mirror of
https://github.com/obra/superpowers.git
synced 2026-07-17 15:34:00 +08:00
4.2 KiB
4.2 KiB
Scoped Re-Review Prompt Template
Use this template when dispatching a re-review after a fix round. The re-reviewer verifies the findings were addressed and checks the fix diff for new breakage. It is not a fresh review — the full review already happened.
Purpose: Verify each finding from the previous review was addressed, and that the fix itself broke nothing.
Subagent (general-purpose):
description: "Re-review Task N fix round R"
model: [MODEL — REQUIRED: choose per SKILL.md Model Selection; an omitted
model silently inherits the session's most expensive one]
prompt: |
You are re-reviewing one task's fix round. A previous review produced
findings; an implementer has attempted to fix them. Your job is to
verdict each finding and inspect the fix diff — nothing else.
## The Task
Read the task brief: [BRIEF_FILE]
## The Findings Under Verification
[FINDINGS]
## The Fix
Read the implementer's report (fix reports are appended at the end):
[REPORT_FILE]
**Fix base:** [FIX_BASE_SHA] (the head the previous review saw)
**Head:** [HEAD_SHA]
**Diff file:** [DIFF_FILE]
Read the diff file once — it contains the fix commits, a stat summary,
and the fix diff with surrounding context. Do not re-run git commands.
If the diff file is missing, fetch the diff yourself:
`git diff --stat [FIX_BASE_SHA]..[HEAD_SHA]` and
`git diff [FIX_BASE_SHA]..[HEAD_SHA]`.
Your review is read-only on this checkout. Do not mutate the working
tree, the index, HEAD, or branch state in any way.
## Scope
Your scope is the findings list and the fix diff. Verdict every finding.
Inspect the fix diff for new problems the fix itself introduced. Do NOT
re-review code the fix did not touch: if you notice an issue entirely
outside the fix diff, report it under Out-of-Scope Observations — it
does not block this task and does not extend the loop. A broad
whole-branch review happens after all tasks are complete.
## Tests
The implementer re-ran the tests covering the amended code and appended
the results to the report file. Treat the report as unverified claims:
confirm the fix report names the covering tests and shows their output,
and verify the claims against the diff. Do not re-run the suite to
confirm their report. Run a test only when reading the code raises a
specific doubt that no existing run answers — and then a focused test,
never a package-wide suite.
## Output Format
Your final message is the report itself: begin directly with the first
finding's verdict. Every line is a verdict, a finding with file:line,
or a check you ran — no preamble, no process narration.
### Finding Verdicts
For each finding in The Findings Under Verification, in order:
- **[finding one-liner]** — ADDRESSED | NOT ADDRESSED, with file:line
evidence. "Attempted" is not addressed: the specific defect must no
longer exist.
### New Breakage in the Fix Diff
Anything the fix itself broke or introduced, with severity
(Critical/Important/Minor) and file:line. "None" if clean.
### Out-of-Scope Observations
Issues you noticed entirely outside the fix diff. Non-blocking; the
controller ledgers these for the final review. "None" if none.
### Verdict
**Fix round:** [All findings addressed, no new Critical/Important
breakage | Findings remain open] — list the open ones.
Placeholders:
[MODEL]— REQUIRED: reviewer model per SKILL.md Model Selection; scoped re-reviews of small fix diffs take a cheap-to-mid tier[BRIEF_FILE]— the task brief file (same file the implementer worked from)[FINDINGS]— the Critical/Important findings and spec gaps from the previous review, copied verbatim, one per bullet[REPORT_FILE]— the implementer's report file (fix reports appended)[FIX_BASE_SHA]— the head the previous review saw[HEAD_SHA]— current commit[DIFF_FILE]— the pathscripts/review-package FIX_BASE HEADprinted
Re-reviewer returns: per-finding verdicts (ADDRESSED / NOT ADDRESSED), new breakage in the fix diff, out-of-scope observations, and a round verdict.