docs(skills): brainstorm-with-docs — перечитывание реагирует по уровню находки
Текстовые огрехи горячее ревью правит молча по месту; находку уровня решений (противоречие, дыра в охвате) предъявляет владельцу, не исправляя и не замалчивая. Довод владельца: текстовые находки видны и неопасны, а противоречия при перечитывании не раз оказывались важными — плоский запрет переоткрывать решения заставлял бы молчать или чинить мимо владельца. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
1 parent
a95dc7988e
commit
9ce4c6f769
2 files changed
+17
-7
No files matched your search
@@ -244,10 +244,13 @@ Otherwise use the conventional homes — `CONTEXT.md` at the repo root, ADRs in
|
||||
as part of step 6 rather than guessing. Create directories lazily.
|
||||
|
||||
After writing, re-read the written file end-to-end as its reader, not its
|
||||
author, and fix what you find in place — wording, structure drift, sections
|
||||
that disagree with each other, template mismatches. This pass is cheap and
|
||||
regularly catches real defects; it polishes text, it does not reopen decisions
|
||||
(those passed `<self_review>` at step 6).
|
||||
author. React by the level of what you find. Text-level defects — wording,
|
||||
structure drift, template mismatches — fix in place, silently. A
|
||||
decision-level find — a contradiction with existing docs or between the
|
||||
artifact's own sections, a hole in coverage, an unhandled scenario — present
|
||||
to the user instead: neither fix it silently nor suppress it. Reopening a
|
||||
decision is the user's call. This re-read is cheap and regularly catches both
|
||||
kinds.
|
||||
|
||||
Then go to `<stop_condition>`.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in new issue
Block a user