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

feat(ce-review): enforce table format, require question tool, fix autofix_class calibration (#454)

Browse Source 
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Trevin Chow
2026-03-30 01:38:38 -07:00
committed by GitHub
parent 7f3aba29e8
commit 847ce3f156
4 changed files with 46 additions and 9 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

17
plugins/compound-engineering/skills/ce-review/SKILL.md
View File

@@ -435,10 +435,10 @@ Convert multiple reviewer JSON payloads into one deduplicated, confidence-gated
### Stage 6: Synthesize and present
Assemble the final report using the review output template included below:
Assemble the final report using **pipe-delimited markdown tables for findings** from the review output template included below. The table format is mandatory for finding rows in interactive mode — do not render findings as freeform text blocks or horizontal-rule-separated prose. Other report sections (Applied Fixes, Learnings, Coverage, etc.) use bullet lists and the `---` separator before the verdict, as shown in the template.
1. **Header.** Scope, intent, mode, reviewer team with per-conditional justifications.
2. **Findings.** Grouped by severity (P0, P1, P2, P3). Each finding shows file, issue, reviewer(s), confidence, and synthesized route.
2. **Findings.** Rendered as pipe-delimited tables grouped by severity (`### P0 -- Critical`, `### P1 -- High`, `### P2 -- Moderate`, `### P3 -- Low`). Each finding row shows `#`, file, issue, reviewer(s), confidence, and synthesized route. Omit empty severity levels. Never render findings as freeform text blocks or numbered lists.
3. **Requirements Completeness.** Include only when a plan was found in Stage 2b. For each requirement (R1, R2, etc.) and implementation unit in the plan, report whether corresponding work appears in the diff. Use a simple checklist: met / not addressed / partially addressed. Routing depends on `plan_source`:
- **`explicit`** (caller-provided or PR body): Flag unaddressed requirements as P1 findings with `autofix_class: manual`, `owner: downstream-resolver`. These enter the residual actionable queue and can become todos.
- **`inferred`** (auto-discovered): Flag unaddressed requirements as P3 findings with `autofix_class: advisory`, `owner: human`. These stay in the report only — no todos, no autonomous follow-up. An inferred plan match is a hint, not a contract.
@@ -455,6 +455,8 @@ Assemble the final report using the review output template included below:
Do not include time estimates.
**Format verification:** Before delivering the report, verify the findings sections use pipe-delimited table rows (`| # | File | Issue | ... |`) not freeform text. If you catch yourself rendering findings as prose blocks separated by horizontal rules or bullet points, stop and reformat into tables.
### 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.
@@ -565,8 +567,9 @@ After presenting findings and verdict (Stage 6), route the next steps by mode. R
**Interactive mode**
- Apply `safe_auto -> review-fixer` findings automatically without asking. These are safe by definition.
- Ask a policy question only when `gated_auto` or `manual` findings remain after safe fixes:
- Ask a policy question **using the platform's blocking question tool** (`AskUserQuestion` in Claude Code, `request_user_input` in Codex, `ask_user` in Gemini) only when `gated_auto` or `manual` findings remain after safe fixes. Do not replace with a conversational open-ended question. Adapt the options to match what actually remains:
**When `gated_auto` findings are present** (with or without `manual`):
```
Safe fixes have been applied. What should I do with the remaining findings?
1. Review and approve specific gated fixes (Recommended)
@@ -574,6 +577,14 @@ After presenting findings and verdict (Stage 6), route the next steps by mode. R
3. Report only -- no further action
```
**When only `manual` findings remain** (no `gated_auto`):
```
Safe fixes have been applied. The remaining findings need manual resolution. What should I do?
1. Leave as residual work (Recommended)
2. Report only -- no further action
```
If no blocking question tool is available, present the applicable numbered options as text and wait for the user's selection before proceeding.
- If no `gated_auto` or `manual` findings remain after safe fixes, skip the policy question entirely — report what was fixed and proceed to next steps.
- Only include `gated_auto` findings in the fixer queue after the user explicitly approves the specific items. Do not widen the queue based on severity alone.