ldy26098
/
BMAD-METHOD
mirror of https://github.com/bmad-code-org/BMAD-METHOD.git
1
0
Fork 0
Code Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

refactor(quick-dev): sharpen Review Trail generation instructions 

Add intra-concern ordering (rule 3), ≤15 word framing budget (rule 6),
and shift framing from description toward design rationale.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Alex Verkhovsky 2026-03-16 23:21:00 -06:00
parent af00f542dc
commit 0225dfd538
1 changed files with 7 additions and 6 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

13
src/bmm/workflows/bmad-quick-flow/bmad-quick-dev-new-preview/step-05-present.md
View File

@ -12,17 +12,18 @@
### Generate Review Trail
Before committing, append a `## Review Trail` section to `{spec_file}` after the last existing section. This is a post-implementation artifact — do not modify the Code Map.
Before committing, append a `## Review Trail` section to `{spec_file}` **after the last existing section**. This is a post-implementation artifact — do not modify the Code Map.
Read `{baseline_commit}` from `{spec_file}` frontmatter. Construct the diff of all changes since `{baseline_commit}`. If `{baseline_commit}` is missing or `NO_VCS`, use best effort to determine what changed.
Read `{baseline_commit}` from `{spec_file}` frontmatter. Construct the diff of all changes since `{baseline_commit}`. If `{baseline_commit}` is missing or `NO_VCS`, use best-effort analysis of the working tree.
Build the trail as an ordered sequence of **stops** — clickable `path:line` references with brief framing — optimized for a human reviewer reading top-down to understand the change:
1. **Order by concern, not by file.** Group stops by the conceptual concern they address (e.g., "validation logic", "schema change", "UI binding"). A single file may appear under multiple concerns.
2. **Lead with the entry point** — the place a reviewer should look first to understand the design intent.
3. **End with peripherals** — tests, config, types, and other supporting changes come last.
4. **Every code reference uses `path:line` format** so editors auto-link them.
5. **Each stop gets one line of framing** — what this code does in the context of the change and why. No paragraphs.
2. **Lead with the entry point** — the single highest-leverage file:line a reviewer should look at first to grasp the design intent.
3. **Inside each concern**, order stops from most important / architecturally interesting to supporting. Lightly bias toward higher-risk or boundary-crossing stops.
4. **End with peripherals** — tests, config, types, and other supporting changes come last.
5. **Every code reference uses `path:line` format** so editors auto-link them.
6. **Each stop gets one ultra-concise line of framing** (≤15 words) — why this approach was chosen here and what it achieves in the context of the change. No paragraphs.
Format: