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

fix(document-review): enforce interactive questions and fix autofix classification (#415)

Browse Source 
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Trevin Chow
2026-03-27 19:37:14 -07:00
committed by GitHub
parent 7b75a9ac25
commit d44729603d
4 changed files with 41 additions and 19 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

34
plugins/compound-engineering/skills/document-review/SKILL.md
View File

@@ -121,6 +121,7 @@ Fingerprint each finding using `normalize(section) + normalize(title)`. Normaliz
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")
- **Coverage attribution:** Attribute the merged finding to the persona with the highest confidence. Decrement the losing persona's Findings count *and* the corresponding route bucket (Auto, Batch, or Present) so `Findings = Auto + Batch + Present` stays exact.
### 3.4 Promote Residual Concerns
@@ -143,15 +144,17 @@ Specific conflict patterns:
### 3.6 Route by Autofix Class
**Severity and autofix_class are independent.** A P1 finding can be `auto` if the correct fix is deterministic. The test is not "how important?" but "can the fix be derived from the document's own content without judgment?"
| Autofix Class | Route |
|---------------|-------|
| `auto` | Apply automatically -- local deterministic fix (terminology, formatting, cross-references, completeness corrections where the correct value is verifiable from the document itself) |
| `batch_confirm` | Group for single batch approval -- obvious fixes that touch meaning but have one clear correct answer |
| `auto` | Apply automatically -- fix is derivable from the document itself. One part of the document is clearly authoritative over another; reconcile toward the authority. |
| `batch_confirm` | Group for single batch approval -- one clear correct answer, but authors new content where exact wording needs verification |
| `present` | Present individually for user judgment |
Demote any `auto` finding that lacks a `suggested_fix` to `batch_confirm`. Demote any `batch_confirm` finding that lacks a `suggested_fix` to `present`.
**Completeness corrections eligible for `auto`:** A finding qualifies when the correct fix is deterministically derivable from other content in the document. Examples: a count says "6 units" but the document lists 7, a summary omits an item that appears in the detailed list, a cross-reference points to a renamed section. If the fix requires judgment about *what* to add (not just *that* something is missing), it belongs in `batch_confirm` or `present`.
**Auto-eligible patterns:** summary/detail mismatch (body is authoritative over overview), wrong counts, missing list entries derivable from elsewhere in the document, stale internal cross-references, terminology drift, prose/diagram contradictions where prose is more detailed. If the fix requires judgment about *what* to write (not just *that* something needs updating), it belongs in `batch_confirm` or `present`.
### 3.7 Sort
@@ -168,12 +171,19 @@ Apply all `auto` findings to the document in a **single pass**:
### Batch Confirm
If any `batch_confirm` findings exist, present them as a group for a single approval:
- List the proposed fixes in a numbered table
- Use the platform's blocking question tool (AskUserQuestion in Claude Code, request_user_input in Codex, ask_user in Gemini) to ask: "Apply these N fixes? (yes/no/select)". If no blocking question tool is available, present the table with numbered options and wait for the user's reply before proceeding.
- If approved, apply all in a single pass
- If "select", let the user pick which to apply
- If rejected, demote remaining to the `present` findings list
If any `batch_confirm` findings exist:
1. Present the proposed fixes in a numbered table (see template)
2. **Ask for approval using the platform's interactive question tool** -- do not print the question as plain text output:
- Claude Code: `AskUserQuestion`
- Codex: `request_user_input`
- Gemini: `ask_user`
- Fallback (no question tool available): present numbered options and stop; wait for the user's next message before proceeding
3. Question text: "Apply these N fixes? (yes/no/select)"
4. Handle the response:
- **yes**: Apply all in a single pass
- **select**: Let the user pick which to apply
- **no**: Demote remaining to the `present` findings list
This turns N obvious-but-meaning-touching fixes into 1 interaction instead of N.
@@ -198,7 +208,11 @@ 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.
**Ask using the platform's interactive question tool** -- do not print the question as plain text output:
- Claude Code: `AskUserQuestion`
- Codex: `request_user_input`
- Gemini: `ask_user`
- Fallback (no question tool available): present numbered options and stop; wait for the user's next message
Offer: