Merge 74cea7401a into 182550407c

* fix(code-review): update sprint-status to done after review completes

The code-review workflow ended without updating sprint-status.yaml from
"review" to "done", leaving stories stuck in review status. The dev-story
workflow implies code-review handles this transition but it was dropped
during the v6.2.0 step-file architecture refactor.

- Add sprint_status path to workflow initialization
- Track story_key in step-01 when discovered from sprint status
- Add step-04 section 6 to update sprint-status.yaml and story file
- Add step-04 section 7 with next-step options

Closes #2043

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* fix(code-review): address PR review findings — split gating, story_key guard, HALT

- Split section 6 guard: story file status gated on spec_file only,
  sprint-status sync sub-gated on story_key separately
- Add conditional branch for manual choice in multi-story path so
  story_key is cleared when user declines a story selection
- Add HALT directive after Next steps menu to prevent LLM runaway

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

---------

Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

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": {

src/bmm-skills/4-implementation/bmad-code-review/steps/step-01-gather-context.md

@@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
 diff_output: '' # set at runtime
 spec_file: '' # set at runtime (path or empty)
 review_mode: '' # set at runtime: "full" or "no-spec"
+story_key: '' # set at runtime when discovered from sprint status
 ---
 
 # Step 1: Gather Context
@@ -23,8 +24,8 @@ review_mode: '' # set at runtime: "full" or "no-spec"
    - When multiple phrases match, prefer the most specific match (e.g., "branch diff" over bare "diff").
    - **If a clear match is found:** Announce the detected mode (e.g., "Detected intent: review staged changes only") and proceed directly to constructing `{diff_output}` using the corresponding sub-case from instruction 3. Skip to instruction 4 (spec question).
    - **If no match from invocation text, check sprint tracking.** Look for a sprint status file (`*sprint-status*`) in `{implementation_artifacts}` or `{planning_artifacts}`. If found, scan for any story with status `review`. Handle as follows:
-     - **Exactly one `review` story:** Suggest it: "I found story {{story-id}} in `review` status. Would you like to review its changes? [Y] Yes / [N] No, let me choose". If confirmed, use the story context to determine the diff source (branch name derived from story slug, or uncommitted changes). If declined, fall through to instruction 2.
-     - **Multiple `review` stories:** Present them as numbered options alongside a manual choice option. Wait for user selection. Then use the selected story's context to determine the diff source as in the single-story case above, and proceed to instruction 3.
+     - **Exactly one `review` story:** Set `{story_key}` to the story's key (e.g., `1-2-user-auth`). Suggest it: "I found story {{story-id}} in `review` status. Would you like to review its changes? [Y] Yes / [N] No, let me choose". If confirmed, use the story context to determine the diff source (branch name derived from story slug, or uncommitted changes). If declined, clear `{story_key}` and fall through to instruction 2.
+     - **Multiple `review` stories:** Present them as numbered options alongside a manual choice option. Wait for user selection. If the user selects a story, set `{story_key}` to the selected story's key and use the selected story's context to determine the diff source as in the single-story case above, and proceed to instruction 3. If the user selects the manual choice, clear `{story_key}` and fall through to instruction 2.
    - **If no match and no sprint tracking:** Fall through to instruction 2.
 
 2. HALT. Ask the user: **What do you want to review?** Present these options:

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

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

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

@@ -1,38 +1,129 @@
 ---
+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 proceed to section 6 (Sprint Status Update).
 
-   - **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] <Title> — <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>
+
+### 6. Update story status and sync sprint tracking
+
+Skip this section if `{spec_file}` is not set.
+
+#### Determine new status based on review outcome
+
+- If all `decision-needed` and `patch` findings were resolved (fixed or dismissed) AND no unresolved HIGH/MEDIUM issues remain: set `{new_status}` = `done`. Update the story file Status section to `done`.
+- If `patch` findings were left as action items, or unresolved issues remain: set `{new_status}` = `in-progress`. Update the story file Status section to `in-progress`.
+
+Save the story file.
+
+#### Sync sprint-status.yaml
+
+If `{story_key}` is not set, skip this subsection and note that sprint status was not synced because no story key was available.
+
+If `{sprint_status}` file exists:
+
+1. Load the FULL `{sprint_status}` file.
+2. Find the `development_status` entry matching `{story_key}`.
+3. If found: update `development_status[{story_key}]` to `{new_status}`. Update `last_updated` to current date. Save the file, preserving ALL comments and structure including STATUS DEFINITIONS.
+4. If `{story_key}` not found in sprint status: warn the user that the story file was updated but sprint-status sync failed.
+
+If `{sprint_status}` file does not exist, note that story status was updated in the story file only.
+
+#### Completion summary
+
+> **Review Complete!**
+>
+> **Story Status:** `{new_status}`
+> **Issues Fixed:** <fixed_count>
+> **Action Items Created:** <action_count>
+> **Deferred:** <W>
+> **Dismissed:** <R>
+
+### 7. Next steps
+
+Present the user with follow-up options:
+
+> **What would you like to do next?**
+> 1. **Start the next story** — run `dev-story` to pick up the next `ready-for-dev` story
+> 2. **Re-run code review** — address findings and review again
+> 3. **Done** — end the workflow
+
+**HALT** — I am waiting for your choice. Do not proceed until the user selects an option.

src/bmm-skills/4-implementation/bmad-code-review/workflow.md

@@ -44,6 +44,7 @@ Load and read full config from `{main_config}` and resolve:
 - `project_name`, `planning_artifacts`, `implementation_artifacts`, `user_name`
 - `communication_language`, `document_output_language`, `user_skill_level`
 - `date` as system-generated current datetime
+- `sprint_status` = `{implementation_artifacts}/sprint-status.yaml`
 - `project_context` = `**/project-context.md` (load if exists)
 - CLAUDE.md / memory files (load if exist)