Update task execution steps and approval process

[ericelliott]

---

Note

Low Risk
Documentation-only changes that alter the agent workflow/approval guidance but do not touch runtime application code.

Overview
Updates ai/rules/task-creator.mdc to make task execution approval configurable via a new ApprovalRequired state, prompting users to choose between manual per-step approval or proceeding after /review.

Reworks the execution protocol to run /review before advancing, only awaitApproval when requested, and adds a every-3-tasks checkpoint to summarize progress, re-run /review on uncommitted changes, and /commit before continuing. Also removes the unconditional approval gate from executeTask() and makes it conditional in constraints.

^{Written by Cursor Bugbot for commit 46923ac. This will update automatically on new commits. Configure here.}

[ericelliott]

@cursoragent please /review

[cursor]

🔬 Code Review

🎯 Restate

Reviewing PR "Update task execution steps and approval process" - changes to ai/rules/task-creator.mdc that modify the executePlan() function to:

1. Add respect for user intent on explicit approval
2. Add /review checkpoint after each task
3. Introduce "every 3 tasks" routine with progress summary, review, commit, and plan re-validation

💡 Analysis

Code Structure & Organization ✅

• Changes are localized to a single function (executePlan())
• Maintains existing template structure
• Clear, sequential steps

Documentation Quality ⚠️

• Generally clear instructions
• Minor formatting inconsistency detected (trailing whitespace on lines 73-74)

Process & Logic 🔍

• Positive: Adds automated /review checkpoint - good quality gate
• Positive: "Every 3 tasks" batch routine ensures regular commits and plan alignment
• Issue Found: Potential logical conflict between "Respect user intent if they want to explicitly approve" and removed "Await Approval" step

🪞 Critical Reflection

Identified Issues:

1. Approval Flow Ambiguity ⚠️

   • Line 66 states: "Respect the user intent if they want to explicitly approve each step"
   • But line 71 removes the explicit "Await Approval" step that was present before
   • The new flow goes: Complete → Validate → Report → /review → (next task?)
   • Question: How does the agent know when to await approval vs. auto-proceed?
   • The constraint on line 145 still says "Always get explicit user approval before moving to the next task"

2. Whitespace Issues 🧹

   • Lines 73-74 have trailing spaces (indicated by the diff showing line length 121 chars with mostly spaces)
   • Violates clean code principles

3. "On-process" Typo 📝

   • Line 77: "verify you're still on-process"
   • Should be: "on-track" or "following the process"

🔭 Broader Context

Architectural Consistency:

• The change aligns with automated quality gates (good)
• The batch-every-3-tasks pattern prevents drift (good)
• But creates tension with constraint on line 145: "Always get explicit user approval before moving to the next task"

User Experience:

• Automated /review reduces manual intervention need
• Batch processing more efficient for longer epics
• BUT: May violate user expectation of control if they want approval per task

⚖️ Risk Assessment

Risk Level: Low-Medium ⚠️

Low Risk:

• Documentation-only change ✅
• No runtime code impact ✅
• Improves quality with automated reviews ✅

Medium Concerns:

• Logical inconsistency between "respect user intent for approval" and removed approval step
• Could lead to agent confusion or unexpected auto-progression
• Constraint conflict (line 145 vs. new executePlan flow)

💬 Recommendations

Critical:

1. Clarify Approval Logic - Resolve the conflict:

   Option A: Make it explicit when to auto-proceed
   executePlan() {
     By default, proceed automatically after /review passes.
     If user explicitly requests step-by-step approval, await approval after each task.
     
   Option B: Keep explicit approval but make it conditional
   executePlan() {
     1. Complete only the current task
     2. Validate - Verify the task meets its success criteria
     3. Report - Summarize what was accomplished
     4. /review - check correctness before moving to next task
     5. Await Approval (unless user has approved batch execution)

Required:
2. Fix Whitespace - Remove trailing spaces on lines 73-74
3. Fix Typo - Change "on-process" to "on-track" (line 77)
4. Update Constraint - Either update line 145 to match new flow, or update new flow to match constraint

Suggested:
5. Add Clarity - Consider adding when the "every 3 tasks" routine applies:

Every 3 completed tasks (if executing in batch mode):

Summary

Status: ⚠️ Needs Revision

The changes improve code quality through automated reviews and regular checkpointing, but introduce a logical inconsistency around approval flow. The tension between "respect user intent for approval" and the removed explicit approval step needs resolution. Additionally, minor formatting and typo issues should be addressed.

Must Fix:

• Resolve approval flow ambiguity
• Remove trailing whitespace
• Fix "on-process" typo
• Align constraint on line 145 with new behavior

Impact: These issues could lead to agent confusion about when to proceed automatically vs. when to await approval, potentially violating user expectations.

 

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

This PR updates the task execution workflow in the AI rules system by modifying the approval and review process. The changes shift from a mandatory approval-after-each-task model to a more automated approach with periodic checkpoints.

Changes:

• Modified the executePlan() function to make user approval optional and respect user intent
• Replaced the "Await Approval" step with a /review command for checking correctness
• Added a new "Every 3 completed tasks" checkpoint workflow that includes progress summarization, review, commit, and re-verification against requirements

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[Copilot]

The removal of the explicit "Await Approval" step from executePlan() conflicts with line 145 in the Constraints section, which states "Always get explicit user approval before moving to the next task." While line 66 adds "Respect the user intent if they want to explicitly approve each step," this creates ambiguity about whether approval is mandatory or optional. The Constraints section should be updated to align with the new executePlan() behavior, or the approval step should be reinstated in a clearer way.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 1 out of 1 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 1 out of 1 changed files in this pull request and generated no new comments.

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[ericelliott]

@cursoragent please /review 9824c1a

[cursor]

🔬 /review — Commit 9824c1a (Update task execution steps and approval process)

Findings (ordered by severity)

1. Medium — Double approval prompts when $approvalRequired is true
   File: ai/rules/task-creator.mdc
   Lines: ~74 and ~161–164
   Issue: Approval is requested inside executePlan() (“If $approvalRequired, get explicit user approval…”) and then again in executeTask() via If $approvalRequired, awaitApproval. This can lead to two explicit approval gates per task, which is likely not intended.
   Suggestion: Keep a single explicit approval gate. Either:

   • Move approval gating solely into executeTask() or
   • Keep it inside executePlan() and remove awaitApproval (or replace it with a no-op / note).

2. Low — $approvalRequired scope and lifecycle is ambiguous
   File: ai/rules/task-creator.mdc
   Lines: ~66 (definition), ~145 (Constraints), ~161–164 (usage)
   Issue: $approvalRequired is defined inside executePlan() but referenced in Constraints and executeTask() with no explicit scope/propagation. It’s unclear whether this variable is global, shared state, or local to the function.
   Suggestion: Define $approvalRequired in a shared state section (e.g., State {}) or in executeTask() before calling executePlan() so its scope is unambiguous.

3. Low — Approval preference re-asked for every task
   File: ai/rules/task-creator.mdc
   Lines: ~66
   Issue: askUser(...) is inside executePlan(), which is executed per task. That means the user will be asked the approval-mode question for every task, rather than once per epic or per execution session.
   Suggestion: Move the prompt to executeTask() or a higher-level flow so it is asked once per run.

---

Open questions / assumptions

• Should approval mode be chosen once per epic or per execution run, and then persist across tasks?
• Should the approval gate exist only once (after /review) or both before and after task completion?

---

Additional checks

• Tasks/plan alignment: No task file in /tasks references this change (executePlan/approval not found), so plan alignment cannot be verified.
• Tests: Not applicable (documentation-only change).
• Commit message: “fix: conditionally await task approval” is conventional and clear.
• JS/TS style guide: Not applicable (no JS/TS changes).

---

Security review (OWASP Top 10 — checked, N/A)

1. Broken Access Control — N/A (docs only)
2. Cryptographic Failures — N/A
3. Injection — N/A
4. Insecure Design — N/A
5. Security Misconfiguration — N/A
6. Vulnerable & Outdated Components — N/A
7. Identification & Authentication Failures — N/A
8. Software & Data Integrity Failures — N/A
9. Security Logging & Monitoring Failures — N/A
10. Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) — N/A

---

Change summary (secondary)

• Added conditional approval gating based on $approvalRequired, but now contains potential duplication and scope ambiguity.

Residual risk: Ambiguous approval flow could cause repeated approval prompts or inconsistent behavior across tasks.

 

[cursor]

Batch checkpoint commits fix code without verification

Low Severity

The "Every 3 completed tasks" batch checkpoint runs /review to find issues and fix them (line 78), then immediately runs /commit (line 79). The fix code created while addressing discovered issues is committed without being reviewed itself. If the fixes contain errors, those errors are committed to the repository. The per-task /review at line 73 would eventually catch such issues, but incorrect code could exist in the committed history until then.

 

[Copilot]

Copilot encountered an error and was unable to review this pull request. You can try again by re-requesting a review.

[cursor]

Cursor Bugbot has reviewed your changes and found 2 potential issues.

^{Bugbot Autofix is OFF. To automatically fix reported issues with Cloud Agents, enable Autofix in the Cursor dashboard.}

[cursor]

Question format doesn't match expected boolean usage

Medium Severity

The askUser question presents a choice between two options ("manually approve each step" vs "allow the agent to approve with /review") but $approvalRequired is then used as a boolean in If $approvalRequired, awaitApproval. The user's free-form response won't cleanly map to a boolean true/false value. The question could be rephrased as a yes/no question like "Would you like to manually approve each step?" to properly set the boolean, or the response could be explicitly parsed to determine the boolean value.

Additional Locations (1)

• ai/rules/task-creator.mdc#L74-L75

 

[cursor]

Final task batch may not trigger commit

Low Severity

The /commit command only runs inside the "Every 3 completed tasks" batch processing block. For epics where the total task count isn't divisible by 3, the final tasks complete without triggering a commit. Since executeTask() proceeds directly from executePlan to onComplete, changes from the final incomplete batch could remain uncommitted when the epic is marked complete.

Additional Locations (1)

• ai/rules/task-creator.mdc#L162-L164