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>
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 `<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:
|
|
|
|
```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.} |
|
|
```
|