diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'todo.org')
| -rw-r--r-- | todo.org | 31 |
1 files changed, 31 insertions, 0 deletions
@@ -39,6 +39,37 @@ Tags are assigned and refreshed by =task-audit=; =task-review= keeps them honest * Rulesets Open Work +** DOING [#B] Hostile subagent review before every agent commit :feature: +:PROPERTIES: +:LAST_REVIEWED: 2026-07-28 +:END: +From the roam inbox, 2026-07-28: "code reviews must occur before every commit an agent does, and they should be hostile reviews from a subagent without the agent's context." + +Two asks, and only the second is new. The publish flow already mandates a review before every commit (Step 1). What changes is *who reviews*: today the reviewing agent is the one that wrote the change, so it inherits the author's mental model, and =review-code= only *suggests* subagent dispatch, and only "for substantive reviews on large diffs". + +Decisions settled with Craig, 2026-07-28, and shipped: +- *Scope* — every commit. The reviewer's own Phase 0 rules a diff trivial and returns Skipped, which satisfies the gate; the author never rules on their own diff. +- *Stance* — "adversarial", not "hostile" (Craig's call). An agent told to attack manufactures findings, so the stance carries a substantiation floor: a finding not substantiated against the diff is dropped. +- *What the reviewer gets* — the diff, a one-line claim of what it does, and the requirement source (ticket, plan, task body) where one exists. Withheld: the conversation, the exploration, the author's rationale. The requirement source stays *in* because it is the only artifact that can contradict the author's claim; withholding it makes the claim self-certifying. +- *Loop* — re-review until the reviewer approves, turning on blocking findings rather than the verdict token. Bounded at three rounds, and stopped early on a finding that recurs after being reported fixed. Both bounds hand the decision to Craig; the unattended callers park instead. +- *Adjudication* — Craig, never the author overruling the reviewer. +- *Home* — the =publish= skill Step 1, with =review-code= carrying the adversarial contract and re-review mode. +- *The =subagents.md= tension* — resolved with an Isolation Override section: the size heuristics assume the main thread could do the task equally well, and they lapse when its own context is what makes its answer untrustworthy. + +Remaining: nothing on the design. The change shipped in this session. + +** TODO [#C] start-work Phase 7 still summarizes the old publish flow :chore:solo: +:PROPERTIES: +:LAST_REVIEWED: 2026-07-28 +:END: +=.claude/commands/start-work.md:336-339= hands off with "Follow =commits.md= exactly" and "Run =/review-code --staged= before each commit" — no isolated reviewer, no re-review loop. It was already stale before the 2026-07-28 review change, because =commits.md= moved the publish flow into the =publish= skill in an earlier commit, so the pointer names a file that no longer holds the flow. + +Grading: Cosmetic severity (a stale summary beside a correct canonical, and start-work is attended so the escalation target exists) x most users frequently = P3 = [#C]. + +Fix is to point Phase 7 at the =publish= skill rather than restate the flow, which is what let it drift in the first place. Worth a sweep for other files that restate the flow instead of pointing at it. + +Found by the adversarial reviewer during the 2026-07-28 review-flow change, and correctly filed rather than fixed there: the line was untouched by that diff. + ** DONE [#C] sentry.org calls one loop cycle a "fire" :chore:solo: CLOSED: [2026-07-28 Tue] :PROPERTIES: |