Examples

This authored fixture demonstrates the report format and a concrete requirement mismatch. It is not an autonomous validation run, independent review, user testimonial or comparative benchmark.

The specification requires exponential retry delays capped at 30 seconds. The original plan describes exponential growth but omits the cap. uncapped.py follows that incomplete instruction; corrected.py is a reference correction. The same three acceptance tests run against both.

From the repository root:

python3 scripts/demo.py --output /tmp/plan-validation-demo

Use an output path that does not already exist. Open its report.html. Expected evidence:

Check	Expected result
Uncapped fixture	Three tests, one failure; `64 != 30`; nonzero exit
Corrected control	Three tests pass; zero exit
Renderer	Eight sections and a complete remediation prompt
Readiness	Not ready: no independent agent review was performed

The script checks those outcomes before generating the example. It writes actual command results to evidence.json, uses Unknown document scores and does not claim that an agent discovered the deliberately planted defect. Paths in captured command output are normalized to <repository> for sharing. No model calls, dependency installation or network access occur.

The example is deliberately small. It demonstrates a boundary assertion and report delivery; it does not establish improved accuracy, safety or net time savings on real repositories. See the evaluation guide for useful next measurements.

Permission and prompt cases

See representative safety cases for no dependency concern, risky dependency, declined research and prompt revision without execution. They use synthetic local evidence and make no claims about real packages or providers.