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.
2.3 KiB
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.