From adafd1187bcb63c30f74530b3ccbe6b68cc84802 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Alex Verkhovsky Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2026 00:39:45 -0600 Subject: [PATCH] refactor(code-review): simplify triage to decision-needed/patch/defer/dismiss MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Replace 5-bucket classification (intent_gap, bad_spec, patch, defer, reject) with 4 pragmatic buckets. Findings always written to story file first. Decision-needed findings gate patch handling — resolve ambiguity before fixing. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) --- .../bmad-code-review/steps/step-03-triage.md | 15 +++-- .../bmad-code-review/steps/step-04-present.md | 58 ++++++++----------- 2 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/bmm-skills/4-implementation/bmad-code-review/steps/step-03-triage.md b/src/bmm-skills/4-implementation/bmad-code-review/steps/step-03-triage.md index 3e1d21665..0b4dc04f5 100644 --- a/src/bmm-skills/4-implementation/bmad-code-review/steps/step-03-triage.md +++ b/src/bmm-skills/4-implementation/bmad-code-review/steps/step-03-triage.md @@ -30,19 +30,18 @@ - Set `source` to the merged sources (e.g., `blind+edge`). 3. **Classify** each finding into exactly one bucket: - - **intent_gap** -- The spec/intent is incomplete; cannot resolve from existing information. Only possible if `{review_mode}` = `"full"`. - - **bad_spec** -- The spec should have prevented this; spec is wrong or ambiguous. Only possible if `{review_mode}` = `"full"`. - - **patch** -- Code issue that is trivially fixable without human input. Just needs a code change. + - **decision_needed** -- There is an ambiguous choice that requires human input. The code cannot be correctly patched without knowing the user's intent. Only possible if `{review_mode}` = `"full"`. + - **patch** -- Code issue that is fixable without human input. The correct fix is unambiguous. - **defer** -- Pre-existing issue not caused by the current change. Real but not actionable now. - - **reject** -- Noise, false positive, or handled elsewhere. + - **dismiss** -- Noise, false positive, or handled elsewhere. - If `{review_mode}` = `"no-spec"` and a finding would otherwise be `intent_gap` or `bad_spec`, reclassify it as `patch` (if code-fixable) or `defer` (if not). + If `{review_mode}` = `"no-spec"` and a finding would otherwise be `decision_needed`, reclassify it as `patch` (if the fix is unambiguous) or `defer` (if not). -4. **Drop** all `reject` findings. Record the reject count for the summary. +4. **Drop** all `dismiss` findings. Record the dismiss count for the summary. -5. If `{failed_layers}` is non-empty, report which layers failed before announcing results. If zero findings remain after dropping rejects AND `{failed_layers}` is non-empty, warn the user that the review may be incomplete rather than announcing a clean review. +5. If `{failed_layers}` is non-empty, report which layers failed before announcing results. If zero findings remain after dropping dismissed AND `{failed_layers}` is non-empty, warn the user that the review may be incomplete rather than announcing a clean review. -6. If zero findings remain after dropping rejects and no layers failed, note clean review. +6. If zero findings remain after dropping dismissed and no layers failed, note clean review. ## NEXT diff --git a/src/bmm-skills/4-implementation/bmad-code-review/steps/step-04-present.md b/src/bmm-skills/4-implementation/bmad-code-review/steps/step-04-present.md index bcfee3b9c..2610207cc 100644 --- a/src/bmm-skills/4-implementation/bmad-code-review/steps/step-04-present.md +++ b/src/bmm-skills/4-implementation/bmad-code-review/steps/step-04-present.md @@ -7,64 +7,52 @@ deferred_work_file: '{implementation_artifacts}/deferred-work.md' ## RULES - YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT in your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}` -- Deferred findings are handled automatically — no user input needed. -- Patch findings require user choice before acting. -- Intent gap and bad spec findings require a conversation — suggest options but let the user decide. +- Always write findings to the story file before offering action choices. +- Decision-needed findings must be resolved before handling patches. ## INSTRUCTIONS ### 1. Clean review shortcut -If zero findings remain after triage (all rejected or none raised): state that and end the workflow. +If zero findings remain after triage (all dismissed or none raised): state that and end the workflow. -### 2. Handle deferred findings automatically +### 2. Write findings to the story file -If `defer` findings exist: +If `{spec_file}` exists and contains a Tasks/Subtasks section, append a `### Review Findings` subsection. Write all findings in this order: -1. Append each to `{deferred_work_file}` under a heading `## Deferred from: code review ({date})`. If `{spec_file}` is set, include its basename in the heading (e.g., `code review of story-3.3 (2026-03-18)`). One bullet per finding with severity and description. -2. If `{spec_file}` exists and contains a Tasks/Subtasks section, append each as a checked-off item: - `- [x] [AI-Review][Defer] Description [file:line]` -3. Announce: "**{N} deferred findings** written to deferred-work.md and marked complete in the story file." +1. **Decision needed** findings (unchecked): + `- [ ] [Review][Decision] {Title} — {Detail}` -### 3. Present remaining findings +2. **Patch** findings (unchecked): + `- [ ] [Review][Patch] {Title} [{file}:{line}]` -Group and present in this order (include a section only if findings exist): +3. **Defer** findings (checked off, marked deferred): + `- [x] [Review][Defer] {Title} [{file}:{line}] — deferred, pre-existing` -- **Intent Gaps**: "These findings suggest the captured intent is incomplete." - - List each with title + detail. +Also append each `defer` finding to `{deferred_work_file}` under a heading `## Deferred from: code review ({date})`. If `{spec_file}` is set, include its basename in the heading (e.g., `code review of story-3.3 (2026-03-18)`). One bullet per finding with description. -- **Bad Spec**: "These findings suggest the spec should be amended." - - List each with title + detail + suggested spec amendment. +### 3. Present summary -- **Patch**: "These are fixable code issues:" - - List each with title + detail + location (if available). +Announce what was written: -Summary line: **X** intent_gap, **Y** bad_spec, **Z** patch, **W** defer (auto-handled), **R** rejected as noise. +> **Code review complete.** {D} decision-needed, {P} patch, {W} deferred, {R} dismissed as noise. +> Findings written to the review findings section in `{spec_file}`. -### 4. Handle intent gap and bad spec findings +### 4. Resolve decision-needed findings -If `intent_gap` or `bad_spec` findings exist, initiate a conversation: - -1. Present each finding with its detail and the specific spec section it relates to. -2. For each finding (or as a batch if they relate to the same spec section), suggest resolution options: - - **Downgrade to patch** — reclassify as a `patch` finding and handle it with the other patches in step 5. Cheapest option — avoids re-running dev story or create story. - - **Patch the spec** — amend the specific section in `{spec_file}` to address the gap or fix the bad spec language, then continue with implementation. - - **Reset to ready-for-dev** — update the story status back to ready-for-dev so the spec can be reworked and code regenerated from the corrected spec. Most expensive — triggers another full dev cycle. - - **Dismiss** — the finding is not actionable or the spec is correct as-is. -3. For findings that trace upstream of the story file (e.g., a PRD or architecture gap), note this explicitly: "This may originate upstream of the story — consider whether the PRD or architecture docs need a course correction." -4. Let the user decide. Do not auto-apply any spec changes. +If `decision_needed` findings exist, present each one with its detail and the options available. The user must decide — the correct fix is ambiguous without their input. Walk through each finding (or batch related ones) and get the user's call. Once resolved, each becomes a `patch`, `defer`, or is dismissed. ### 5. Handle patch findings -If `patch` findings exist (including any downgraded from step 4), ask the user: +If `patch` findings exist (including any resolved from step 4), ask the user: > **How would you like to handle the {Z} patch findings?** > 1. **Fix them automatically** — I will apply fixes now -> 2. **Create action items** — I will add them to the story file for later -> 3. **Show me details** — Let me walk through each one before deciding +> 2. **Leave as action items** — they are already in the story file +> 3. **Walk through each** — let me show details before deciding -- **Option 1**: Apply each fix. After all patches are applied, present a summary of changes made. -- **Option 2**: Add a "Review Follow-ups (AI)" subsection to the Tasks/Subtasks section of `{spec_file}`. For each finding: `- [ ] [AI-Review][{Severity}] {Description} [{file}:{line}]` +- **Option 1**: Apply each fix. After all patches are applied, present a summary of changes made and check off the items in the story file. +- **Option 2**: Done — findings are already written to the story. - **Option 3**: Present each finding with full detail, diff context, and suggested fix. After walkthrough, re-offer options 1 and 2. Workflow complete.