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

4.6 KiB
Raw Blame History

Brotherhood Review Task

Purpose

Conduct honest, rigorous peer review to ensure quality and eliminate sycophantic behavior.

Review Protocol

Pre-Review Requirements

  • Self-assessment completed honestly
  • All quality gates passed
  • UDTM documentation provided
  • Real implementation verified (no mocks/stubs)

Review Dimensions

1. Technical Review

  • Code Quality: Clean, maintainable, follows standards
  • Architecture: Consistent with existing patterns
  • Performance: Meets requirements, no obvious bottlenecks
  • Security: No vulnerabilities, proper error handling

2. Logic Review

  • Solution Appropriateness: Best approach for the problem
  • Requirement Alignment: Meets all specified requirements
  • Edge Case Handling: Proper boundary condition management
  • Integration: Works properly with existing systems

3. Reality Check (CRITICAL)

  • Actually Works: Functionality verified through testing
  • No Shortcuts: Real implementation, not workarounds
  • Production Ready: Would survive in production environment
  • Error Scenarios: Handles failures gracefully

4. Quality Standards

  • Zero Violations: No Ruff or MyPy errors
  • Test Coverage: Adequate and meaningful tests
  • Documentation: Clear, accurate, complete
  • Maintainability: Future developers can understand/modify

Honest Assessment Questions

  1. Does this actually work as claimed?
  2. Are there any shortcuts or workarounds?
  3. Would this break in production?
  4. Is this the best solution to the problem?
  5. Am I being completely honest about the quality?

Review Process

Step 1: Independent Analysis (30 minutes)

  • Review all artifacts without discussion
  • Complete technical analysis independently
  • Document initial findings and concerns
  • Prepare specific questions and feedback

Step 2: Collaborative Discussion (15 minutes)

  • Share findings openly and honestly
  • Challenge assumptions and approaches
  • Identify gaps and improvement opportunities
  • Reach consensus on quality assessment

Step 3: Action Planning (15 minutes)

  • Define specific improvement actions
  • Assign ownership and timelines
  • Establish re-review criteria if needed
  • Document decisions and rationale

Review Outcomes

  • APPROVE: All criteria met, no issues identified
  • CONDITIONAL: Minor fixes required, re-review needed within 24 hours
  • REJECT: Major issues, return to planning/implementation phase

Brotherhood Principles

  • Honesty First: Truth over politeness
  • Quality Focus: Excellence over speed
  • Mutual Support: Help improve, don't just critique
  • Root Cause: Address underlying issues, not symptoms
  • Continuous Improvement: Learn from every review

Anti-Sycophantic Enforcement

Forbidden Responses

  • "Looks good" without specific analysis
  • "Great work" without identifying actual strengths
  • "Minor issues" when major problems exist
  • Agreement without independent verification

Required Evidence

  • Specific examples of quality or issues
  • Reference to standards and best practices
  • Demonstration of actual functionality testing
  • Clear reasoning for all assessments

Review Documentation

Review Record Template

## Brotherhood Review: [Task/Story Name]
**Date**: [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Reviewer**: [Name]
**Reviewee**: [Name]

### Technical Assessment
- **Code Quality**: [Specific findings]
- **Architecture**: [Specific findings]
- **Performance**: [Specific findings]
- **Security**: [Specific findings]

### Reality Check Results
- **Functionality Test**: [Pass/Fail with evidence]
- **Production Readiness**: [Assessment with reasoning]
- **Error Handling**: [Specific scenarios tested]

### Honest Assessment
- **Strengths**: [Specific examples]
- **Weaknesses**: [Specific issues with impact]
- **Recommendations**: [Actionable improvements]

### Final Decision
- **Outcome**: [Approve/Conditional/Reject]
- **Confidence**: [1-10 with reasoning]
- **Next Steps**: [Specific actions required]

Success Criteria

  • Honest evaluation with documented findings
  • Specific recommendations for improvement
  • Confidence in production readiness
  • Team knowledge sharing achieved
  • Quality standards maintained or improved

Integration with BMAD Workflow

  • Required for: All story completion, architecture decisions, deployment
  • Frequency: At minimum before story done, optionally mid-implementation
  • Documentation: All reviews tracked in project quality metrics
  • Learning: Review insights feed back into process improvement