john/claude-engineering-plugin
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions 3 Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

feat: redesign document-review skill with persona-based review (#359)

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Trevin Chow
2026-03-24 01:51:22 -07:00
committed by GitHub
parent e932276866
commit 18d22afde2
18 changed files with 1259 additions and 64 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

212
plugins/compound-engineering/skills/document-review/SKILL.md
View File

@@ -1,88 +1,191 @@
---
name: document-review
description: This skill should be used to refine requirements or plan documents before proceeding to the next workflow step. It applies when a requirements document or plan document exists and the user wants to improve it.
description: Review requirements or plan documents using parallel persona agents that surface role-specific issues. Use when a requirements document or plan document exists and the user wants to improve it.
---
# Document Review
Improve requirements or plan documents through structured review.
Review requirements or plan documents through multi-persona analysis. Dispatches specialized reviewer agents in parallel, auto-fixes quality issues, and presents strategic questions for user decision.
## Step 1: Get the Document
## Phase 1: Get and Analyze Document
**If a document path is provided:** Read it, then proceed to Step 2.
**If a document path is provided:** Read it, then proceed.
**If no document is specified:** Ask which document to review, or look for the most recent requirements/plan in `docs/brainstorms/` or `docs/plans/`.
**If no document is specified:** Ask which document to review, or find the most recent in `docs/brainstorms/` or `docs/plans/` using a file-search/glob tool (e.g., Glob in Claude Code).
## Step 2: Assess
### Classify Document Type
Read through the document and ask:
After reading, classify the document:
- **requirements** -- from `docs/brainstorms/`, focuses on what to build and why
- **plan** -- from `docs/plans/`, focuses on how to build it with implementation details
- What is unclear?
- What is unnecessary?
- What decision is being avoided?
- What assumptions are unstated?
- Where could scope accidentally expand?
### Select Conditional Personas
These questions surface issues. Don't fix yet—just note what you find.
Analyze the document content to determine which conditional personas to activate. Check for these signals:
## Step 3: Evaluate
**product-lens** -- activate when the document contains:
- User-facing features, user stories, or customer-focused language
- Market claims, competitive positioning, or business justification
- Scope decisions, prioritization language, or priority tiers with feature assignments
- Requirements with user/customer/business outcome focus
Score the document against these criteria:
**design-lens** -- activate when the document contains:
- UI/UX references, frontend components, or visual design language
- User flows, wireframes, screen/page/view mentions
- Interaction descriptions (forms, buttons, navigation, modals)
- References to responsive behavior or accessibility
| Criterion | What to Check |
|-----------|---------------|
| **Clarity** | Problem statement is clear, no vague language ("probably," "consider," "try to") |
| **Completeness** | Required sections present, constraints stated, and outstanding questions clearly marked as blocking or deferred |
| **Specificity** | Concrete enough for next step (requirements → can plan, plan → can implement) |
| **Appropriate Level** | Requirements doc stays at behavior/scope level and does not drift into implementation unless the document is inherently technical |
| **YAGNI** | Avoid speculative complexity whose carrying cost outweighs its value; keep low-cost, meaningful polish when it is easy to maintain |
**security-lens** -- activate when the document contains:
- Auth/authorization mentions, login flows, session management
- API endpoints exposed to external clients
- Data handling, PII, payments, tokens, credentials, encryption
- Third-party integrations with trust boundary implications
If invoked within a workflow (after `/ce:brainstorm` or `/ce:plan`), also check:
- **User intent fidelity** — Document reflects what was discussed, assumptions validated
**scope-guardian** -- activate when the document contains:
- Multiple priority tiers (P0/P1/P2, must-have/should-have/nice-to-have)
- Large requirement count (>8 distinct requirements or implementation units)
- Stretch goals, nice-to-haves, or "future work" sections
- Scope boundary language that seems misaligned with stated goals
- Goals that don't clearly connect to requirements
## Step 4: Identify the Critical Improvement
## Phase 2: Announce and Dispatch Personas
Among everything found in Steps 2-3, does one issue stand out? If something would significantly improve the document's quality, this is the "must address" item. Highlight it prominently.
### Announce the Review Team
## Step 5: Make Changes
Tell the user which personas will review and why. For conditional personas, include the justification:
Present your findings, then:
```
Reviewing with:
- coherence-reviewer (always-on)
- feasibility-reviewer (always-on)
- scope-guardian-reviewer -- plan has 12 requirements across 3 priority levels
- security-lens-reviewer -- plan adds API endpoints with auth flow
```
1. **Auto-fix** minor issues (vague language, formatting) without asking
2. **Ask approval** before substantive changes (restructuring, removing sections, changing meaning)
3. **Update** the document inline—no separate files, no metadata sections
### Build Agent List
### Simplification Guidance
Always include:
- `compound-engineering:document-review:coherence-reviewer`
- `compound-engineering:document-review:feasibility-reviewer`
Simplification is purposeful removal of unnecessary complexity, not shortening for its own sake.
Add activated conditional personas:
- `compound-engineering:document-review:product-lens-reviewer`
- `compound-engineering:document-review:design-lens-reviewer`
- `compound-engineering:document-review:security-lens-reviewer`
- `compound-engineering:document-review:scope-guardian-reviewer`
**Simplify when:**
- Content serves hypothetical future needs without enough current value to justify its carrying cost
- Sections repeat information already covered elsewhere
- Detail exceeds what's needed to take the next step
- Abstractions or structure add overhead without clarity
### Dispatch
**Don't simplify:**
- Constraints or edge cases that affect implementation
- Rationale that explains why alternatives were rejected
- Open questions that need resolution
- Deferred technical or research questions that are intentionally carried forward to the next stage
Dispatch all agents in **parallel** using the platform's task/agent tool (e.g., Agent tool in Claude Code, spawn in Codex). Each agent receives the prompt built from the [subagent template](./references/subagent-template.md) with these variables filled:
**Also remove when inappropriate:**
- Library choices, file structures, endpoints, schemas, or other implementation details that do not belong in a non-technical requirements document
| Variable | Value |
|----------|-------|
| `{persona_file}` | Full content of the agent's markdown file |
| `{schema}` | Content of [findings-schema.json](./references/findings-schema.json) |
| `{document_type}` | "requirements" or "plan" from Phase 1 classification |
| `{document_path}` | Path to the document |
| `{document_content}` | Full text of the document |
## Step 6: Offer Next Action
Pass each agent the **full document** -- do not split into sections.
After changes are complete, ask:
**Error handling:** If an agent fails or times out, proceed with findings from agents that completed. Note the failed agent in the Coverage section. Do not block the entire review on a single agent failure.
1. **Refine again** - Another review pass
2. **Review complete** - Document is ready
**Dispatch limit:** Even at maximum (6 agents), use parallel dispatch. These are document reviewers with bounded scope reading a single document -- parallel is safe and fast.
### Iteration Guidance
## Phase 3: Synthesize Findings
After 2 refinement passes, recommend completion—diminishing returns are likely. But if the user wants to continue, allow it.
Process findings from all agents through this pipeline. **Order matters** -- each step depends on the previous.
Return control to the caller (workflow or user) after selection.
### 3.1 Validate
Check each agent's returned JSON against [findings-schema.json](./references/findings-schema.json):
- Drop findings missing any required field defined in the schema
- Drop findings with invalid enum values
- Note the agent name for any malformed output in the Coverage section
### 3.2 Confidence Gate
Suppress findings below 0.50 confidence. Store them as residual concerns for potential promotion in step 3.4.
### 3.3 Deduplicate
Fingerprint each finding using `normalize(section) + normalize(title)`. Normalization: lowercase, strip punctuation, collapse whitespace.
When fingerprints match across personas:
- If the findings recommend **opposing actions** (e.g., one says cut, the other says keep), do not merge -- preserve both for contradiction resolution in 3.5
- Otherwise merge: keep the highest severity, keep the highest confidence, union all evidence arrays, note all agreeing reviewers (e.g., "coherence, feasibility")
### 3.4 Promote Residual Concerns
Scan the residual concerns (findings suppressed in 3.2) for:
- **Cross-persona corroboration**: A residual concern from Persona A overlaps with an above-threshold finding from Persona B. Promote at P2 with confidence 0.55-0.65.
- **Concrete blocking risks**: A residual concern describes a specific, concrete risk that would block implementation. Promote at P2 with confidence 0.55.
### 3.5 Resolve Contradictions
When personas disagree on the same section:
- Create a **combined finding** presenting both perspectives
- Set `autofix_class: present`
- Frame as a tradeoff, not a verdict
Specific conflict patterns:
- Coherence says "keep for consistency" + scope-guardian says "cut for simplicity" -> combined finding, let user decide
- Feasibility says "this is impossible" + product-lens says "this is essential" -> P1 finding framed as a tradeoff
- Multiple personas flag the same issue -> merge into single finding, note consensus, increase confidence
### 3.6 Route by Autofix Class
| Autofix Class | Route |
|---------------|-------|
| `auto` | Apply automatically -- local deterministic fix (terminology, formatting, cross-references) |
| `present` | Present to user for judgment |
Demote any `auto` finding that lacks a `suggested_fix` to `present` -- the orchestrator cannot apply a fix without concrete replacement text.
### 3.7 Sort
Sort findings for presentation: P0 -> P1 -> P2 -> P3, then by confidence (descending), then by document order (section position).
## Phase 4: Apply and Present
### Apply Auto-fixes
Apply all `auto` findings to the document in a **single pass**:
- Edit the document inline using the platform's edit tool
- Track what was changed for the "Auto-fixes Applied" section
- Do not ask for approval -- these are unambiguously correct (terminology fixes, formatting, cross-references)
### Present Remaining Findings
Present all other findings to the user using the format from [review-output-template.md](./references/review-output-template.md):
- Group by severity (P0 -> P3)
- Include the Coverage table showing which personas ran
- Show auto-fixes that were applied
- Include residual concerns and deferred questions if any
Brief summary at the top: "Applied N auto-fixes. M findings to consider (X at P0/P1)."
### Protected Artifacts
During synthesis, discard any finding that recommends deleting or removing files in:
- `docs/brainstorms/`
- `docs/plans/`
- `docs/solutions/`
These are pipeline artifacts and must not be flagged for removal.
## Phase 5: Next Action
Use the platform's blocking question tool when available (AskUserQuestion in Claude Code, request_user_input in Codex, ask_user in Gemini). Otherwise present numbered options and wait for the user's reply.
Offer:
1. **Refine again** -- another review pass
2. **Review complete** -- document is ready
After 2 refinement passes, recommend completion -- diminishing returns are likely. But if the user wants to continue, allow it.
Return "Review complete" as the terminal signal for callers.
## What NOT to Do
@@ -90,3 +193,8 @@ Return control to the caller (workflow or user) after selection.
- Do not add new sections or requirements the user didn't discuss
- Do not over-engineer or add complexity
- Do not create separate review files or add metadata sections
- Do not modify any of the 4 caller skills (ce-brainstorm, ce-plan, ce-plan-beta, deepen-plan-beta)
## Iteration Guidance
On subsequent passes, re-dispatch personas and re-synthesize. The auto-fix mechanism and confidence gating prevent the same findings from recurring once fixed. If findings are repetitive across passes, recommend completion.