From 83d54f7ddd1828c9c506ea4c616eb34c650d598b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jesse Vincent Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2026 21:47:41 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] Red Flags: never tell a reviewer what not to flag or pre-rate severity MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Second observed instance: with the Constructing Reviewer Prompts rule already live, a controller still wrote 'do not treat that duplication as a defect to fix — the plan chose it; you may note it as a Minor observation at most' into a quality reviewer dispatch, fabricating plan intent from the plan's example snippet. Promote the rule to the Red Flags Never list and name the rationalization. --- skills/subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) diff --git a/skills/subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md b/skills/subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md index 7741a53a..60a8ad96 100644 --- a/skills/subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md +++ b/skills/subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md @@ -281,6 +281,9 @@ Done! - Accept "close enough" on spec compliance (spec reviewer found issues = not done) - Skip review loops (reviewer found issues = implementer fixes = review again) - Let implementer self-review replace actual review (both are needed) +- Tell a reviewer what not to flag, or pre-rate a finding's severity in the + dispatch prompt ("treat it as Minor at most") — the plan's example code is + a starting point, not evidence that its weaknesses were chosen - **Start code quality review before spec compliance is ✅** (wrong order) - Move to next task while either review has open issues