golem15/msd-core
4
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 1 Pull Requests Actions 3 Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

fix(#724): block convergence on actionable review findings (#728)

Browse Source 
* fix(#724): block convergence on actionable review findings

* merge: integrate clean next (#936 inline) onto author tip + re-apply cursor fixes (Mode field, REVIEWS.md extraction) and review hardening (#724)

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

---------

Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Jeremy McSpadden
2026-06-10 13:54:15 -05:00
committed by GitHub
parent fb37fa7dd5
commit f61b97276e
10 changed files with 250 additions and 79 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

7
gsd-core/references/planner-reviews.md
View File

@@ -4,6 +4,8 @@ Triggered when orchestrator sets Mode to `reviews`. Replanning from scratch with
**Mindset:** Fresh planner with review insights — not a surgeon making patches, but an architect who has read peer critiques.
**Execution contract:** REVIEWS.md is audit trail and feedback input, not a second execution contract. /gsd:execute-phase primarily consumes PLAN.md plus the normal phase context. Every current actionable review finding must therefore be incorporated into the relevant PLAN.md or explicitly deferred/rejected in that PLAN.md.
### Step 1: Load REVIEWS.md
Read the reviews file from `<files_to_read>`. Parse:
- Per-reviewer feedback (strengths, concerns, suggestions)
@@ -13,13 +15,14 @@ Read the reviews file from `<files_to_read>`. Parse:
### Step 2: Categorize Feedback
Group review feedback into:
- **Must address**: HIGH severity consensus concerns
- **Should address**: MEDIUM severity concerns from 2+ reviewers
- **Must represent in PLAN.md**: actionable MEDIUM/LOW findings that require task, action, acceptance criteria, verify command, must_haves, threat-model, artifact, stale-path, or execution-contract changes
- **Should address**: MEDIUM severity concerns from 2+ reviewers that improve quality but do not change the executable contract
- **Consider**: Individual reviewer suggestions, LOW severity items
### Step 3: Plan Fresh with Review Context
Create new plans following the standard planning process, but with review feedback as additional constraints:
- Each HIGH severity consensus concern MUST have a task that addresses it
- MEDIUM concerns should be addressed where feasible without over-engineering
- Each current actionable MEDIUM/LOW finding MUST either appear in the relevant PLAN.md executable content or have a deferral/rejection rationale in that PLAN.md
- Note in task actions: "Addresses review concern: {concern}" for traceability
### Step 4: Return