201 lines
8.9 KiB
Markdown
201 lines
8.9 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
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.
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Document 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.
|
|
|
|
## Phase 1: Get and Analyze Document
|
|
|
|
**If a document path is provided:** Read it, then proceed.
|
|
|
|
**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).
|
|
|
|
### Classify Document Type
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
### Select Conditional Personas
|
|
|
|
Analyze the document content to determine which conditional personas to activate. Check for these signals:
|
|
|
|
**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
|
|
|
|
**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
|
|
|
|
**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
|
|
|
|
**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
|
|
|
|
## Phase 2: Announce and Dispatch Personas
|
|
|
|
### Announce the Review Team
|
|
|
|
Tell the user which personas will review and why. For conditional personas, include the justification:
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
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
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### Build Agent List
|
|
|
|
Always include:
|
|
- `compound-engineering:document-review:coherence-reviewer`
|
|
- `compound-engineering:document-review:feasibility-reviewer`
|
|
|
|
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`
|
|
|
|
### Dispatch
|
|
|
|
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:
|
|
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
|
|
Pass each agent the **full document** -- do not split into sections.
|
|
|
|
**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.
|
|
|
|
**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.
|
|
|
|
## Phase 3: Synthesize Findings
|
|
|
|
Process findings from all agents through this pipeline. **Order matters** -- each step depends on the previous.
|
|
|
|
### 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
|
|
|
|
- Do not rewrite the entire document
|
|
- 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.
|