diff --git a/package-lock.json b/package-lock.json index 7f889240f..bcbfedb40 100644 --- a/package-lock.json +++ b/package-lock.json @@ -7230,9 +7230,9 @@ "license": "ISC" }, "node_modules/h3": { - "version": "1.15.5", - "resolved": "https://registry.npmjs.org/h3/-/h3-1.15.5.tgz", - "integrity": "sha512-xEyq3rSl+dhGX2Lm0+eFQIAzlDN6Fs0EcC4f7BNUmzaRX/PTzeuM+Tr2lHB8FoXggsQIeXLj8EDVgs5ywxyxmg==", + "version": "1.15.8", + "resolved": "https://registry.npmjs.org/h3/-/h3-1.15.8.tgz", + "integrity": "sha512-iOH6Vl8mGd9nNfu9C0IZ+GuOAfJHcyf3VriQxWaSWIB76Fg4BnFuk4cxBxjmQSSxJS664+pgjP6e7VBnUzFfcg==", "dev": true, "license": "MIT", "dependencies": { diff --git a/src/bmm-skills/4-implementation/bmad-code-review/steps/step-02-review.md b/src/bmm-skills/4-implementation/bmad-code-review/steps/step-02-review.md index 306613014..c262a4971 100644 --- a/src/bmm-skills/4-implementation/bmad-code-review/steps/step-02-review.md +++ b/src/bmm-skills/4-implementation/bmad-code-review/steps/step-02-review.md @@ -13,27 +13,20 @@ failed_layers: '' # set at runtime: comma-separated list of layers that failed o ## INSTRUCTIONS -1. Launch parallel subagents. Each subagent gets NO conversation history from this session: +1. If `{review_mode}` = `"no-spec"`, note to the user: "Acceptance Auditor skipped — no spec file provided." - - **Blind Hunter** -- Invoke the `bmad-review-adversarial-general` skill in a subagent. Pass `content` = `{diff_output}` only. No spec, no project access. +2. Launch parallel subagents without conversation context. If subagents are not available, generate prompt files in `{implementation_artifacts}` — one per reviewer role below — and HALT. Ask the user to run each in a separate session (ideally a different LLM) and paste back the findings. When findings are pasted, resume from this point and proceed to step 3. - - **Edge Case Hunter** -- Invoke the `bmad-review-edge-case-hunter` skill in a subagent. Pass `content` = `{diff_output}`. This subagent has read access to the project. + - **Blind Hunter** — receives `{diff_output}` only. No spec, no context docs, no project access. Invoke via the `bmad-review-adversarial-general` skill. - - **Acceptance Auditor** (only if `{review_mode}` = `"full"`) -- A subagent that receives `{diff_output}`, the content of the file at `{spec_file}`, and any loaded context docs. Its prompt: - > You are an Acceptance Auditor. Review this diff against the spec and context docs. Check for: violations of acceptance criteria, deviations from spec intent, missing implementation of specified behavior, contradictions between spec constraints and actual code. Output findings as a markdown list. Each finding: one-line title, which AC/constraint it violates, and evidence from the diff. + - **Edge Case Hunter** — receives `{diff_output}` and read access to the project. Invoke via the `bmad-review-edge-case-hunter` skill. -2. **Subagent failure handling**: If any subagent fails, times out, or returns empty results, append the layer name to `{failed_layers}` (comma-separated) and proceed with findings from the remaining layers. + - **Acceptance Auditor** (only if `{review_mode}` = `"full"`) — receives `{diff_output}`, the content of the file at `{spec_file}`, and any loaded context docs. Its prompt: + > You are an Acceptance Auditor. Review this diff against the spec and context docs. Check for: violations of acceptance criteria, deviations from spec intent, missing implementation of specified behavior, contradictions between spec constraints and actual code. Output findings as a Markdown list. Each finding: one-line title, which AC/constraint it violates, and evidence from the diff. -3. If `{review_mode}` = `"no-spec"`, note to the user: "Acceptance Auditor skipped — no spec file provided." +3. **Subagent failure handling**: If any subagent fails, times out, or returns empty results, append the layer name to `{failed_layers}` (comma-separated) and proceed with findings from the remaining layers. -4. **Fallback** (if subagents are not available): Generate prompt files in `{implementation_artifacts}` -- one per active reviewer: - - `review-blind-hunter.md` (always) - - `review-edge-case-hunter.md` (always) - - `review-acceptance-auditor.md` (only if `{review_mode}` = `"full"`) - - HALT. Tell the user to run each prompt in a separate session and paste back findings. When findings are pasted, resume from this point and proceed to step 3. - -5. Collect all findings from the completed layers. +4. Collect all findings from the completed layers. ## NEXT 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..6bb2635db 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 triage (all rejected or none raised): state "✅ Clean review — all layers passed." (Step 3 already warned if any review layers failed via `{failed_layers}`.) ## 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 73a6919e2..799f05fe9 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 @@ -1,38 +1,84 @@ --- +deferred_work_file: '{implementation_artifacts}/deferred-work.md' --- -# Step 4: Present +# Step 4: Present and Act ## RULES - YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT in your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}` -- Do NOT auto-fix anything. Present findings and let the user decide next steps. +- When `{spec_file}` is set, always write findings to the story file before offering action choices. +- `decision-needed` findings must be resolved before handling `patch` findings. ## INSTRUCTIONS -1. Group remaining findings by category. +### 1. Clean review shortcut -2. Present to the user in this order (include a section only if findings exist in that category): +If zero findings remain after triage (all dismissed or none raised): state that and end the workflow. - - **Intent Gaps**: "These findings suggest the captured intent is incomplete. Consider clarifying intent before proceeding." - - List each with title + detail. +### 2. Write findings to the story file - - **Bad Spec**: "These findings suggest the spec should be amended. Consider regenerating or amending the spec with this context:" - - List each with title + detail + suggested spec amendment. +If `{spec_file}` exists and contains a Tasks/Subtasks section, append a `### Review Findings` subsection. Write all findings in this order: - - **Patch**: "These are fixable code issues:" - - List each with title + detail + location (if available). +1. **`decision-needed`** findings (unchecked): + `- [ ] [Review][Decision] — <Detail>` - - **Defer**: "Pre-existing issues surfaced by this review (not caused by current changes):" - - List each with title + detail. +2. **`patch`** findings (unchecked): + `- [ ] [Review][Patch] <Title> [<file>:<line>]` -3. Summary line: **X** intent_gap, **Y** bad_spec, **Z** patch, **W** defer findings. **R** findings rejected as noise. +3. **`defer`** findings (checked off, marked deferred): + `- [x] [Review][Defer] <Title> [<file>:<line>] — deferred, pre-existing` -4. If clean review (zero findings across all layers after triage): state that N findings were raised but all were classified as noise, or that no findings were raised at all (as applicable). +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. -5. Offer the user next steps (recommendations, not automated actions): - - If `patch` findings exist: "These can be addressed in a follow-up implementation pass or manually." - - If `intent_gap` or `bad_spec` findings exist: "Consider running the planning workflow to clarify intent or amend the spec before continuing." - - If only `defer` findings remain: "No action needed for this change. Deferred items are noted for future attention." +### 3. Present summary -Workflow complete. +Announce what was written: + +> **Code review complete.** <D> `decision-needed`, <P> `patch`, <W> `defer`, <R> dismissed as noise. + +If `{spec_file}` is set, add: `Findings written to the review findings section in {spec_file}.` +Otherwise add: `Findings are listed above. No story file was provided, so nothing was persisted.` + +### 4. Resolve decision-needed findings + +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. + +If the user chooses to defer, ask: Quick one-line reason for deferring this item? (helps future reviews): — then append that reason to both the story file bullet and the `{deferred_work_file}` entry. + +**HALT** — I am waiting for your numbered choice. Reply with only the number (or "0" for batch). Do not proceed until you select an option. + +### 5. Handle `patch` findings + +If `patch` findings exist (including any resolved from step 4), HALT. Ask the user: + +If `{spec_file}` is set, present all three options (if >3 `patch` findings exist, also show option 0): + +> **How would you like to handle the <Z> `patch` findings?** +> 0. **Batch-apply all** — automatically fix every non-controversial patch (recommended when there are many) +> 1. **Fix them automatically** — I will apply fixes now +> 2. **Leave as action items** — they are already in the story file +> 3. **Walk through each** — let me show details before deciding + +If `{spec_file}` is **not** set, present only options 1 and 3 (omit option 2 — findings were not written to a file). If >3 `patch` findings exist, also show option 0: + +> **How would you like to handle the <Z> `patch` findings?** +> 0. **Batch-apply all** — automatically fix every non-controversial patch (recommended when there are many) +> 1. **Fix them automatically** — I will apply fixes now +> 2. **Walk through each** — let me show details before deciding + +**HALT** — I am waiting for your numbered choice. Reply with only the number (or "0" for batch). Do not proceed until you select an option. + +- **Option 0** (only when >3 findings): Apply all non-controversial patches without per-finding confirmation. Skip any finding that requires judgment. Present a summary of changes made and any skipped findings. +- **Option 1**: Apply each fix. After all patches are applied, present a summary of changes made. If `{spec_file}` is set, check off the items in the story file. +- **Option 2** (only when `{spec_file}` is set): Done — findings are already written to the story. +- **Walk through each**: Present each finding with full detail, diff context, and suggested fix. After walkthrough, re-offer the applicable options above. + + **HALT** — I am waiting for your numbered choice. Reply with only the number (or "0" for batch). Do not proceed until you select an option. + +**✅ Code review actions complete** + +- Decision-needed resolved: <D> +- Patches handled: <P> +- Deferred: <W> +- Dismissed: <R>