f61b97276e
* 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>
43 lines
2.2 KiB
Markdown
43 lines
2.2 KiB
Markdown
# Reviews Mode — Planner Reference
|
|
|
|
Triggered when orchestrator sets Mode to `reviews`. Replanning from scratch with REVIEWS.md feedback as additional context.
|
|
|
|
**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)
|
|
- Consensus Summary (agreed concerns = highest priority to address)
|
|
- Divergent Views (investigate, make a judgment call)
|
|
|
|
### Step 2: Categorize Feedback
|
|
Group review feedback into:
|
|
- **Must address**: HIGH severity consensus concerns
|
|
- **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
|
|
- 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
|
|
Use standard PLANNING COMPLETE return format, adding a reviews section:
|
|
|
|
```markdown
|
|
### Review Feedback Addressed
|
|
|
|
| Concern | Severity | How Addressed |
|
|
|---------|----------|---------------|
|
|
| {concern} | HIGH | Plan {N}, Task {M}: {how} |
|
|
|
|
### Review Feedback Deferred
|
|
| Concern | Reason |
|
|
|---------|--------|
|
|
| {concern} | {why — out of scope, disagree, etc.} |
|
|
```
|