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

Merge 4597fdbc4e into be555aad8b

This commit is contained in:
Alex Verkhovsky 2026-03-18 11:36:57 -06:00 committed by GitHub
parent be555aad8b 4597fdbc4e
commit daded5621e
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: B5690EEEBB952194
1 changed files with 50 additions and 18 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

68
src/bmm-skills/4-implementation/bmad-code-review/steps/step-04-present.md
View File

@ -1,38 +1,70 @@
--- ---
deferred_work_file: '{implementation_artifacts}/deferred-work.md'
--- ---
# Step 4: Present # Step 4: Present and Act
## RULES ## RULES
- YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT in your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}` - 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. - 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.
## INSTRUCTIONS ## 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 rejected or none raised): state that and end the workflow.
- **Intent Gaps**: "These findings suggest the captured intent is incomplete. Consider clarifying intent before proceeding." ### 2. Handle deferred findings automatically
- List each with title + detail.
- **Bad Spec**: "These findings suggest the spec should be amended. Consider regenerating or amending the spec with this context:" If `defer` findings exist:
- List each with title + detail + suggested spec amendment.
- **Patch**: "These are fixable code issues:" 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.
- List each with title + detail + location (if available). 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."
- **Defer**: "Pre-existing issues surfaced by this review (not caused by current changes):" ### 3. Present remaining findings
- List each with title + detail.
3. Summary line: **X** intent_gap, **Y** bad_spec, **Z** patch, **W** defer findings. **R** findings rejected as noise. Group and present in this order (include a section only if findings exist):
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). - **Intent Gaps**: "These findings suggest the captured intent is incomplete."
- List each with title + detail.
5. Offer the user next steps (recommendations, not automated actions): - **Bad Spec**: "These findings suggest the spec should be amended."
- If `patch` findings exist: "These can be addressed in a follow-up implementation pass or manually." - List each with title + detail + suggested spec amendment.
- 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." - **Patch**: "These are fixable code issues:"
- List each with title + detail + location (if available).
Summary line: **X** intent_gap, **Y** bad_spec, **Z** patch, **W** defer (auto-handled), **R** rejected as noise.
### 4. Handle intent gap and bad spec 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.
### 5. Handle patch findings
If `patch` findings exist (including any downgraded 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
- **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 3**: Present each finding with full detail, diff context, and suggested fix. After walkthrough, re-offer options 1 and 2.
Workflow complete. Workflow complete.