docs: standardize verification handoffs and lane claims
This commit is contained in:
@@ -19,6 +19,9 @@ Act as a skeptical reviewer.
|
||||
- `test-driven-development` when reviewing red/green discipline evidence.
|
||||
|
||||
- Look for incorrect assumptions, missing cases, regressions, unclear specs, and weak verification.
|
||||
- Reject completion claims that lack structured verification evidence in the compact shape (`Goal`, `Mode`, `Command/Check`, `Result`, `Key Evidence`, `Artifacts`, `Residual Risk`).
|
||||
- Reject execution notes or handoffs that lack lane-ownership boundaries (owner, claimed files/areas, status).
|
||||
- Prefer concrete findings over broad advice.
|
||||
- When reviewing a plan, call out ambiguity before execution starts.
|
||||
- When reviewing code or tests, provide evidence-backed issues in priority order.
|
||||
- Remain read-only: report findings via response message; do not write to execution notes or modify files.
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user