open/voyage
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Releases 13 Activity

fix(trekbrief): the review stamp covers only text the reviewer saw

Browse source 
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Kjell Tore Guttormsen 2026-10-12 20:03:26 +02:00
commit 94de23ca3b
Signed by: ktg
SSH key fingerprint: SHA256:JakMjO6FTBBzN0Bhfj9saOoEjaFxlSdYuZQQpM/lF9Q
2 changed files with 61 additions and 4 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

9
commands/trekbrief.md
View file

@ -177,7 +177,7 @@ Put the task in one of three size classes. In doubt, take the heaviest that fits
| Class | Typical task | What the pipeline does |
|---|---|---|
| `small` | one change in one place, no new dependency, no interface change, easy to undo | one round, no follow-up; brief-reviewer runs once and its gaps become written assumptions, not questions; Phase 3.5 is skipped |
| `small` | one change in one place, no new dependency, no interface change, easy to undo | one round, no follow-up; brief-reviewer runs once and its gaps become written assumptions, not questions, written after the review stamp (Step 4e, passed gate, step 4); Phase 3.5 is skipped |
| `bounded` | several files or one module behind a clear boundary, no architecture decision | the round + at most one follow-up; at most one brief-review follow-up; Phase 3.5 asks one question for all four phases |
| `architectural` | a new module, interface, dependency, data model or migration; anything hard to undo | follow-up rounds while answers open new branches; the full brief-review loop; Phase 3.5 asks per phase |
@ -590,8 +590,8 @@ Read the brief template first:
### Loop bound
**The cap follows the size class:** `small` 1 review iteration (no
follow-up question: what fails is written into `## Open Questions /
Assumptions` and `## Brief Quality`), `bounded` 2 (one follow-up),
follow-up question: its gaps become assumptions after the stamp on a passed gate
(Step 4e, step 4), into `## Brief Quality` on an exhausted loop), `bounded` 2 (one follow-up),
`architectural` 3 (two rounds of targeted follow-ups). A follow-up question
counts against the class budget; when the reviewer shows the task is bigger
than its class, raise the class first (Step 3b) and use the new cap.
@ -723,7 +723,8 @@ stumble.)
Any later edit to the body makes the stamp stale and `/trekplan` reviews
again. Exit 1 (not stamped) is said in one line; it only means the review
runs twice. Only a passed gate is stamped.
4. Break the loop and proceed to Step 4g.
4. Class `small` only: now write the reviewer's gaps into `## Open Questions / Assumptions` (and `## Brief Quality` when it applies). They come after the stamp on purpose: the reviewer never saw them, so the stamp reads stale and `/trekplan` reviews the brief once more.
5. Break the loop and proceed to Step 4g.
**If gate fails AND iteration count < the class cap:**
1. Identify the weakest dimension (lowest score; tie broken by priority: