feat(ce-review): add headless mode for programmatic callers (#430)
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Trevin Chow
@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
date: 2026-03-28
|
||||
topic: ce-review-headless-mode
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# ce:review Headless Mode
|
||||
|
||||
## Problem Frame
|
||||
|
||||
ce:review currently has three modes (interactive, autofix, report-only), but all assume some level of direct user interaction or have mode-specific behaviors that don't fit programmatic callers. When another skill needs code review results as structured input, there's no way to invoke ce:review without it trying to prompt a user or applying fixes with interactive-session assumptions.
|
||||
|
||||
document-review solved this same problem in PR #425 with a `mode:headless` pattern. ce:review needs the same capability so it can be used as a utility skill by other workflows.
|
||||
|
||||
## Requirements
|
||||
|
||||
**Argument Parsing**
|
||||
- R1. Add `mode:headless` argument, parsed alongside existing mode flags
|
||||
|
||||
**Runtime Behavior**
|
||||
- R2. In headless mode, apply `safe_auto` fixes silently (matching autofix behavior)
|
||||
- R4. No `AskUserQuestion` or other interactive prompts in headless mode
|
||||
- R5. End with a clear completion signal so callers can detect when the review is done
|
||||
|
||||
**Output Format**
|
||||
- R3. Return all non-auto findings (`gated_auto`, `manual`, `advisory`) as structured text output, preserving their original classifications (severity, autofix_class, owner, confidence, evidence[], pre_existing)
|
||||
- R6. Follow document-review's structural output pattern (same envelope format, same section headings, similar parsing heuristics) while adapting per-finding fields to ce:review's own schema
|
||||
|
||||
## Success Criteria
|
||||
|
||||
- Another skill can invoke ce:review with `mode:headless`, receive structured findings, and act on them without any user interaction
|
||||
- Output envelope (section headings, severity grouping, completion signal) is structurally consistent with document-review's headless output so callers can use a similar consumption pattern for both, while per-finding fields reflect ce:review's own schema
|
||||
|
||||
## Scope Boundaries
|
||||
|
||||
- Not changing the existing three modes (interactive, autofix, report-only)
|
||||
- Not adding new reviewer personas or changing the review pipeline itself
|
||||
- Not building a specific caller workflow in this change — just enabling the capability
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Decisions
|
||||
|
||||
- **Apply safe_auto fixes in headless**: Matches document-review's pattern where auto-fixes are applied silently and everything else is returned for the caller to handle
|
||||
- **Structural consistency with document-review, not schema compatibility**: Same envelope and section headings, but per-finding fields use ce:review's own schema (which has different autofix_class values, owner, pre_existing, etc.). Callers will need skill-aware parsing for individual findings
|
||||
|
||||
## Outstanding Questions
|
||||
|
||||
### Deferred to Planning
|
||||
|
||||
- [Affects R3][Technical] Exact structured output format — should it mirror document-review's text format verbatim, or adapt to ce:review's richer findings schema (which includes fields like `autofix_class`, `evidence[]`, `pre_existing` that document-review doesn't have)?
|
||||
- [Affects R1][Technical] How `mode:headless` interacts with the existing mode parsing — is it a fourth mode, or an overlay that modifies report-only/autofix behavior?
|
||||
- [Affects R5][Technical] What the completion signal looks like — "Review complete (headless mode)" text, or a more structured envelope?
|
||||
- [Affects R2][Technical] Should headless mode write run artifacts (`.context/compound-engineering/ce-review/<run-id>/`) and create durable todo files like autofix, or suppress them like report-only?
|
||||
- [Affects R1][Technical] How should headless mode handle checkout/branch switching in Stage 1? Programmatic callers may need the checkout to stay stable (like report-only) even though headless applies fixes (like autofix).
|
||||
- [Affects R1][Technical] Error behavior when headless receives conflicting mode flags (e.g., `mode:headless` + existing mode flags) or missing diff scope (no changes, no PR).
|
||||
- [Affects R2][Technical] Should headless mode support bounded re-review rounds (max_rounds: 2) like autofix, or be single-pass?
|
||||
|
||||
## Next Steps
|
||||
|
||||
-> `/ce:plan` for structured implementation planning
|
||||
330
docs/plans/2026-03-28-001-feat-ce-review-headless-mode-plan.md
Normal file
330
docs/plans/2026-03-28-001-feat-ce-review-headless-mode-plan.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,330 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "feat(ce-review): Add headless mode for programmatic callers"
|
||||
type: feat
|
||||
status: completed
|
||||
date: 2026-03-28
|
||||
origin: docs/brainstorms/2026-03-28-ce-review-headless-mode-requirements.md
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# feat(ce-review): Add headless mode for programmatic callers
|
||||
|
||||
## Overview
|
||||
|
||||
Add `mode:headless` to ce:review so other skills can invoke it programmatically and receive structured findings without interactive prompts. Follows the pattern established by document-review's headless mode (PR #425).
|
||||
|
||||
## Problem Frame
|
||||
|
||||
ce:review has three modes (interactive, autofix, report-only), but none is designed for skill-to-skill invocation where the caller wants structured findings returned as parseable output. Autofix applies fixes and writes todos; report-only is read-only and outputs a human-readable report. Neither returns structured output for a calling workflow to consume and route. (see origin: `docs/brainstorms/2026-03-28-ce-review-headless-mode-requirements.md`)
|
||||
|
||||
## Requirements Trace
|
||||
|
||||
- R1. Add `mode:headless` argument, parsed alongside existing mode flags
|
||||
- R2. In headless mode, apply `safe_auto` fixes silently (matching autofix behavior)
|
||||
- R3. Return all non-auto findings as structured text output, preserving severity, autofix_class, owner, requires_verification, confidence, evidence[], pre_existing
|
||||
- R4. No `AskUserQuestion` or other interactive prompts in headless mode
|
||||
- R5. End with a clear completion signal so callers can detect when the review is done
|
||||
- R6. Follow document-review's structural output *pattern* (completion header, metadata block, autofix-class-grouped findings, trailing sections) while using ce:review's own section headings and per-finding fields
|
||||
|
||||
## Scope Boundaries
|
||||
|
||||
- Not changing existing three modes (interactive, autofix, report-only)
|
||||
- Not adding new reviewer personas or changing the review pipeline (Stages 3-5)
|
||||
- Not building a specific caller workflow — just enabling the capability
|
||||
- Not adding headless invocations to existing orchestrators (lfg, slfg) in this change
|
||||
|
||||
## Context & Research
|
||||
|
||||
### Relevant Code and Patterns
|
||||
|
||||
- `plugins/compound-engineering/skills/ce-review/SKILL.md` — the skill to modify (mode detection at line 32, argument parsing at line 19, post-review flow at line 440)
|
||||
- `plugins/compound-engineering/skills/ce-review/references/review-output-template.md` — existing output template with pipe-delimited tables and severity-grouped sections
|
||||
- `plugins/compound-engineering/skills/ce-review/references/findings-schema.json` — ce:review's findings schema with `safe_auto|gated_auto|manual|advisory` autofix_class and `review-fixer|downstream-resolver|human|release` owner
|
||||
- `plugins/compound-engineering/skills/document-review/SKILL.md` — headless mode pattern to follow (Phase 0 parsing, Phase 4 headless output, Phase 5 immediate return)
|
||||
- `tests/review-skill-contract.test.ts` — contract test to extend
|
||||
|
||||
### Institutional Learnings
|
||||
|
||||
- `docs/solutions/skill-design/beta-promotion-orchestration-contract.md` — contract tests must be extended atomically with new mode flags
|
||||
- `docs/solutions/skill-design/compound-refresh-skill-improvements.md` — explicit opt-in only for autonomous modes (no auto-detection from tool availability); conservative treatment of borderline cases
|
||||
- `docs/solutions/skill-design/git-workflow-skills-need-explicit-state-machines-2026-03-27.md` — walk all mode x state combinations when adding a new mode branch
|
||||
- `docs/solutions/agent-friendly-cli-principles.md` — structured parseable output with stable field contracts for programmatic callers
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Technical Decisions
|
||||
|
||||
- **Headless is a fourth explicit mode, not an overlay**: Each mode is self-contained with its own complete behavior specification. This avoids whack-a-mole regressions from overlay interactions (per state-machine learning). Headless has its own rules section parallel to autofix and report-only.
|
||||
|
||||
- **No shared checkout switching, but NOT safe for concurrent use**: Headless follows report-only's checkout guard — if a PR/branch target is passed, headless must run in an isolated worktree or stop. However, unlike report-only, headless mutates files (applies safe_auto fixes). Callers must not run headless concurrently with other mutating operations on the same checkout. The headless rules section should explicitly state this.
|
||||
|
||||
- **Single-pass, no re-review rounds**: Headless applies `safe_auto` fixes in one pass and returns. No bounded fixer loop. Rationale: autofix uses max_rounds:2 because it operates autonomously within a larger workflow; headless returns structured output to a caller that can re-invoke if needed. The caller owns the iteration decision, keeping headless simple and predictable. Applied fixes that introduce new issues will be caught on a subsequent invocation if the caller chooses to re-review.
|
||||
|
||||
- **Write run artifacts, skip todos**: Run artifacts (`.context/compound-engineering/ce-review/<run-id>/`) provide an audit trail of what headless did. Todo files are skipped because the caller receives structured findings and routes downstream work itself.
|
||||
|
||||
- **Reject conflicting mode flags**: `mode:headless` is incompatible with `mode:autofix` and `mode:report-only`. If multiple mode tokens appear, emit an error and stop. This follows the "fail fast with actionable errors" principle.
|
||||
|
||||
- **Require diff scope with structured error**: Like document-review requiring a document path in headless mode, ce:review headless requires that a diff scope is determinable (branch, PR, or `base:` ref). If scope cannot be determined, emit a structured error: `Review failed (headless mode). Reason: <no diff scope detected | merge-base unresolved | conflicting mode flags>`. No agents are dispatched. The same structured error format applies to conflicting mode flags.
|
||||
|
||||
## Open Questions
|
||||
|
||||
### Resolved During Planning
|
||||
|
||||
- **Fourth mode vs overlay?** Fourth mode. Self-contained behavior avoids overlay ambiguity. (Grounded in state-machine learning and the fact that all three existing modes have independent rules sections.)
|
||||
- **Artifacts and todos?** Write artifacts (audit trail), skip todos (caller routes findings). Headless owns mutation but not downstream handoff.
|
||||
- **Checkout behavior?** No shared checkout switching. Same guard as report-only, since headless callers need stable checkouts.
|
||||
- **Re-review rounds?** Single-pass. Callers can re-invoke if needed.
|
||||
|
||||
### Deferred to Implementation
|
||||
|
||||
- **Conflicting flags and missing scope error messages**: Decision made (reject with structured error), but exact wording and error envelope format deferred to implementation
|
||||
- Whether the run artifact format needs any headless-specific metadata (e.g., marking the run as headless)
|
||||
|
||||
## High-Level Technical Design
|
||||
|
||||
> *This illustrates the intended approach and is directional guidance for review, not implementation specification. The implementing agent should treat it as context, not code to reproduce.*
|
||||
|
||||
### Mode x Behavior Decision Matrix
|
||||
|
||||
| Behavior | Interactive | Autofix | Report-only | **Headless** |
|
||||
|----------|------------|---------|-------------|--------------|
|
||||
| User questions | Yes | No | No | **No** |
|
||||
| Checkout switching | Yes | Yes | No (worktree or stop) | **No (worktree or stop)** |
|
||||
| Intent ambiguity | Ask user | Infer conservatively | Infer conservatively | **Infer conservatively** |
|
||||
| Apply safe_auto fixes | After policy question | Automatically | Never | **safe_auto only, single pass** |
|
||||
| Apply gated_auto/manual fixes | After user approval | Never | Never | **Never (returned in output)** |
|
||||
| Re-review rounds | max_rounds: 2 | max_rounds: 2 | N/A | **Single pass (no re-review)** |
|
||||
| Write run artifact | Yes | Yes | No | **Yes** |
|
||||
| Create todo files | No (user decides) | Yes (downstream-resolver) | No | **No (caller routes)** |
|
||||
| Structured text output | No (interactive report) | No (interactive report) | No (interactive report) | **Yes (headless envelope)** |
|
||||
| Commit/push/PR | Offered | Never | Never | **Never** |
|
||||
| Completion signal | N/A | Stops after artifacts | Stops after report | **"Review complete"** |
|
||||
| Safe for concurrent use | No | No | Yes (read-only) | **No (mutates files)** |
|
||||
|
||||
### Headless Output Envelope
|
||||
|
||||
Follows document-review's structural pattern adapted for ce:review's schema:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Code review complete (headless mode).
|
||||
|
||||
Scope: <scope-line>
|
||||
Intent: <intent-summary>
|
||||
Reviewers: <reviewer-list with conditional justifications>
|
||||
Verdict: <Ready to merge | Ready with fixes | Not ready>
|
||||
Artifact: .context/compound-engineering/ce-review/<run-id>/
|
||||
|
||||
Applied N safe_auto fixes.
|
||||
|
||||
Gated-auto findings (concrete fix, changes behavior/contracts):
|
||||
|
||||
[P1][gated_auto -> downstream-resolver][needs-verification] File: <file:line> -- <title> (<reviewer>, confidence <N>)
|
||||
Why: <why_it_matters>
|
||||
Suggested fix: <suggested_fix or "none">
|
||||
Evidence: <evidence[0]>
|
||||
Evidence: <evidence[1]>
|
||||
|
||||
Manual findings (actionable, needs handoff):
|
||||
|
||||
[P1][manual -> downstream-resolver] File: <file:line> -- <title> (<reviewer>, confidence <N>)
|
||||
Why: <why_it_matters>
|
||||
Evidence: <evidence[0]>
|
||||
|
||||
Advisory findings (report-only):
|
||||
|
||||
[P2][advisory -> human] File: <file:line> -- <title> (<reviewer>, confidence <N>)
|
||||
Why: <why_it_matters>
|
||||
|
||||
Pre-existing issues:
|
||||
- <file:line> -- <title> (<reviewer>)
|
||||
|
||||
Residual risks:
|
||||
- <risk>
|
||||
|
||||
Testing gaps:
|
||||
- <gap>
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
The `[needs-verification]` marker appears only on findings where `requires_verification: true`. The `Artifact:` line gives callers the path to the full run artifact for machine-readable access to the complete findings schema. The text envelope is the primary handoff; the artifact is for debugging and full-fidelity access.
|
||||
|
||||
Findings with `owner: release` appear in the Advisory section (they are operational/rollout items, not code fixes). Findings with `pre_existing: true` appear in the Pre-existing section regardless of autofix_class.
|
||||
|
||||
Omit any section with zero items. If all reviewers fail or time out, emit a degraded signal: `Code review degraded (headless mode). Reason: 0 of N reviewers returned results.` followed by "Review complete" so the caller can detect the failure and decide how to proceed.
|
||||
|
||||
Then output "Review complete" as the terminal signal.
|
||||
|
||||
## Implementation Units
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **Unit 1: Mode Infrastructure**
|
||||
|
||||
**Goal:** Add `mode:headless` to argument parsing, mode detection, and error handling for conflicting flags / missing scope.
|
||||
|
||||
**Requirements:** R1, R4
|
||||
|
||||
**Dependencies:** None
|
||||
|
||||
**Files:**
|
||||
- Modify: `plugins/compound-engineering/skills/ce-review/SKILL.md`
|
||||
|
||||
**Approach:**
|
||||
- Add `mode:headless` row to the Argument Parsing token table (alongside `mode:autofix` and `mode:report-only`)
|
||||
- Add headless row to the Mode Detection table with behavior summary
|
||||
- Add a "Headless mode rules" subsection parallel to "Autofix mode rules" and "Report-only mode rules"
|
||||
- Update the `argument-hint` frontmatter to include `mode:headless`
|
||||
- Add conflicting-flag guard: if multiple mode tokens appear in arguments, emit an error message listing the conflict and stop
|
||||
- Add scope-required guard: if headless mode cannot determine diff scope without user interaction, emit an error with re-invocation syntax (matching document-review's nil-path pattern)
|
||||
|
||||
**Patterns to follow:**
|
||||
- Existing mode detection table structure at SKILL.md line 34
|
||||
- Existing mode rules subsections at SKILL.md lines 40-54
|
||||
- document-review Phase 0 parsing and nil-path guard at document-review SKILL.md lines 12-37
|
||||
|
||||
**Test scenarios:**
|
||||
- Happy path: `mode:headless` token is parsed and headless mode is activated
|
||||
- Happy path: `mode:headless` with a branch name or PR number parses both correctly
|
||||
- Error path: `mode:headless mode:autofix` is rejected with a clear error
|
||||
- Error path: `mode:headless mode:report-only` is rejected with a clear error
|
||||
- Edge case: `mode:headless` alone with no branch/PR and no determinable scope emits a scope-required error
|
||||
|
||||
**Verification:**
|
||||
- SKILL.md contains `mode:headless` in argument-hint, token table, mode detection table, and a dedicated rules subsection
|
||||
- Conflicting-flag and missing-scope guard text is present
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **Unit 2: Pipeline Behavior Adjustments**
|
||||
|
||||
**Goal:** Add headless-specific behavior for Stage 1 (checkout guard) and Stage 2 (intent ambiguity).
|
||||
|
||||
**Requirements:** R1, R4
|
||||
|
||||
**Dependencies:** Unit 1
|
||||
|
||||
**Files:**
|
||||
- Modify: `plugins/compound-engineering/skills/ce-review/SKILL.md`
|
||||
|
||||
**Approach:**
|
||||
- In Stage 1 scope detection, add headless to the checkout guard alongside report-only: `mode:headless` and `mode:report-only` must not run `gh pr checkout` or `git checkout` on the shared checkout. They must run in an isolated worktree or stop. When headless stops due to the checkout guard, emit a structured error with re-invocation syntax (e.g., "Re-invoke with base:\<ref\> to review the current checkout, or run from an isolated worktree.").
|
||||
- In Stage 1 untracked file handling, add headless behavior: if the UNTRACKED list is non-empty, proceed with tracked changes only and note excluded files in the Coverage section of the structured output. Never stop to ask the user — this matches the "infer conservatively" pattern.
|
||||
- In Stage 2 intent discovery, add headless to the non-interactive path alongside autofix and report-only: infer intent conservatively, note uncertainty in Coverage/Verdict reasoning instead of blocking.
|
||||
- All changes are small additions to existing conditional text — add headless to the existing mode lists where report-only and autofix are already distinguished.
|
||||
|
||||
**Patterns to follow:**
|
||||
- Existing report-only checkout guard at SKILL.md line 53 ("mode:report-only cannot switch the shared checkout")
|
||||
- Existing autofix/report-only intent handling at SKILL.md (~line 298)
|
||||
|
||||
**Test scenarios:**
|
||||
- Happy path: headless mode with a PR target uses a worktree or stops instead of switching the shared checkout
|
||||
- Happy path: headless mode infers intent conservatively when diff metadata is thin
|
||||
- Happy path: headless mode with untracked files proceeds with tracked changes only and notes exclusions
|
||||
- Error path: headless stops due to checkout guard and emits re-invocation syntax
|
||||
|
||||
**Verification:**
|
||||
- SKILL.md mentions headless alongside report-only in checkout guard sections
|
||||
- SKILL.md mentions headless alongside autofix/report-only in intent discovery sections
|
||||
- SKILL.md specifies headless behavior for untracked files (proceed, don't prompt)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **Unit 3: Headless Output Format and Post-Review Flow**
|
||||
|
||||
**Goal:** Define the headless structured text output and the headless post-review behavior (apply safe_auto, write artifacts, skip todos, output structured text, return completion signal).
|
||||
|
||||
**Requirements:** R2, R3, R4, R5, R6
|
||||
|
||||
**Dependencies:** Unit 1, Unit 2
|
||||
|
||||
**Files:**
|
||||
- Modify: `plugins/compound-engineering/skills/ce-review/SKILL.md`
|
||||
- Modify: `plugins/compound-engineering/skills/ce-review/references/review-output-template.md`
|
||||
|
||||
**Approach:**
|
||||
|
||||
*Stage 6 output:*
|
||||
- Add a headless-specific output section to SKILL.md that defines the structured text envelope format
|
||||
- The envelope follows document-review's structural pattern: completion header, metadata (scope/intent/reviewers/verdict), applied fixes count, findings grouped by autofix_class with severity/route/file/line per finding, trailing sections (pre-existing, residual risks, testing gaps)
|
||||
- Per-finding format: `[severity][autofix_class -> owner] File: <file:line> -- <title> (<reviewer>, confidence <N>)` with Why and Suggested fix lines
|
||||
- Omit sections with zero items
|
||||
- In headless mode, output this structured text instead of the interactive pipe-delimited table report
|
||||
|
||||
*Post-review flow (After Review section):*
|
||||
- Add "Headless mode" to Step 2 (Choose policy by mode) parallel to autofix and report-only
|
||||
- Headless rules: ask no questions; apply `safe_auto -> review-fixer` queue in a single pass (no re-review rounds); skip Step 3's bounded loop entirely
|
||||
- Step 4 (Emit artifacts): headless writes run artifacts (like autofix) but does NOT create todo files (caller handles routing from structured output)
|
||||
- Step 5: headless stops after structured text output and "Review complete" signal. No commit/push/PR.
|
||||
|
||||
*Review output template:*
|
||||
- Add a "Headless mode format" section to `review-output-template.md` with the structured text template and formatting rules
|
||||
- Update the Mode line documentation to include `headless`
|
||||
|
||||
**Patterns to follow:**
|
||||
- document-review headless output format at document-review SKILL.md lines 219-248
|
||||
- Existing autofix and report-only post-review steps at SKILL.md lines 471-483
|
||||
- Existing review-output-template.md formatting rules
|
||||
|
||||
**Test scenarios:**
|
||||
- Happy path: headless mode with safe_auto findings applies fixes and returns structured output listing remaining findings
|
||||
- Happy path: headless mode with no actionable findings returns "Applied 0 safe_auto fixes" and the completion signal
|
||||
- Happy path: headless mode with mixed findings (safe_auto + gated_auto + manual + advisory) applies safe_auto, returns all others in structured output grouped by autofix_class
|
||||
- Edge case: headless mode with only advisory findings returns structured output with no fixes applied
|
||||
- Edge case: headless mode with only pre-existing findings separates them into the pre-existing section
|
||||
- Integration: headless output includes Verdict line so callers can make merge decisions
|
||||
- Integration: run artifact is written under `.context/compound-engineering/ce-review/<run-id>/`
|
||||
- Error path: clean review (zero findings) returns the completion signal with no findings sections
|
||||
|
||||
**Verification:**
|
||||
- SKILL.md has a headless output format section with the structured text envelope
|
||||
- review-output-template.md includes headless mode format
|
||||
- Post-review flow has a headless branch in Steps 2, 4, and 5
|
||||
- No AskUserQuestion or interactive prompts reachable in headless mode
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **Unit 4: Contract Test Extension**
|
||||
|
||||
**Goal:** Extend `tests/review-skill-contract.test.ts` to assert headless mode contract invariants.
|
||||
|
||||
**Requirements:** R1, R4, R5
|
||||
|
||||
**Dependencies:** Units 1-3
|
||||
|
||||
**Files:**
|
||||
- Modify: `tests/review-skill-contract.test.ts`
|
||||
- Test: `tests/review-skill-contract.test.ts`
|
||||
|
||||
**Approach:**
|
||||
- Add assertions to the existing "documents explicit modes and orchestration boundaries" test for headless mode presence
|
||||
- Add a new test case for headless-specific contract invariants: completion signal text, no-checkout-switching guard, artifact behavior, no-todo rule, structured output format presence, conflicting-flags guard
|
||||
- Assert `mode:headless` appears in argument-hint and mode detection table
|
||||
- Assert headless rules section exists with key behavioral commitments
|
||||
|
||||
**Patterns to follow:**
|
||||
- Existing contract test structure at `tests/review-skill-contract.test.ts` — string containment assertions against SKILL.md content
|
||||
|
||||
**Test scenarios:**
|
||||
- Happy path: contract test passes with all headless mode assertions
|
||||
- Edge case: if any headless rule text is accidentally removed from SKILL.md, the contract test fails
|
||||
|
||||
**Verification:**
|
||||
- `bun test tests/review-skill-contract.test.ts` passes
|
||||
- Test covers: mode detection, checkout guard, artifact/todo behavior, completion signal, conflicting flags guard
|
||||
|
||||
## System-Wide Impact
|
||||
|
||||
- **Interaction graph:** No new callbacks or middleware. Headless mode is a new branch in existing mode-dispatch logic. Existing callers (lfg, slfg) are not changed — they continue using autofix and report-only.
|
||||
- **Error propagation:** New error paths (conflicting flags, missing scope) emit text errors and stop. No cascading failure risk.
|
||||
- **State lifecycle risks:** Headless writes run artifacts but not todos. A caller that expects todos from headless would get none — this is intentional and documented.
|
||||
- **API surface parity:** Headless mode is a new API surface for skill-to-skill invocation. Future orchestrators may adopt it, but existing ones are unchanged.
|
||||
- **Unchanged invariants:** Stages 3-5 (reviewer selection, sub-agent dispatch, merge/dedup pipeline) are completely unchanged. The findings schema is unchanged. The confidence threshold (0.60) is unchanged.
|
||||
|
||||
## Risks & Dependencies
|
||||
|
||||
| Risk | Mitigation |
|
||||
|------|------------|
|
||||
| Headless checkout guard text diverges from report-only over time | Both share the same guard language — mention headless alongside report-only in the same sentences so they stay in sync |
|
||||
| Caller assumes headless creates todos and depends on them | Headless rules section explicitly states no todos; contract test asserts it |
|
||||
| Structured output format drifts from document-review's envelope | Format is documented in review-output-template.md and tested by contract; changes require deliberate updates |
|
||||
|
||||
## Sources & References
|
||||
|
||||
- **Origin document:** [docs/brainstorms/2026-03-28-ce-review-headless-mode-requirements.md](docs/brainstorms/2026-03-28-ce-review-headless-mode-requirements.md)
|
||||
- Related code: `plugins/compound-engineering/skills/ce-review/SKILL.md`, `plugins/compound-engineering/skills/document-review/SKILL.md`
|
||||
- Related PRs: #425 (document-review headless mode)
|
||||
- Learnings: `docs/solutions/skill-design/beta-promotion-orchestration-contract.md`, `docs/solutions/skill-design/compound-refresh-skill-improvements.md`, `docs/solutions/skill-design/git-workflow-skills-need-explicit-state-machines-2026-03-27.md`
|
||||
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: ce:review
|
||||
description: "Structured code review using tiered persona agents, confidence-gated findings, and a merge/dedup pipeline. Use when reviewing code changes before creating a PR."
|
||||
argument-hint: "[mode:autofix|mode:report-only] [PR number, GitHub URL, or branch name]"
|
||||
argument-hint: "[mode:autofix|mode:report-only|mode:headless] [PR number, GitHub URL, or branch name]"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Code Review
|
||||
@@ -24,11 +24,14 @@ Parse `$ARGUMENTS` for the following optional tokens. Strip each recognized toke
|
||||
|-------|---------|--------|
|
||||
| `mode:autofix` | `mode:autofix` | Select autofix mode (see Mode Detection below) |
|
||||
| `mode:report-only` | `mode:report-only` | Select report-only mode |
|
||||
| `mode:headless` | `mode:headless` | Select headless mode for programmatic callers (see Mode Detection below) |
|
||||
| `base:<sha-or-ref>` | `base:abc1234` or `base:origin/main` | Skip scope detection — use this as the diff base directly |
|
||||
| `plan:<path>` | `plan:docs/plans/2026-03-25-001-feat-foo-plan.md` | Load this plan for requirements verification |
|
||||
|
||||
All tokens are optional. Each one present means one less thing to infer. When absent, fall back to existing behavior for that stage.
|
||||
|
||||
**Conflicting mode flags:** If multiple mode tokens appear in arguments, stop and do not dispatch agents. If `mode:headless` is one of the conflicting tokens, emit the headless error envelope: `Review failed (headless mode). Reason: conflicting mode flags — <mode_a> and <mode_b> cannot be combined.` Otherwise emit the generic form: `Review failed. Reason: conflicting mode flags — <mode_a> and <mode_b> cannot be combined.`
|
||||
|
||||
## Mode Detection
|
||||
|
||||
| Mode | When | Behavior |
|
||||
@@ -36,6 +39,7 @@ All tokens are optional. Each one present means one less thing to infer. When ab
|
||||
| **Interactive** (default) | No mode token present | Review, present findings, ask for policy decisions when needed, and optionally continue into fix/push/PR next steps |
|
||||
| **Autofix** | `mode:autofix` in arguments | No user interaction. Review, apply only policy-allowed `safe_auto` fixes, re-review in bounded rounds, write a run artifact, and emit residual downstream work when needed |
|
||||
| **Report-only** | `mode:report-only` in arguments | Strictly read-only. Review and report only, then stop with no edits, artifacts, todos, commits, pushes, or PR actions |
|
||||
| **Headless** | `mode:headless` in arguments | Programmatic mode for skill-to-skill invocation. Apply `safe_auto` fixes silently (single pass), return all other findings as structured text output, write run artifacts, skip todos, and return "Review complete" signal. No interactive prompts. |
|
||||
|
||||
### Autofix mode rules
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -53,6 +57,19 @@ All tokens are optional. Each one present means one less thing to infer. When ab
|
||||
- **Do not switch the shared checkout.** If the caller passes an explicit PR or branch target, `mode:report-only` must run in an isolated checkout/worktree or stop instead of running `gh pr checkout` / `git checkout`.
|
||||
- **Do not overlap mutating review with browser testing on the same checkout.** If a future orchestrator wants fixes, run the mutating review phase after browser testing or in an isolated checkout/worktree.
|
||||
|
||||
### Headless mode rules
|
||||
|
||||
- **Skip all user questions.** Never use the platform question tool (`AskUserQuestion` in Claude Code, `request_user_input` in Codex, `ask_user` in Gemini) or other interactive prompts. Infer intent conservatively if the diff metadata is thin.
|
||||
- **Require a determinable diff scope.** If headless mode cannot determine a diff scope (no branch, PR, or `base:` ref determinable without user interaction), emit `Review failed (headless mode). Reason: no diff scope detected. Re-invoke with a branch name, PR number, or base:<ref>.` and stop without dispatching agents.
|
||||
- **Apply only `safe_auto -> review-fixer` findings in a single pass.** No bounded re-review rounds. Leave `gated_auto`, `manual`, `human`, and `release` work unresolved and return them in the structured output.
|
||||
- **Return all non-auto findings as structured text output.** Use the headless output envelope format (see Stage 6 below) preserving severity, autofix_class, owner, requires_verification, confidence, evidence[], and pre_existing per finding.
|
||||
- **Write a run artifact** under `.context/compound-engineering/ce-review/<run-id>/` summarizing findings, applied fixes, and advisory outputs. Include the artifact path in the structured output.
|
||||
- **Do not create todo files.** The caller receives structured findings and routes downstream work itself.
|
||||
- **Do not switch the shared checkout.** If the caller passes an explicit PR or branch target, `mode:headless` must run in an isolated checkout/worktree or stop instead of running `gh pr checkout` / `git checkout`. When stopping, emit `Review failed (headless mode). Reason: cannot switch shared checkout. Re-invoke with base:<ref> to review the current checkout, or run from an isolated worktree.`
|
||||
- **Not safe for concurrent use on a shared checkout.** Unlike `mode:report-only`, headless mutates files (applies `safe_auto` fixes). Callers must not run headless concurrently with other mutating operations on the same checkout.
|
||||
- **Never commit, push, or create a PR** from headless mode. The caller owns those decisions.
|
||||
- **End with "Review complete" as the terminal signal** so callers can detect completion. If all reviewers fail or time out, emit `Code review degraded (headless mode). Reason: 0 of N reviewers returned results.` followed by "Review complete".
|
||||
|
||||
## Severity Scale
|
||||
|
||||
All reviewers use P0-P3:
|
||||
@@ -164,7 +181,7 @@ This path works with any ref — a SHA, `origin/main`, a branch name. Automated
|
||||
|
||||
**If a PR number or GitHub URL is provided as an argument:**
|
||||
|
||||
If `mode:report-only` is active, do **not** run `gh pr checkout <number-or-url>` on the shared checkout. Tell the caller: "mode:report-only cannot switch the shared checkout to review a PR target. Run it from an isolated worktree/checkout for that PR, or run report-only with no target argument on the already checked out branch." Stop here unless the review is already running in an isolated checkout.
|
||||
If `mode:report-only` or `mode:headless` is active, do **not** run `gh pr checkout <number-or-url>` on the shared checkout. For `mode:report-only`, tell the caller: "mode:report-only cannot switch the shared checkout to review a PR target. Run it from an isolated worktree/checkout for that PR, or run report-only with no target argument on the already checked out branch." For `mode:headless`, emit `Review failed (headless mode). Reason: cannot switch shared checkout. Re-invoke with base:<ref> to review the current checkout, or run from an isolated worktree.` Stop here unless the review is already running in an isolated checkout.
|
||||
|
||||
First, verify the worktree is clean before switching branches:
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -218,7 +235,7 @@ Extract PR title/body, base branch, and PR URL from `gh pr view`, then extract t
|
||||
|
||||
Check out the named branch, then diff it against the base branch. Substitute the provided branch name (shown here as `<branch>`).
|
||||
|
||||
If `mode:report-only` is active, do **not** run `git checkout <branch>` on the shared checkout. Tell the caller: "mode:report-only cannot switch the shared checkout to review another branch. Run it from an isolated worktree/checkout for `<branch>`, or run report-only on the current checkout with no target argument." Stop here unless the review is already running in an isolated checkout.
|
||||
If `mode:report-only` or `mode:headless` is active, do **not** run `git checkout <branch>` on the shared checkout. For `mode:report-only`, tell the caller: "mode:report-only cannot switch the shared checkout to review another branch. Run it from an isolated worktree/checkout for `<branch>`, or run report-only on the current checkout with no target argument." For `mode:headless`, emit `Review failed (headless mode). Reason: cannot switch shared checkout. Re-invoke with base:<ref> to review the current checkout, or run from an isolated worktree.` Stop here unless the review is already running in an isolated checkout.
|
||||
|
||||
First, verify the worktree is clean before switching branches:
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -270,7 +287,7 @@ echo "BASE:$BASE" && echo "FILES:" && git diff --name-only $BASE && echo "DIFF:"
|
||||
|
||||
Using `git diff $BASE` (without `..HEAD`) diffs the merge-base against the working tree, which includes committed, staged, and unstaged changes together.
|
||||
|
||||
**Untracked file handling:** Always inspect the `UNTRACKED:` list, even when `FILES:`/`DIFF:` are non-empty. Untracked files are outside review scope until staged. If the list is non-empty, tell the user which files are excluded. If any of them should be reviewed, stop and tell the user to `git add` them first and rerun. Only continue when the user is intentionally reviewing tracked changes only.
|
||||
**Untracked file handling:** Always inspect the `UNTRACKED:` list, even when `FILES:`/`DIFF:` are non-empty. Untracked files are outside review scope until staged. If the list is non-empty, tell the user which files are excluded. If any of them should be reviewed, stop and tell the user to `git add` them first and rerun. Only continue when the user is intentionally reviewing tracked changes only. In `mode:headless` or `mode:autofix`, do not stop to ask — proceed with tracked changes only and note the excluded untracked files in the Coverage section of the output.
|
||||
|
||||
### Stage 2: Intent discovery
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -298,7 +315,7 @@ Pass this to every reviewer in their spawn prompt. Intent shapes *how hard each
|
||||
**When intent is ambiguous:**
|
||||
|
||||
- **Interactive mode:** Ask one question using the platform's interactive question tool (AskUserQuestion in Claude Code, request_user_input in Codex): "What is the primary goal of these changes?" Do not spawn reviewers until intent is established.
|
||||
- **Autofix/report-only modes:** Infer intent conservatively from the branch name, diff, PR metadata, and caller context. Note the uncertainty in Coverage or Verdict reasoning instead of blocking.
|
||||
- **Autofix/report-only/headless modes:** Infer intent conservatively from the branch name, diff, PR metadata, and caller context. Note the uncertainty in Coverage or Verdict reasoning instead of blocking.
|
||||
|
||||
### Stage 2b: Plan discovery (requirements verification)
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -420,6 +437,80 @@ Assemble the final report using the review output template included below:
|
||||
|
||||
Do not include time estimates.
|
||||
|
||||
### Headless output format
|
||||
|
||||
In `mode:headless`, replace the interactive pipe-delimited table report with a structured text envelope. The envelope follows the same structural pattern as document-review's headless output (completion header, metadata block, findings grouped by autofix_class, trailing sections) while using ce:review's own section headings and per-finding fields.
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Code review complete (headless mode).
|
||||
|
||||
Scope: <scope-line>
|
||||
Intent: <intent-summary>
|
||||
Reviewers: <reviewer-list with conditional justifications>
|
||||
Verdict: <Ready to merge | Ready with fixes | Not ready>
|
||||
Artifact: .context/compound-engineering/ce-review/<run-id>/
|
||||
|
||||
Applied N safe_auto fixes.
|
||||
|
||||
Gated-auto findings (concrete fix, changes behavior/contracts):
|
||||
|
||||
[P1][gated_auto -> downstream-resolver][needs-verification] File: <file:line> -- <title> (<reviewer>, confidence <N>)
|
||||
Why: <why_it_matters>
|
||||
Suggested fix: <suggested_fix or "none">
|
||||
Evidence: <evidence[0]>
|
||||
Evidence: <evidence[1]>
|
||||
|
||||
Manual findings (actionable, needs handoff):
|
||||
|
||||
[P1][manual -> downstream-resolver] File: <file:line> -- <title> (<reviewer>, confidence <N>)
|
||||
Why: <why_it_matters>
|
||||
Evidence: <evidence[0]>
|
||||
|
||||
Advisory findings (report-only):
|
||||
|
||||
[P2][advisory -> human] File: <file:line> -- <title> (<reviewer>, confidence <N>)
|
||||
Why: <why_it_matters>
|
||||
|
||||
Pre-existing issues:
|
||||
[P2][gated_auto -> downstream-resolver] File: <file:line> -- <title> (<reviewer>, confidence <N>)
|
||||
Why: <why_it_matters>
|
||||
|
||||
Residual risks:
|
||||
- <risk>
|
||||
|
||||
Learnings & Past Solutions:
|
||||
- <learning>
|
||||
|
||||
Agent-Native Gaps:
|
||||
- <gap description>
|
||||
|
||||
Schema Drift Check:
|
||||
- <drift status>
|
||||
|
||||
Deployment Notes:
|
||||
- <deployment note>
|
||||
|
||||
Testing gaps:
|
||||
- <gap>
|
||||
|
||||
Coverage:
|
||||
- Suppressed: <N> findings below 0.60 confidence
|
||||
- Untracked files excluded: <file1>, <file2>
|
||||
- Failed reviewers: <reviewer>
|
||||
|
||||
Review complete
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Formatting rules:**
|
||||
- The `[needs-verification]` marker appears only on findings where `requires_verification: true`.
|
||||
- The `Artifact:` line gives callers the path to the full run artifact for machine-readable access to the complete findings schema. The text envelope is the primary handoff; the artifact is for debugging and full-fidelity access.
|
||||
- Findings with `owner: release` appear in the Advisory section (they are operational/rollout items, not code fixes).
|
||||
- Findings with `pre_existing: true` appear in the Pre-existing section regardless of autofix_class.
|
||||
- The Verdict appears in the metadata header (deliberately reordered from the interactive format where it appears at the bottom) so programmatic callers get the verdict first.
|
||||
- Omit any section with zero items.
|
||||
- If all reviewers fail or time out, emit `Code review degraded (headless mode). Reason: 0 of N reviewers returned results.` followed by "Review complete".
|
||||
- End with "Review complete" as the terminal signal so callers can detect completion.
|
||||
|
||||
## Quality Gates
|
||||
|
||||
Before delivering the review, verify:
|
||||
@@ -482,6 +573,15 @@ After presenting findings and verdict (Stage 6), route the next steps by mode. R
|
||||
- Do not create residual todos or `.context` artifacts.
|
||||
- Stop after Stage 6. Everything remains in the report.
|
||||
|
||||
**Headless mode**
|
||||
|
||||
- Ask no questions.
|
||||
- Apply only the `safe_auto -> review-fixer` queue in a single pass. Do not enter the bounded re-review loop (Step 3). Spawn one fixer subagent, apply fixes, then proceed directly to Step 4.
|
||||
- Leave `gated_auto`, `manual`, `human`, and `release` items unresolved — they appear in the structured text output.
|
||||
- Output the headless output envelope (see Stage 6) instead of the interactive report.
|
||||
- Write a run artifact (Step 4) but do not create todo files.
|
||||
- Stop after the structured text output and "Review complete" signal. No commit/push/PR.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Step 3: Apply fixes with one fixer and bounded rounds
|
||||
|
||||
- Spawn exactly one fixer subagent for the current fixer queue in the current checkout. That fixer applies all approved changes and runs the relevant targeted tests in one pass against a consistent tree.
|
||||
@@ -493,7 +593,7 @@ After presenting findings and verdict (Stage 6), route the next steps by mode. R
|
||||
|
||||
#### Step 4: Emit artifacts and downstream handoff
|
||||
|
||||
- In interactive and autofix modes, write a per-run artifact under `.context/compound-engineering/ce-review/<run-id>/` containing:
|
||||
- In interactive, autofix, and headless modes, write a per-run artifact under `.context/compound-engineering/ce-review/<run-id>/` containing:
|
||||
- synthesized findings
|
||||
- applied fixes
|
||||
- residual actionable work
|
||||
@@ -521,7 +621,7 @@ After presenting findings and verdict (Stage 6), route the next steps by mode. R
|
||||
If "Create a PR": first publish the branch with `git push --set-upstream origin HEAD`, then use `gh pr create` with a title and summary derived from the branch changes.
|
||||
If "Push fixes": push the branch with `git push` to update the existing PR.
|
||||
|
||||
**Autofix and report-only modes:** stop after the report, artifact emission, and residual-work handoff. Do not commit, push, or create a PR.
|
||||
**Autofix, report-only, and headless modes:** stop after the report, artifact emission, and residual-work handoff. Do not commit, push, or create a PR.
|
||||
|
||||
## Fallback
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ Use this **exact format** when presenting synthesized review findings. Findings
|
||||
- **Confidence column** shows the finding's confidence score
|
||||
- **Route column** shows the synthesized handling decision as ``<autofix_class> -> <owner>``.
|
||||
- **Header includes** scope, intent, and reviewer team with per-conditional justifications
|
||||
- **Mode line** -- include `interactive`, `autofix`, or `report-only`
|
||||
- **Mode line** -- include `interactive`, `autofix`, `report-only`, or `headless`
|
||||
- **Applied Fixes section** -- include only when a fix phase ran in this review invocation
|
||||
- **Residual Actionable Work section** -- include only when unresolved actionable findings were handed off for later work
|
||||
- **Pre-existing section** -- separate table, no confidence column (these are informational)
|
||||
@@ -113,3 +113,15 @@ Use this **exact format** when presenting synthesized review findings. Findings
|
||||
- **Summary uses blockquotes** for verdict, reasoning, and fix order
|
||||
- **Horizontal rule** (`---`) separates findings from verdict
|
||||
- **`###` headers** for each section -- never plain text headers
|
||||
|
||||
## Headless Mode Format
|
||||
|
||||
In `mode:headless`, replace the interactive pipe-delimited table report with a structured text envelope. The headless format is defined in the `### Headless output format` section of SKILL.md. Key differences from the interactive format:
|
||||
|
||||
- **No pipe-delimited tables.** Findings use `[severity][autofix_class -> owner] File: <file:line> -- <title>` line format with indented Why/Evidence/Suggested fix lines.
|
||||
- **Findings grouped by autofix_class** (gated-auto, manual, advisory) instead of severity. Within each group, findings are sorted by severity.
|
||||
- **Verdict in header** (top of output) instead of bottom, so programmatic callers get it first.
|
||||
- **`Artifact:` line** in metadata header gives callers the path to the full run artifact.
|
||||
- **`[needs-verification]` marker** on findings where `requires_verification: true`.
|
||||
- **Evidence lines** included per finding.
|
||||
- **Completion signal:** "Review complete" as the final line.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: document-review
|
||||
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.
|
||||
argument-hint: "[path/to/document.md]"
|
||||
argument-hint: "[mode:headless] [path/to/document.md]"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Document Review
|
||||
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ The caller receives findings with their original classifications intact and deci
|
||||
|
||||
Callers invoke headless mode by including `mode:headless` in the skill arguments, e.g.:
|
||||
```
|
||||
Skill("compound-engineering:document-review", "docs/plans/my-plan.md mode:headless")
|
||||
Skill("compound-engineering:document-review", "mode:headless docs/plans/my-plan.md")
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
If `mode:headless` is not present, the skill runs in its default interactive mode with no behavior change.
|
||||
@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ If `mode:headless` is not present, the skill runs in its default interactive mod
|
||||
|
||||
**If no document is specified (interactive mode):** 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).
|
||||
|
||||
**If no document is specified (headless mode):** Output "Review failed: headless mode requires a document path. Re-invoke with: Skill(\"compound-engineering:document-review\", \"<path> mode:headless\")" without dispatching agents.
|
||||
**If no document is specified (headless mode):** Output "Review failed: headless mode requires a document path. Re-invoke with: Skill(\"compound-engineering:document-review\", \"mode:headless <path>\")" without dispatching agents.
|
||||
|
||||
### Classify Document Type
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -14,6 +14,7 @@ describe("ce-review contract", () => {
|
||||
expect(content).toContain("## Mode Detection")
|
||||
expect(content).toContain("mode:autofix")
|
||||
expect(content).toContain("mode:report-only")
|
||||
expect(content).toContain("mode:headless")
|
||||
expect(content).toContain(".context/compound-engineering/ce-review/<run-id>/")
|
||||
expect(content).toContain("Do not create residual todos or `.context` artifacts.")
|
||||
expect(content).toContain(
|
||||
@@ -25,6 +26,49 @@ describe("ce-review contract", () => {
|
||||
expect(content).not.toContain("Which severities should I fix?")
|
||||
})
|
||||
|
||||
test("documents headless mode contract for programmatic callers", async () => {
|
||||
const content = await readRepoFile("plugins/compound-engineering/skills/ce-review/SKILL.md")
|
||||
|
||||
// Headless mode has its own rules section
|
||||
expect(content).toContain("### Headless mode rules")
|
||||
|
||||
// No interactive prompts (cross-platform)
|
||||
expect(content).toContain(
|
||||
"Never use the platform question tool",
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
// Structured output format
|
||||
expect(content).toContain("### Headless output format")
|
||||
expect(content).toContain("Code review complete (headless mode).")
|
||||
expect(content).toContain('"Review complete" as the terminal signal')
|
||||
|
||||
// Applies safe_auto fixes but NOT safe for concurrent use
|
||||
expect(content).toContain(
|
||||
"Not safe for concurrent use on a shared checkout.",
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
// Writes artifacts but no todos, no commit/push/PR
|
||||
expect(content).toContain("Do not create todo files.")
|
||||
expect(content).toContain(
|
||||
"Never commit, push, or create a PR",
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
// Single-pass fixing, no bounded re-review rounds
|
||||
expect(content).toContain("No bounded re-review rounds")
|
||||
|
||||
// Checkout guard — headless shares report-only's guard
|
||||
expect(content).toMatch(/mode:headless.*must run in an isolated checkout\/worktree or stop/)
|
||||
|
||||
// Conflicting mode flags
|
||||
expect(content).toContain("**Conflicting mode flags:**")
|
||||
|
||||
// Structured error for missing scope
|
||||
expect(content).toContain("Review failed (headless mode). Reason: no diff scope detected.")
|
||||
|
||||
// Degraded signal when all reviewers fail
|
||||
expect(content).toContain("Code review degraded (headless mode).")
|
||||
})
|
||||
|
||||
test("documents policy-driven routing and residual handoff", async () => {
|
||||
const content = await readRepoFile("plugins/compound-engineering/skills/ce-review/SKILL.md")
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user