 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue
Bounty
$20
A bounty of $20 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue
Bounty
$2000
A bounty of $2000 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue
Bounty
$250
A bounty of $250 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue
Bounty
$50
A bounty of $50 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue
Bounty
$500
A bounty of $500 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue
Bounty
$5000
A bounty of $5000 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue
Bounty
$750
A bounty of $750 for any open-source contributor who provides a MR that solves this issue
MoSCoW
Could have
Could have feature in order to satisfy the epic/legendary.
MoSCoW
Must have
Must have feature in order to satisfy the epic/legendary.
MoSCoW
Should have
Should have feature in order to satisfy the epic/legendary.
Needs Feedback
There are questions in the ticket that can not be completed until the project owner provides clarity.
Points
1
1 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.
Points
13
13 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.
Points
2
2 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.
Points
21
21 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.
Points
3
3 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.
Points
34
34 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.
Points
5
5 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.
Points
55
55 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.
Points
8
8 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.
Points
88
88 man-hours worth of work for an expert with no learning curve.
Priority
Backlog
This ticket has backlogged priority and is not to be worked on yet
Priority
CI Blocker
Critical priority issue that blocks CI/CD pipeline and prevents PR merges
Priority
Critical
The priority is critical
Priority
High
The priority is high
Priority
Low
The priority is low
Priority
Medium
The priority is medium
Signed-off: Owner
When an epic or legendary is in review it must be signed off by owner, tech lead, and scrum master before being marked as completed.
 Signed-off: Scrum Master
When an epic or legendary is in review it must be signed off by owner, tech lead, and scrum master before being marked as completed.
 Signed-off: Tech Lead
When an epic or legendary is in review it must be signed off by owner, tech lead, and scrum master before being marked as completed.
 Spike
A ticket for learning a tool or technology that is needed to be able to do future planning and design.
State
Completed
The ticket has been fully implemented, completed, and merged with the source code. This label should only be applied once a ticket is closed.
State
Duplicate
A ticket that represents the same content as an existing ticket.
State
In Progress
A ticket that is actively being developed.
State
In Review
A ticket that has had some code completed to implement but is waiting to pass peer review and is not yet merged in.
State
Paused
This ticket's work started but wasn't finished. It's on hold (likely in a feature branch) and will be resumed later, either due to a blocker or a delay.
State
Unverified
All new tickets start in this state. A developer may set it to show the ticket is unverified. This means we haven't agreed to work on it. It will either move to a verified state or be closed as wontdo.
State
Verified
The issue has been verified by a developer as legitimate. It will be worked on and verified tickets are now considered part of the backlog.
State
Wont Do
This ticket has been decided it wont be done. This may mean the bug has been determined to not be real (cant verify) or the feature is one we have decided we dont want to adopt.
Type
Automation
Any edits or discussion about the AI automated coding system.
Type
Bug
Something that doesnt work as intended.
Type
Discussion
Anytime a ticket represents a discussion about a subject and doesnt fall into one of the other categories.
Type
Documentation
An error or improvement needed in the documentation.
Type
Epic
Any first tier epic. That is, an epic which contains only issues as children and will not have sub-epics.
Type
Feature
Some new functionality not present.
Type
Legendary
A type of Epic which will contain other Epics.
Type
Refactor
A code change that restructures existing code without changing its external behavior.
Type
Support
Someone needs help using the project.
Type
Task
A generic task that doesnt fit into the other type categories.
Type
Testing
Work exclusively focusing on fixing or expanding testing.
No Label
Points
3
Priority
Medium
State
In Review
Type
Task
Milestone
No items
No Milestone v3.4.0
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
aditya (Aditya Chhabra) aleenaumair (Aleena Umair) brent.edwards (Brent Edwards) CoreRasurae (Luis Mendes) drew (Drew Morris) eugen.thaci (Eugen Thaci) freemo (Jeffrey Phillips Freeman) HAL9000 (HAL 9000) HAL9001 (HAL9001) hamza.khyari (Hamza Khyari) hurui200320 (Rui Hu) justin.morris khird (Kyle Hird) org.cleveragents
No Assignees CoreRasurae
2 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: cleveragents/cleveragents-core#918
Delete Branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?