john/claude-engineering-plugin
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

feat(document-review): smarter autofix, batch-confirm, and error/omission classification (#401)

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Trevin Chow
2026-03-26 19:40:13 -07:00
committed by GitHub
parent b30288c44e
commit 0863cfa4cb
4 changed files with 95 additions and 46 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

73
plugins/compound-engineering/skills/document-review/references/review-output-template.md
View File

@@ -15,35 +15,52 @@ Use this **exact format** when presenting synthesized review findings. Findings
- security-lens -- plan adds public API endpoint with auth flow
- scope-guardian -- plan has 15 requirements across 3 priority levels
Applied 3 auto-fixes. Batched 2 fixes for approval. 4 findings to consider (2 errors, 2 omissions).
### Auto-fixes Applied
- Standardized "pipeline"/"workflow" terminology to "pipeline" throughout (coherence, auto)
- Fixed cross-reference: Section 4 referenced "Section 3.2" which is actually "Section 3.1" (coherence, auto)
- Standardized "pipeline"/"workflow" terminology to "pipeline" throughout (coherence)
- Fixed cross-reference: Section 4 referenced "Section 3.2" which is actually "Section 3.1" (coherence)
- Updated unit count from "6 units" to "7 units" to match listed units (coherence)
### Batch Confirm
These fixes have one clear correct answer but touch document meaning. Apply all?
| # | Section | Fix | Reviewer |
|---|---------|-----|----------|
| 1 | Unit 4 | Add "update API rate-limit config" step -- implied by Unit 3's rate-limit introduction | feasibility |
| 2 | Verification | Add auth token refresh to test scenarios -- required by Unit 2's token expiry handling | security-lens |
### P0 -- Must Fix
| # | Section | Issue | Reviewer | Confidence | Route |
|---|---------|-------|----------|------------|-------|
| 1 | Requirements Trace | Goal states "offline support" but technical approach assumes persistent connectivity | coherence | 0.92 | `present` |
#### Errors
| # | Section | Issue | Reviewer | Confidence |
|---|---------|-------|----------|------------|
| 1 | Requirements Trace | Goal states "offline support" but technical approach assumes persistent connectivity | coherence | 0.92 |
### P1 -- Should Fix
| # | Section | Issue | Reviewer | Confidence | Route |
|---|---------|-------|----------|------------|-------|
| 2 | Implementation Unit 3 | Plan proposes custom auth when codebase already uses Devise | feasibility | 0.85 | `present` |
| 3 | Scope Boundaries | 8 of 12 units build admin infrastructure; only 2 touch stated goal | scope-guardian | 0.80 | `present` |
#### Errors
| # | Section | Issue | Reviewer | Confidence |
|---|---------|-------|----------|------------|
| 2 | Scope Boundaries | 8 of 12 units build admin infrastructure; only 2 touch stated goal | scope-guardian | 0.80 |
#### Omissions
| # | Section | Issue | Reviewer | Confidence |
|---|---------|-------|----------|------------|
| 3 | Implementation Unit 3 | Plan proposes custom auth but does not mention existing Devise setup or migration path | feasibility | 0.85 |
### P2 -- Consider Fixing
| # | Section | Issue | Reviewer | Confidence | Route |
|---|---------|-------|----------|------------|-------|
| 4 | API Design | Public webhook endpoint has no rate limiting mentioned | security-lens | 0.75 | `present` |
#### Omissions
### P3 -- Minor
| # | Section | Issue | Reviewer | Confidence | Route |
|---|---------|-------|----------|------------|-------|
| 5 | Overview | "Service" used to mean both microservice and business class | coherence | 0.65 | `auto` |
| # | Section | Issue | Reviewer | Confidence |
|---|---------|-------|----------|------------|
| 4 | API Design | Public webhook endpoint has no rate limiting mentioned | security-lens | 0.75 |
### Residual Concerns
@@ -59,20 +76,22 @@ Use this **exact format** when presenting synthesized review findings. Findings
### Coverage
| Persona | Status | Findings | Residual |
|---------|--------|----------|----------|
| coherence | completed | 2 | 0 |
| feasibility | completed | 1 | 1 |
| security-lens | completed | 1 | 0 |
| scope-guardian | completed | 1 | 0 |
| product-lens | not activated | -- | -- |
| design-lens | not activated | -- | -- |
| Persona | Status | Findings | Auto | Batch | Present | Residual |
|---------|--------|----------|------|-------|---------|----------|
| coherence | completed | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| feasibility | completed | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| security-lens | completed | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| scope-guardian | completed | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| product-lens | not activated | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| design-lens | not activated | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
```
## Section Rules
- **Summary line**: Always present after the reviewer list. Format: "Applied N auto-fixes. Batched M fixes for approval. K findings to consider (X errors, Y omissions)." Omit any zero clause.
- **Auto-fixes Applied**: List fixes that were applied automatically (auto class). Omit section if none.
- **P0-P3 sections**: Only include sections that have findings. Omit empty severity levels.
- **Batch Confirm**: Group `batch_confirm` findings for a single yes/no/select approval. Omit section if none.
- **P0-P3 sections**: Only include sections that have findings. Omit empty severity levels. Within each severity, separate into **Errors** and **Omissions** sub-headers. Omit a sub-header if that severity has none of that type.
- **Residual Concerns**: Findings below confidence threshold that were promoted by cross-persona corroboration, plus unpromoted residual risks. Omit if none.
- **Deferred Questions**: Questions for later workflow stages. Omit if none.
- **Coverage**: Always include. Shows which personas ran and their output counts.
- **Coverage**: Always include. Shows which personas ran and their output counts broken down by route (Auto, Batch, Present).