diff options
Diffstat (limited to '.ai/workflows/task-review.org')
| -rw-r--r-- | .ai/workflows/task-review.org | 6 |
1 files changed, 4 insertions, 2 deletions
diff --git a/.ai/workflows/task-review.org b/.ai/workflows/task-review.org index 7b6327b..ba1571a 100644 --- a/.ai/workflows/task-review.org +++ b/.ai/workflows/task-review.org @@ -57,7 +57,9 @@ Keep is the common case — most tasks are still right and just need re-stamping *** Tagging =:quick:= — small tasks -While reviewing each task, estimate its effort. If you judge it *30 minutes or less* and it doesn't already carry =:quick:=, add the tag to the heading line. If the heading and body don't tell you how long it'll take, *ask Craig* — don't guess. A wrong =:quick:= is worse than none: the tag exists so Craig can grab a genuinely small task in a spare moment, and a mislabeled one wastes that moment. +The =:quick:= and =:solo:= assessments (this section and the next) are *mandatory* for every reviewed task except a Kill — a review that skips them is incomplete. The hard definitions live in [[file:../../claude-rules/todo-format.md][todo-format.md]] ("Hard definitions: :solo: and :quick:"); autonomous execution (work-the-backlog / the no-approvals speedrun) reads =:solo:= as its eligibility gate and trusts the author's tag, so the run-time gate is only as trustworthy as this pass. + +While reviewing each task, estimate its effort. If you judge it *30 minutes or less* and it doesn't already carry =:quick:=, add the tag to the heading line. If the heading and body don't tell you how long it'll take, *ask Craig* — don't guess. A wrong =:quick:= is worse than none: the tag exists so Craig can grab a genuinely small task in a spare moment, and a mislabeled one wastes that moment. =:quick:= is an effort hint only, never an eligibility gate — size does not decide what runs autonomously. This is orthogonal to the action chosen — a task can be kept (or re-graded, or marked DOING) *and* tagged =:quick:= in the same pass. Skip the assessment on a Kill, since it's leaving the pool. Tags go on the heading line per [[file:../../claude-rules/todo-format.md][todo-format.md]], sharing one =:tag1:tag2:= cluster. @@ -67,7 +69,7 @@ While reviewing each task, judge whether Claude could build *and* verify it with 1. *Buildable* — Claude has the capability and access to do the work. 2. *Verifiable by Claude* — an objective or local check exists that Claude can run itself. Craig's routine spot-checking does not count against this, and neither does handing off a residual human-in-the-loop confirmation as a structured manual-testing reminder (the =verification.md= "Handing Off Manual Verification" pattern). The disqualifier is having no verification path of Claude's own at all — when the success criterion is only judgeable by Craig's eyes or subjective taste. -3. *No upfront decision* — no design or preference call Craig must make before Claude can begin. +3. *No deliberation* — no open design question and no "weigh these approaches" with real tradeoffs. At most one or two *quick, upfront-answerable* factual decisions are allowed — the speedrun preset batches those into its pre-flight Q&A, so they don't break the hands-off run. A genuine design or preference call disqualifies. If any gate is shaky, leave the tag off. Like =:quick:=, a wrong =:solo:= is worse than none — it tells Craig he can hand the task off and walk away, so a mislabeled one wastes that trust. When the heading and body don't make all three gates clear, ask Craig instead of guessing. |