fable-validate-loop

Chain fable-validate → (conditional) update issue → (conditional) fableplan → work-on-issue-loop into one unattended run. The loop parses each skill's output and proceeds where the interactive skill would wait for the user.

Do not skip or reorder the chain. Validation gates planning, and the plan gates implementation. The only sanctioned skip is the step-4 score gate (the verdict's title-floored signal reads fableplan: no, so the title score and the recomputed score are both below 71, with no safety flags). Every other step of each skill still runs.

Input

Same as fable-validate: issue URL, #<N> / <N> / owner/repo#N, or nothing (latest open issue in the current repo).

Optional targetBranch ({ issue, targetBranch } or a prose "target branch ") passes unchanged to every validate, plan, and build step; work-on-issue step 1 ("Target") owns its validation.

Steps

1. Run fable-validate

Invoke fable-validate (Skill tool) for the issue and let it run fully. It emits the standard verdict block:

**#<N>: Update issue description? <Yes|No>**  ·  Complexity: <score>/100 — Capability <k> (Risk <r>, Uncertainty <u> — <driver>); Volume <v> (Scope <s>, Coupling <c>, Verification <x>) · fableplan: <yes|no>  ·  Scope: <OK | too large — split/umbrella/narrow>

Parse it yourself. Record the resolved issue number; every later step targets exactly this issue.

2. Scope gate

Check the verdict's Scope field, Architecture section, and Concerns (for an already-addressing PR) first:

Condition	Action
Scope: too large (split / umbrella / narrow flagged)	STOP. Report the disposition and proposed parts; splitting is a human call.
Architecture marked ❌ Infeasible	STOP. Report the infeasibility and the "Optimal direction" note.
A merged PR already implements the fix	STOP. Report the PR and the close/repurpose recommendation.
An open PR is already addressing the issue	STOP. Report the overlapping PR; supersede/join/wait is a human call.

Otherwise continue.

3. Apply the update-issue edits, if called for

On Update issue description? Yes, apply the edits now per fable-validate step 5 (validate-issue step 11), from the current checkout, with the stacked attribution line Validated with LLM: Fable 5.1 | high | Harness: <harness> | fable-validate-loop (<harness> per fable-dispatch section 6). On No, go to step 4. The edits land before fableplan so the planner plans against the corrected issue.

4. Run fableplan, planning phase only

Score gate: a verdict signal of fableplan: no, which validate-issue step 8 emits only when the title score and the recomputed score are both below 71, skips fableplan; go straight to step 5. Never read the raw Complexity: value for this gate; the title score is the floor. Safety carve-out (overrides the gate): if the validation flags money, data integrity, security, or an auto-protective mechanism anywhere in its findings, run fableplan regardless of score. For an unconditional plan use fable-validate-fableplan-loop.

Top-band note: the signal is yes for every score of 71 or higher, so band-5 issues (score 81 or higher) always plan here. Implementation runs on the session model, so the posted plan is the only guaranteed Fable 5.1 involvement for a top-band issue.

Otherwise invoke fableplan (Skill tool) for the same issue number under its "Planning-phase-only invocation" section: steps 1 through 5 only, never steps 7–8, harness suffix fable-validate-loop in the posted footer (a delta skill that reuses this step substitutes its own name). Give the planner the validation verdict alongside the issue; the plan must respect the verified/refuted claims, the Optimal-direction note when architecture was ⚠️, and the 5c concerns. Keep the plan's scratchpad file for step 5. On a structurally wrong plan or a fableplan failure after its internal retry, stop and report; never implement unplanned.

5. Hand off to work-on-issue-loop

Invoke work-on-issue-loop (Skill tool) with the issue number passed explicitly. Point it at the plan's scratchpad file and the posted ## Implementation plan (Fable 5.1) comment, and tell it deviations follow work-on-issue step 2's plan-deviation policy and must each be named in the PR body. Do not narrow that policy here. If step 4 was skipped by the score gate, hand off the issue alone and note the skip.

6. Report

Relay work-on-issue-loop's final summary (PR URL, review cycles, final verdict), prefixed with one line for the head of the chain: scope gate passed, issue updated or not, plan posted (comment URL) or skipped by the score gate.

Cap the whole report at 55 words, plain simple English in ASD-STE100, per the Response Style rules in CLAUDE.md/AGENTS.md.

Red Flags — STOP

Situation	Action
Tempted to skip validation or planning and jump to implementation	Never reorder; the only sanctioned skip is the step-4 score gate (the verdict's title-floored signal reads fableplan: no, with no safety flags)
Scope: too large, Architecture ❌ Infeasible, or a PR already addressing the issue	Stop and report per step 2
Tempted to wait for a literal user reply to fable-validate's or fableplan's prompt	Parse the output yourself and proceed per the step rules
Verdict says Update issue description? Yes	Apply the edits before fableplan runs
fableplan about to enter its build steps (7–8)	Stop it at step 5; work-on-issue-loop owns implementation
fableplan's sanity-check finds the plan structurally wrong	Stop and report; never hand a broken plan to work-on-issue-loop, and never re-plan yourself