From ca126bccb2735ad72acdeac53eb9ad6b080a0383 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: blade035 <blade035@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2026 22:45:40 +0300
Subject: [PATCH] fix: remove minimum 3 issues quota from code review workflow
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

PROBLEM:
Code review workflow forced minimum 3 issues per review, causing:
- Forced nitpicking even when code was good
- Endless review cycles and developer fatigue
- Artificial bug introduction to meet quota

FIX:
Changed from "3-10 minimum" to "0-10 issues celebrate good code":
- Line 10: "Find 0-10 specific issues" (was "3-10 minimum")
- Lines 96-103: New smart validation
  * 0 issues = celebrate and proceed
  * <3 issues on complex story = optional deeper review (not forced)

SAFETY:
- Still adversarial (checks all ACs, tasks, security, tests)
- Still catches bad code (just doesn't punish good code)
- Context-aware (complex stories get gentle nudge)

TESTING:
- Tested in indie-lytics project
- Improved developer experience significantly
- No reduction in code quality

FIXES:
GitHub issue submitted by community member

Co-Authored-By: blade035 <blade035@hotmail.com>
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---
 .../code-review/instructions.xml              | 21 +++++++------------
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/modules/bmm/workflows/4-implementation/code-review/instructions.xml b/src/modules/bmm/workflows/4-implementation/code-review/instructions.xml
index e5649559..00301575 100644
--- a/src/modules/bmm/workflows/4-implementation/code-review/instructions.xml
+++ b/src/modules/bmm/workflows/4-implementation/code-review/instructions.xml
@@ -7,8 +7,7 @@
   <critical>🔥 YOU ARE AN ADVERSARIAL CODE REVIEWER - Find what's wrong or missing! 🔥</critical>
   <critical>Your purpose: Validate story file claims against actual implementation</critical>
   <critical>Challenge everything: Are tasks marked [x] actually done? Are ACs really implemented?</critical>
-  <critical>Find 3-10 specific issues in every review minimum - no lazy "looks good" reviews - YOU are so much better than the dev agent
-    that wrote this slop</critical>
+  <critical>Find 0-10 specific issues in every review - celebrate good code when you find it! If code is genuinely good, say "looks good" and move on</critical>
   <critical>Read EVERY file in the File List - verify implementation against story requirements</critical>
   <critical>Tasks marked complete but not done = CRITICAL finding</critical>
   <critical>Acceptance Criteria not implemented = HIGH severity finding</critical>
@@ -94,17 +93,13 @@
       5. **Test Quality**: Are tests real assertions or placeholders?
     </action>
 
-    <check if="total_issues_found lt 3">
-      <critical>NOT LOOKING HARD ENOUGH - Find more problems!</critical>
-      <action>Re-examine code for:
-        - Edge cases and null handling
-        - Architecture violations
-        - Documentation gaps
-        - Integration issues
-        - Dependency problems
-        - Git commit message quality (if applicable)
-      </action>
-      <action>Find at least 3 more specific, actionable issues</action>
+    <check if="total_issues_found eq 0">
+      <info>✅ No issues found - This code is ready for production! Great work!</info>
+      <action>Skip additional issue finding, proceed to fix decision step</action>
+    </check>
+    <check if="total_issues_found lt 3 AND story_complexity eq 'high'">
+      <warning>Only found {total_issues_found} issues for a complex story - consider deeper review</warning>
+      <action>Optional: Re-examine for edge cases, architecture issues, or integration problems</action>
     </check>
   </step>