john/claude-engineering-plugin
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions 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

98
plugins/compound-engineering/skills/document-review/references/findings-schema.json Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,98 @@
{
"$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
"title": "Document Review Findings",
"description": "Structured output schema for document review persona agents",
"type": "object",
"required": ["reviewer", "findings", "residual_risks", "deferred_questions"],
"properties": {
"reviewer": {
"type": "string",
"description": "Persona name that produced this output (e.g., 'coherence', 'feasibility', 'product-lens')"
},
"findings": {
"type": "array",
"description": "List of document review findings. Empty array if no issues found.",
"items": {
"type": "object",
"required": [
"title",
"severity",
"section",
"why_it_matters",
"autofix_class",
"confidence",
"evidence"
],
"properties": {
"title": {
"type": "string",
"description": "Short, specific issue title. 10 words or fewer.",
"maxLength": 100
},
"severity": {
"type": "string",
"enum": ["P0", "P1", "P2", "P3"],
"description": "Issue severity level"
},
"section": {
"type": "string",
"description": "Document section where the issue appears (e.g., 'Requirements Trace', 'Implementation Unit 3', 'Overview')"
},
"why_it_matters": {
"type": "string",
"description": "Impact statement -- not 'what is wrong' but 'what goes wrong if not addressed'"
},
"autofix_class": {
"type": "string",
"enum": ["auto", "present"],
"description": "How this issue should be handled. auto = local deterministic fix the orchestrator can apply without asking (terminology, formatting, cross-references). present = requires user judgment."
},
"suggested_fix": {
"type": ["string", "null"],
"description": "Concrete fix text. Omit or null if no good fix is obvious -- a bad suggestion is worse than none."
},
"confidence": {
"type": "number",
"description": "Reviewer confidence in this finding, calibrated per persona",
"minimum": 0.0,
"maximum": 1.0
},
"evidence": {
"type": "array",
"description": "Quoted text from the document that supports this finding. At least 1 item.",
"items": { "type": "string" },
"minItems": 1
}
}
}
},
"residual_risks": {
"type": "array",
"description": "Risks the reviewer noticed but could not confirm as findings (below confidence threshold)",
"items": { "type": "string" }
},
"deferred_questions": {
"type": "array",
"description": "Questions that should be resolved in a later workflow stage (planning, implementation)",
"items": { "type": "string" }
}
},
"_meta": {
"confidence_thresholds": {
"suppress": "Below 0.50 -- do not report. Finding is speculative noise.",
"flag": "0.50-0.69 -- include only when the persona's calibration says the issue is actionable at that confidence.",
"report": "0.70+ -- report with full confidence."
},
"severity_definitions": {
"P0": "Contradictions or gaps that would cause building the wrong thing. Must fix before proceeding.",
"P1": "Significant gap likely hit during planning or implementation. Should fix.",
"P2": "Moderate issue with meaningful downside. Fix if straightforward.",
"P3": "Minor improvement. User's discretion."
},
"autofix_classes": {
"auto": "Local, deterministic document fix: terminology consistency, formatting, cross-reference correction. Must be unambiguous and not change the document's meaning.",
"present": "Requires user judgment -- strategic questions, tradeoffs, meaning-changing fixes, or informational findings."
}
}
}

78
plugins/compound-engineering/skills/document-review/references/review-output-template.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
# Document Review Output Template
Use this **exact format** when presenting synthesized review findings. Findings are grouped by severity, not by reviewer.
**IMPORTANT:** Use pipe-delimited markdown tables (`| col | col |`). Do NOT use ASCII box-drawing characters.
## Example
```markdown
## Document Review Results
**Document:** docs/plans/2026-03-15-feat-user-auth-plan.md
**Type:** plan
**Reviewers:** coherence, feasibility, security-lens, scope-guardian
- security-lens -- plan adds public API endpoint with auth flow
- scope-guardian -- plan has 15 requirements across 3 priority levels
### 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)
### 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` |
### 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` |
### P2 -- Consider Fixing
| # | Section | Issue | Reviewer | Confidence | Route |
|---|---------|-------|----------|------------|-------|
| 4 | API Design | Public webhook endpoint has no rate limiting mentioned | security-lens | 0.75 | `present` |
### P3 -- Minor
| # | Section | Issue | Reviewer | Confidence | Route |
|---|---------|-------|----------|------------|-------|
| 5 | Overview | "Service" used to mean both microservice and business class | coherence | 0.65 | `auto` |
### Residual Concerns
| # | Concern | Source |
|---|---------|--------|
| 1 | Migration rollback strategy not addressed for Phase 2 data changes | feasibility |
### Deferred Questions
| # | Question | Source |
|---|---------|--------|
| 1 | Should the API use versioned endpoints from launch? | feasibility, security-lens |
### 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 | -- | -- |
```
## Section Rules
- **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.
- **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.

50
plugins/compound-engineering/skills/document-review/references/subagent-template.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
# Document Review Sub-agent Prompt Template
This template is used by the document-review orchestrator to spawn each reviewer sub-agent. Variable substitution slots are filled at dispatch time.
---
## Template
```
You are a specialist document reviewer.
<persona>
{persona_file}
</persona>
<output-contract>
Return ONLY valid JSON matching the findings schema below. No prose, no markdown, no explanation outside the JSON object.
{schema}
Rules:
- Suppress any finding below your stated confidence floor (see your Confidence calibration section).
- Every finding MUST include at least one evidence item -- a direct quote from the document.
- You are operationally read-only. Analyze the document and produce findings. Do not edit the document, create files, or make changes. You may use non-mutating tools (file reads, glob, grep, git log) to gather context about the codebase when evaluating feasibility or existing patterns.
- Set `autofix_class` conservatively:
- `auto`: Only for local, deterministic fixes -- terminology corrections, formatting fixes, cross-reference repairs. The fix must be unambiguous and not change the document's meaning.
- `present`: Everything else -- strategic questions, tradeoffs, meaning-changing fixes, informational findings.
- `suggested_fix` is optional. Only include it when the fix is obvious and correct. For `present` findings, frame as a question instead.
- If you find no issues, return an empty findings array. Still populate residual_risks and deferred_questions if applicable.
- Use your suppress conditions. Do not flag issues that belong to other personas.
</output-contract>
<review-context>
Document type: {document_type}
Document path: {document_path}
Document content:
{document_content}
</review-context>
```
## Variable Reference
| Variable | Source | Description |
|----------|--------|-------------|
| `{persona_file}` | Agent markdown file content | The full persona definition (identity, analysis protocol, calibration, suppress conditions) |
| `{schema}` | `references/findings-schema.json` content | The JSON schema reviewers must conform to |
| `{document_type}` | Orchestrator classification | Either "requirements" or "plan" |
| `{document_path}` | Skill input | Path to the document being reviewed |
| `{document_content}` | File read | The full document text |