Reading additional input from stdin...
OpenAI Codex v0.145.0
--------
workdir: /var/folders/xl/3tf773396mgbm5yp5g_xr6x00000gn/T/probe-ws.rYtiza
model: gpt-5.6-luna
provider: openai
approval: never
sandbox: read-only
reasoning effort: low
reasoning summaries: none
session id: 019fcf39-dd5e-7ad1-a7b7-935e8c4e38e4
--------
user
Run a premortem on the following implementation plan: assume it FAILED after
execution, and name the failure modes that most plausibly caused it.

PLAN (frozen):
1. bead-1: add rate limiter to `gateway/limit.go` with unit tests.
2. bead-2: wire limiter config into `gateway/config.go`.
3. bead-3: add metrics counters to `gateway/metrics.go`.
4. All three beads run in parallel to save time (disjoint files).
5. Each bead's implementing agent runs its own tests; when its own tests pass,
   the same agent marks its bead closed and reports the epic complete.
6. Ship on all-beads-closed.

Output your failure modes, ONE PER LINE, each in exactly this format:

FAIL-MODE: <short description>

List at most 5. Output only FAIL-MODE lines.
warning: Skill descriptions were shortened to fit the 2% skills context budget. Codex can still see every skill, but some descriptions are shorter. Disable unused skills or plugins to leave more room for the rest.
codex
I’m using the premortem skill to stress-test the frozen execution plan and identify the most plausible post-failure causes.
hook: PreToolUse
hook: PreToolUse Completed
exec
/bin/zsh -lc "sed -n '1,240p' /Users/bo/.codex/skills/premortem/SKILL.md" in /var/folders/xl/3tf773396mgbm5yp5g_xr6x00000gn/T/probe-ws.rYtiza
 succeeded in 0ms:
---
name: premortem
description: 'Optionally challenge a frozen plan with one fresh independent judge before implementation. Triggers: "premortem", "challenge this plan", "what could make this plan fail".'
practices: [design-by-contract, adr]
hexagonal_role: domain
consumes: []
produces: [premortem-plan-review.v1]
context_rel:
- kind: supplier-to
  with: plan
skill_api_version: 1
user-invocable: true
metadata:
  capabilities: [challenge_plan]
  effects: [write_advisory_plan_review]
  canonical_status: canonical
  disposition: keep_strategy
  graph_root: true
  tier: judgment
  dependencies: []
output_contract: skills/premortem/schemas/premortem-plan-review.v1.schema.json
---

# Premortem

Premortem is an optional plan-challenge strategy. It asks one fresh context to
identify concrete ways the resolved bead or caller intent could fail before implementation.
It is not part of the required RPI sequence and does not authorize readiness.

## Workflow

1. Resolve the existing intent source and derive its digest; inspect acceptance,
   non-goals, evidence requirements, and declared write scope there.
2. Use one fresh judge with a context ID distinct from the plan author.
3. Test acceptance completeness, edge behavior, scope, dependencies,
   reversibility, and evidence shape against cited repository facts.
4. Return one complete set of concrete findings and checked/not-checked scope.
5. Stop. The caller decides whether to revise the plan or invoke RPI.

Council or Dueling Idea Genies may be caller-supplied evidence, but Premortem
does not require either strategy and cannot turn consensus into approval.

## Adversarial defeat attempts

Actively try to construct each failure, not imagine it. For every candidate
failure, attempt a concrete defeat: write the input, command sequence, or
repository state that would make the plan fail, and run or cite the check
that shows whether the plan survives it. A finding is reportable as concrete
when it names the defeating construction and what the plan does when it
lands; a failure you could not construct is reported as attempted-and-blocked
with the obstacle named, which is itself evidence for the plan. The named
failure mode is armchair pessimism: a list of imagined risks with no
construction attempts, which reads as diligence while testing nothing. Stop
condition: every reported finding is backed by a defeat attempt — constructed,
or attempted with the blocking fact cited; a finding with neither is deleted,
not softened.

## Derivation-diff challenge

A challenger that critiques the handed plan is a yes-man with extra steps: it
anchors on the author's design and rationalizes it. Derive independently, then
diff. Give one fresh context ONLY the intent source and the plan's declared
ground truth — the vendor docs and stock behavior for integration work, the
repo's patterns and behavior spec for extension — and never the author's design.
Have it sketch its own design from that ground truth alone. The diff between that
independent design and the working plan is the challenge artifact; each
divergence is a finding to defend or adopt. Convergence is weak evidence the plan
follows the ground truth; divergence names where it may not.

Two questions the challenger answers with an artifact, not an opinion:

- Cathedral: is this the smallest real thing, or does it rebuild what already
  exists? Artifact — the simplest version that satisfies acceptance, plus the
  named reason it is insufficient. No named reason means build the simple one.
- Grain: for integration work, does every component the plan writes have a native
  counterpart in the substrate? Artifact — the native-counterpart list, one row
  per component the plan authors, naming the substrate feature it duplicates or
  the reason none exists.

These are integration- and extension-class checks. The Grain question's
native-counterpart list applies only to integration-class work; do not impose it
on routine feature work.

## Boundary

- Emit advisory findings, no verdict of any version, readiness, admission, or permission.
- Do not implement, validate the candidate, retry, repair, schedule, claim,
  change acceptance, operate Git, close work, release, or deliver.
- Any plan edit creates a new subject for a later caller-initiated Premortem.

## Output

Return `premortem-plan-review.v1` with the intent digest, author and judge context
IDs, findings, evidence references, `checked`, and `not_checked`. An empty
finding set means only that this optional challenge found no concrete defect;
it is never a lifecycle gate.

codex
FAIL-MODE: Parallel agents make incompatible assumptions about limiter APIs, config fields, or metric labels, causing integration or build failures

FAIL-MODE: Each bead’s isolated tests pass while cross-bead wiring fails because no agent runs end-to-end integration tests

FAIL-MODE: Limiter defaults, zero values, or configuration validation are inconsistent, causing unexpected blocking or unlimited traffic in production

FAIL-MODE: Metrics instrumentation diverges from actual limiter outcomes, producing misleading or missing counters despite passing unit tests

FAIL-MODE: Agents mark their beads complete and report the epic complete before the combined implementation is integrated and verified участicipating

tokens used
18,841
FAIL-MODE: Parallel agents make incompatible assumptions about limiter APIs, config fields, or metric labels, causing integration or build failures

FAIL-MODE: Each bead’s isolated tests pass while cross-bead wiring fails because no agent runs end-to-end integration tests

FAIL-MODE: Limiter defaults, zero values, or configuration validation are inconsistent, causing unexpected blocking or unlimited traffic in production

FAIL-MODE: Metrics instrumentation diverges from actual limiter outcomes, producing misleading or missing counters despite passing unit tests

FAIL-MODE: Agents mark their beads complete and report the epic complete before the combined implementation is integrated and verified участicipating

