71180983a0
* fix(#3423): standardize on required_reading, retire files_to_read emit tag * test(#3423): flip tag assertions, extend consistency guard to spawner surfaces * fix(#3423): sweep capabilities fragments, regen registry+skills, anchor executor test * chore(#3423): acknowledge tag-rename emitted ripples and workflow growth * chore(#3423): broaden emitted-ripple acknowledgment to all embedders * chore(#3423): settle emitted-drift acks post-rebase (merge 3004/1689-owned keys) * chore(#3423): drop stale ripple acks, ack execute-phase growth * chore(#3423): restore pristine 3004 fragment, keep only consumed appends * chore(#3423): backfill changeset pr number * chore(#3423): settle emitted-drift acks post-merge (move code-review-fix ripple into 3190, tag-rename ripples into 3191/3297) * chore(#3423): re-arm 3324 ack for execute-phase.md tag-rename ripple * fix(#3423): trim 8 bytes from execute-phase model note to hold ADR-857 margin, re-arm 3370 ack for net +4 growth --------- Co-authored-by: sim <sim@local>
2.2 KiB
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 <required_reading>. 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:
### 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.} |