sepehr
5bd180b5b8
Some checks failed
CI / check (push) Has been cancelled
Capture uncommitted solver robustness work (regularization, domain errors, linear solver lifecycle, tube DP/MSH), web workbench updates, and synced BMAD skills across IDE agent folders before starting BPHX pressure-drop. Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
57 lines
3.3 KiB
Markdown
57 lines
3.3 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Step 3: Triage
|
|
|
|
## RULES
|
|
|
|
- YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT in your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
|
|
|
|
## INSTRUCTIONS
|
|
|
|
1. **Normalize** findings into a common format. Expected input formats:
|
|
- Adversarial (Blind Hunter): markdown list of descriptions
|
|
- Edge Case Hunter: JSON array with `location`, `trigger_condition`, `guard_snippet`, `potential_consequence` fields
|
|
- Acceptance Auditor: markdown list with title, AC/constraint reference, and evidence
|
|
|
|
If a layer's output does not match its expected format, attempt best-effort parsing. Note any parsing issues for the user.
|
|
|
|
Convert all to a unified list where each finding has:
|
|
- `id` -- sequential integer
|
|
- `source` -- `blind`, `edge`, `auditor`, or merged sources (e.g., `blind+edge`)
|
|
- `title` -- one-line summary
|
|
- `detail` -- full description
|
|
- `location` -- file and line reference (if available)
|
|
|
|
2. **Deduplicate.** If two or more findings describe the same issue, merge them into one:
|
|
- Use the most specific finding as the base (prefer edge-case JSON with location over adversarial prose).
|
|
- Append any unique detail, reasoning, or location references from the other finding(s) into the surviving `detail` field.
|
|
- Set `source` to the merged sources (e.g., `blind+edge`).
|
|
|
|
3. **Read the code before rating.** Before assigning severity, open the source at each finding's location and read enough surrounding code to judge reachability -- call sites, guards, and validation that live outside the diff hunk. Do not rate from the diff hunk alone. Severity reflects the real consequence at a real call site, not the worst theoretical reading.
|
|
|
|
4. **Assign severity** to each finding by consequence for the artifact's main consumer (software user, document reader, etc).
|
|
Disregard any severity assigned by a reviewing subagent. Review subagents operate under by-design information asymmetry and do not have enough context to set final severity for this workflow.
|
|
- `low` -- none or cosmetic
|
|
- `medium` -- tolerable
|
|
- `high` -- intolerable
|
|
|
|
5. **Route** each finding into exactly one triage bucket:
|
|
- **decision_needed** -- There is an ambiguous choice that requires human input. The code cannot be correctly patched without knowing the user's intent. Only possible if `{review_mode}` = `"full"`.
|
|
- **patch** -- Code issue that is fixable without human input. The correct fix is unambiguous.
|
|
- **defer** -- Pre-existing issue not caused by the current change. Real but not actionable now.
|
|
- **dismiss** -- Noise, false positive, or handled elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
If `{review_mode}` = `"no-spec"` and a finding would otherwise be `decision_needed`, reclassify it as `patch` (if the fix is unambiguous) or `defer` (if not).
|
|
|
|
6. **Drop** all `dismiss` findings. Record the dismiss count for the summary.
|
|
|
|
7. If `{failed_layers}` is non-empty, report which layers failed before announcing results. If zero findings remain after dropping dismissed AND `{failed_layers}` is non-empty, warn the user that the review may be incomplete rather than announcing a clean review.
|
|
|
|
8. If zero findings remain after triage (all rejected or none raised): state "✅ Clean review — all layers passed." (Step 3 already warned if any review layers failed via `{failed_layers}`.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
## NEXT
|
|
|
|
Read fully and follow `./step-04-present.md`
|