docs(skills): добавлено описание cold review в brainstorm-with-docs
- Зачем: - расширить методологию ревью артефактов после мозгового штурма. - Что: - добавлен абзац о cold review и порядке работы с его находками в SKILL.md. - Проверка: - git show HEAD:agents/.agents/skills/brainstorm-with-docs/SKILL.md | grep -A 5 'cold review'
This commit is contained in:
1 parent
bc1ebf3bf5
commit
a2ba8a3dc5
1 file changed
+11
@@ -254,6 +254,17 @@ 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
|
decision is the user's call. This re-read is cheap and regularly catches both
|
||||||
kinds.
|
kinds.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
A **cold review** — a fresh agent with no shared context — inverts that trade:
|
||||||
|
it reads the artifact and the repository, never the conversation, so it is
|
||||||
|
strong on facts and contradictions and weak on fit — on proportion, on what
|
||||||
|
belongs here, and on what the user already settled. Its findings are evidence,
|
||||||
|
not orders: verify each against the artifact and the repo, then dispose of it
|
||||||
|
by the same split as above. Rejecting a finding is a normal outcome. A finding
|
||||||
|
that argues against something the user settled in conversation is a reviewer
|
||||||
|
working without that turn, not a defect — report the argument as a
|
||||||
|
decision-level find. A pass where you rejected nothing is a reason to re-read
|
||||||
|
what you took on trust.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Then go to `<stop_condition>`.
|
Then go to `<stop_condition>`.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
</how_to_do_it>
|
</how_to_do_it>
|
||||||
|
|||||||
Reference in new issue
Block a user