🐛 Add verify-before-asserting-existence rule to plan prompt#97
Merged
Conversation
monkut
commented
Apr 28, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Tightens
PLAN_AGENT_PROMPTto prevent the plan agent from claiming a symbol does not exist when it actually does — the failure mode reported in #95.Why
The current prompt's "Do not speculate about unopened code" guidance is too soft. In a recent run on kiconiaworks/kippo#7 the agent emitted an
AddFieldstep fordisplay_in_project_report, even though the field is already defined atkippo/projects/models.py:206. If implemented as written, the migration would fail at apply time (column ... already exists) and the duplicate Python attribute could silently overwriteverbose_name/help_text.Changes
askcc/definitions.py—PLAN_AGENT_PROMPT:grep -nor Read-based confirmation of absence before writing "does not currently exist" or proposingAddField/ "create new" steps.file:linecitation for existing symbols and a negative-grep citation for any "missing" claim.Verification
uv run pytest— 225 passeduv run poe check(ruff) — cleanuv run poe typecheck(pyright) — 0 errorsTest plan
askcc planagainst an issue mentioning an existing model field; confirm the plan does not include anAddFieldstep for that field.file:linefor referenced symbols.Closes #95