Dmitry Dementiev
10f55f35f2
- Зачем:
- находка FIT-5 холодного ревью: развилка, сжатая до открытого вопроса,
не даёт принять решение — кода нет в контексте ни у координатора, ни у
владельца, а исполнитель в этот момент единственный держит картину.
- Что:
- NEEDS_DECISION в triage-header.md требует варианты и рекомендацию
исполнителя, а не только формулировку вопроса.
- требование «понятно без чтения кода» адресовано обеим меткам
координатора сразу — вместе с OUT_OF_SCOPE.
- раздел «Пользователь в петле» SKILL.md обязывает координатора нести
решение владельцу тем же составом.
- Проверка:
- первым боевым прогоном конвейера: у NEEDS_DECISION в отчёте
исполнителя есть варианты, их цена и рекомендация.
47 lines
2.3 KiB
Markdown
47 lines
2.3 KiB
Markdown
# Triage of findings from independent blind reviews of your implementation
|
|
|
|
Below are the findings of the blind reviews, **verbatim**. Process every
|
|
finding ID; change nothing outside their scope. Assign each ID exactly one
|
|
disposition:
|
|
|
|
- FIXED — a TDD fix: first a test reproducing the finding, then the fix;
|
|
name the check that proves closure;
|
|
- REJECTED — a reasoned rejection via contract/spec and test; a bare
|
|
"not important" is not accepted;
|
|
- OUT_OF_SCOPE — needs a boundary decision; state which one;
|
|
- NEEDS_DECISION — a product, architecture, or risk choice a technical
|
|
argument cannot settle; state the open question, the options you see,
|
|
and which one you would take and why. This includes the case where your
|
|
own fix would settle such a choice — the size of the edit is irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
OUT_OF_SCOPE and NEEDS_DECISION belong to the coordinator — do not
|
|
silently decide them yourself. Write both so they can be judged without
|
|
reading the code: name what each option costs and what it breaks. The
|
|
coordinator holds no code in context, by design.
|
|
|
|
## The review is evidence, not orders
|
|
|
|
A review report is a set of claims, not a list of instructions. Verify
|
|
every finding yourself. You own the task; the review is there to help.
|
|
|
|
- **Rejection is a normal outcome, not a conflict.** A REJECTED with an
|
|
argument from contract and test is worth exactly as much as a FIXED. A
|
|
run with no rejection and no finding closed by your own route says
|
|
nothing about the quality of the review — it is a reason to re-read
|
|
what you took on trust.
|
|
- **The reviewer's route is a proposal.** Closing a finding another way
|
|
is fine when the argument is stronger; name the route you took and why.
|
|
|
|
No commits. Do NOT edit the task file: write detailed resolutions and
|
|
rejection arguments to your assigned report file — re-checks and fresh
|
|
threads will read that file by path; the task file is updated separately
|
|
at the end of the run.
|
|
|
|
Final report: one line per ID — `ID | disposition | one-phrase essence`;
|
|
then disposition counters, test command with counters, list of changed
|
|
files, and open questions for the coordinator, if any.
|
|
|
|
Orchestrator notes, if present below, carry task-level decisions (out of
|
|
scope / risk accepted) and verified facts you don't have — they are not
|
|
findings to fix.
|