6cfa0c55d2
Removes kilo, kimi, kimi-code, copilot, windsurf, augment, trae, qwen, hermes, cline, codebuddy and pi end to end: capability descriptors, installer branches and converters (bin/install.js 14.9k -> 11.2k lines), TypeScript converters, hook surfaces and runtime homes, review lanes qwen/kimi-code, the two pi migrations, Kimi payload normalization in the hook guards, dead hostBehaviors vocabulary, launcher home probes, fixtures, runtime-specific tests and the prose that presented them as supported. Installer output for the six kept runtimes is byte-identical to before the prune. The Kimi tool-vocabulary tests in workflow-guard, read-guard and read-injection-scanner are left in place pending a decision.
35 lines
3.3 KiB
Markdown
35 lines
3.3 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
id: 42
|
|
title: Cross-AI Peer Review
|
|
group: v1.27 Features
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
**Command:** `/msd-review --phase N [--claude] [--codex] [--coderabbit] [--opencode] [--cursor] [--agy] [--antigravity] [--ollama] [--lm-studio] [--llama-cpp] [--all]`
|
|
|
|
**Purpose:** Invoke external AI CLIs (Claude, Codex, CodeRabbit, OpenCode, Cursor, Antigravity) and local OpenAI-compatible servers (Ollama, LM Studio, llama.cpp) to independently review phase plans. Produces structured REVIEWS.md with per-reviewer feedback.
|
|
|
|
Each reviewer is a **declared lane**: its binary, prompt and output channels, timeout, availability probe, and empty-output policy come from a capability manifest rather than hand-written per-CLI logic, so a reviewer can be shipped as an installable capability instead of a core change.
|
|
|
|
**Requirements:**
|
|
- REQ-REVIEW-01: System MUST detect available AI CLIs on the system
|
|
- REQ-REVIEW-02: System MUST build a structured review prompt from phase plans
|
|
- REQ-REVIEW-03: System MUST invoke each selected CLI independently
|
|
- REQ-REVIEW-04: System MUST collect responses and produce `REVIEWS.md`
|
|
- REQ-REVIEW-05: Reviews MUST be consumable by `/msd-plan-phase --reviews`
|
|
- REQ-REVIEW-06: System MUST support project-level no-flag defaults via `review.default_reviewers`
|
|
- REQ-REVIEW-07: Reviewer precedence MUST be explicit flags > `--all` > `review.default_reviewers` > all detected reviewers
|
|
|
|
**Produces:** `{phase}-REVIEWS.md` — Per-reviewer structured feedback
|
|
|
|
**User configuration note:**
|
|
- Set `review.default_reviewers` in `.planning/config.json` (or via `msd config-set`) to control no-flag `/msd-review` fan-out.
|
|
- `review.default_reviewers` may include configured `review.reviewer_instances` names; each instance runs as an independent reviewer identity backed by its configured adapter/model. Instance names are not CLI flags.
|
|
- Use `--all` for a full pre-merge sweep without changing project defaults.
|
|
- For local model servers with small context windows, set `review.max_prompt_tokens_per_reviewer` to auto-trim prompts per reviewer — see [Prompt budgets for small-context reviewers](../docs/CONFIGURATION.md#prompt-budgets-for-small-context-reviewers) in CONFIGURATION.md.
|
|
|
|
**Why record which model produced a review (#2295):** `reviewers:` in the frontmatter recorded which CLIs ran, but not which model each one resolved to. Without a pin, the model is whatever the CLI's own config or internal default happens to pick, so a "Codex vs Antigravity" comparison could quietly be a frontier model against a cheap-tier default with nothing in the record to say so — and a CLI update, or an unrelated config edit, could silently make past and future reviews incomparable.
|
|
|
|
The fix records the model *and its provenance*. Provenance is what makes the value trustworthy: `pinned` (from `review.models.<slug>`) is certain, while `banner` and `transcript` are recovered from third-party CLI output this project does not own — a startup banner or an undocumented session log.
|
|
|
|
That third-party dependence is a real trade-off, held honestly rather than papered over: the `banner` and `transcript` arms read formats MSD does not control, so they are best-effort by design and degrade to `unknown` rather than guessing or failing the run. A recorded `unknown` is a real answer — a wrong model name attributed to a review would be worse than none.
|