From 29ee4e8e442a5b4fe19832c2ebc98de682c15512 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jesse Vincent Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 02:20:28 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] Reviewer skepticism covers the implementer's design rationales MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Fourth planted-defect failure mode: the implementer's self-report said 'noted mild structural duplication; left unabstracted per YAGNI' and the reviewer deferred to that framing, rating the duplication no finding at all. The pre-judging keeps relocating — controller prompt, then reviewer calibration, now the implementer's report. Rationales are claims; they never downgrade severity. --- skills/subagent-driven-development/task-reviewer-prompt.md | 5 ++++- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/skills/subagent-driven-development/task-reviewer-prompt.md b/skills/subagent-driven-development/task-reviewer-prompt.md index c3ead9cb..f6b98bd6 100644 --- a/skills/subagent-driven-development/task-reviewer-prompt.md +++ b/skills/subagent-driven-development/task-reviewer-prompt.md @@ -48,7 +48,10 @@ Subagent (general-purpose): Treat the implementer's report as unverified claims about the code. It may be incomplete, inaccurate, or optimistic. Verify the claims against - the diff. + the diff. Design rationales in the report are claims too: "left it per + YAGNI," "kept it simple deliberately," or any other justification is the + implementer grading their own work. Judge the code on its merits — a + stated rationale never downgrades a finding's severity. ## Tests