diff --git a/builtins/en/facets/instructions/review-arch.md b/builtins/en/facets/instructions/review-arch.md index 31cc066..fd971ba 100644 --- a/builtins/en/facets/instructions/review-arch.md +++ b/builtins/en/facets/instructions/review-arch.md @@ -12,6 +12,12 @@ Do not review AI-specific issues (already covered by the ai_review movement). - Call chain verification - Scattered hardcoding of contract strings (file names, config key names) + +**Design decisions reference:** +Review {report:coder-decisions.md} to understand the recorded design decisions. +- Do not flag intentionally documented decisions as FP +- However, also evaluate whether the design decisions themselves are sound, and flag any problems + **Previous finding tracking (required):** - First, extract open findings from "Previous Response" - Assign `finding_id` to each finding and classify current status as `new / persists / resolved` diff --git a/builtins/en/facets/instructions/review-cqrs-es.md b/builtins/en/facets/instructions/review-cqrs-es.md index 9e34601..eff8518 100644 --- a/builtins/en/facets/instructions/review-cqrs-es.md +++ b/builtins/en/facets/instructions/review-cqrs-es.md @@ -11,6 +11,12 @@ AI-specific issue review is not needed (already covered by the ai_review movemen **Note**: If this project does not use the CQRS+ES pattern, review from a general domain design perspective instead. + +**Design decisions reference:** +Review {report:coder-decisions.md} to understand the recorded design decisions. +- Do not flag intentionally documented decisions as FP +- However, also evaluate whether the design decisions themselves are sound, and flag any problems + ## Judgment Procedure 1. Review the change diff and detect issues based on the CQRS and Event Sourcing criteria above diff --git a/builtins/en/facets/instructions/review-frontend.md b/builtins/en/facets/instructions/review-frontend.md index d95d66a..08d57bb 100644 --- a/builtins/en/facets/instructions/review-frontend.md +++ b/builtins/en/facets/instructions/review-frontend.md @@ -11,6 +11,12 @@ Review the changes from a frontend development perspective. **Note**: If this project does not include a frontend, proceed as no issues found. + +**Design decisions reference:** +Review {report:coder-decisions.md} to understand the recorded design decisions. +- Do not flag intentionally documented decisions as FP +- However, also evaluate whether the design decisions themselves are sound, and flag any problems + ## Judgment Procedure 1. Review the change diff and detect issues based on the frontend development criteria above diff --git a/builtins/en/facets/instructions/review-qa.md b/builtins/en/facets/instructions/review-qa.md index 684a9c4..b29d2a3 100644 --- a/builtins/en/facets/instructions/review-qa.md +++ b/builtins/en/facets/instructions/review-qa.md @@ -7,6 +7,12 @@ Review the changes from a quality assurance perspective. - Logging and monitoring - Maintainability + +**Design decisions reference:** +Review {report:coder-decisions.md} to understand the recorded design decisions. +- Do not flag intentionally documented decisions as FP +- However, also evaluate whether the design decisions themselves are sound, and flag any problems + **Previous finding tracking (required):** - First, extract open findings from "Previous Response" - Assign `finding_id` to each finding and classify current status as `new / persists / resolved` diff --git a/builtins/en/facets/instructions/review-requirements.md b/builtins/en/facets/instructions/review-requirements.md index 5aa1ac0..582264f 100644 --- a/builtins/en/facets/instructions/review-requirements.md +++ b/builtins/en/facets/instructions/review-requirements.md @@ -6,6 +6,12 @@ Review the changes from a requirements fulfillment perspective. - Whether changes outside the scope (scope creep) have crept in - Whether there are any partial or missing implementations + +**Design decisions reference:** +Review {report:coder-decisions.md} to understand the recorded design decisions. +- Do not flag intentionally documented decisions as FP +- However, also evaluate whether the design decisions themselves are sound, and flag any problems + **Previous finding tracking (required):** - First, extract open findings from "Previous Response" - Assign `finding_id` to each finding and classify current status as `new / persists / resolved` diff --git a/builtins/en/facets/instructions/review-security.md b/builtins/en/facets/instructions/review-security.md index 1a36743..1a901bb 100644 --- a/builtins/en/facets/instructions/review-security.md +++ b/builtins/en/facets/instructions/review-security.md @@ -4,6 +4,12 @@ Review the changes from a security perspective. Check for the following vulnerab - Data exposure risks - Cryptographic weaknesses + +**Design decisions reference:** +Review {report:coder-decisions.md} to understand the recorded design decisions. +- Do not flag intentionally documented decisions as FP +- However, also evaluate whether the design decisions themselves are sound, and flag any problems + ## Judgment Procedure 1. Review the change diff and detect issues based on the security criteria above diff --git a/builtins/en/facets/instructions/review-terraform.md b/builtins/en/facets/instructions/review-terraform.md index c2c7840..4131fd8 100644 --- a/builtins/en/facets/instructions/review-terraform.md +++ b/builtins/en/facets/instructions/review-terraform.md @@ -11,6 +11,12 @@ Do not review AI-specific issues (already covered by the ai_review movement). - Cost trade-off documentation - Unused variables / outputs / data sources + +**Design decisions reference:** +Review {report:coder-decisions.md} to understand the recorded design decisions. +- Do not flag intentionally documented decisions as FP +- However, also evaluate whether the design decisions themselves are sound, and flag any problems + **Previous finding tracking (required):** - First, extract open findings from "Previous Response" - Assign `finding_id` to each finding and classify current status as `new / persists / resolved` diff --git a/builtins/en/facets/instructions/review-test.md b/builtins/en/facets/instructions/review-test.md index c769dcd..d1180ae 100644 --- a/builtins/en/facets/instructions/review-test.md +++ b/builtins/en/facets/instructions/review-test.md @@ -7,6 +7,12 @@ Review the changes from a test quality perspective. - Completeness (unnecessary tests, missing cases) - Appropriateness of mocks and fixtures + +**Design decisions reference:** +Review {report:coder-decisions.md} to understand the recorded design decisions. +- Do not flag intentionally documented decisions as FP +- However, also evaluate whether the design decisions themselves are sound, and flag any problems + ## Judgment Procedure 1. Cross-reference the test plan/test scope reports in the Report Directory with the implemented tests diff --git a/builtins/ja/facets/instructions/review-arch.md b/builtins/ja/facets/instructions/review-arch.md index 8463579..57e274d 100644 --- a/builtins/ja/facets/instructions/review-arch.md +++ b/builtins/ja/facets/instructions/review-arch.md @@ -12,6 +12,12 @@ AI特有の問題はレビューしないでください（ai_reviewムーブメ - 呼び出しチェーン検証 - 契約文字列（ファイル名・設定キー名）のハードコード散在 + +**設計判断の参照:** +{report:coder-decisions.md} を確認し、記録された設計判断を把握してください。 +- 記録された意図的な判断は FP として指摘しない +- ただし設計判断自体の妥当性も評価し、問題がある場合は指摘する + **前回指摘の追跡（必須）:** - まず「Previous Response」から前回の open findings を抽出する - 各 finding に `finding_id` を付け、今回の状態を `new / persists / resolved` で判定する diff --git a/builtins/ja/facets/instructions/review-cqrs-es.md b/builtins/ja/facets/instructions/review-cqrs-es.md index 329d8d1..fdbc151 100644 --- a/builtins/ja/facets/instructions/review-cqrs-es.md +++ b/builtins/ja/facets/instructions/review-cqrs-es.md @@ -11,6 +11,12 @@ CQRS（コマンドクエリ責務分離）とEvent Sourcing（イベントソ **注意**: このプロジェクトがCQRS+ESパターンを使用していない場合は、 一般的なドメイン設計の観点からレビューしてください。 + +**設計判断の参照:** +{report:coder-decisions.md} を確認し、記録された設計判断を把握してください。 +- 記録された意図的な判断は FP として指摘しない +- ただし設計判断自体の妥当性も評価し、問題がある場合は指摘する + ## 判定手順 1. 変更差分を確認し、CQRS・イベントソーシングの観点に基づいて問題を検出する diff --git a/builtins/ja/facets/instructions/review-frontend.md b/builtins/ja/facets/instructions/review-frontend.md index 02010ef..ed2b857 100644 --- a/builtins/ja/facets/instructions/review-frontend.md +++ b/builtins/ja/facets/instructions/review-frontend.md @@ -11,6 +11,12 @@ **注意**: このプロジェクトがフロントエンドを含まない場合は、 問題なしとして次に進んでください。 + +**設計判断の参照:** +{report:coder-decisions.md} を確認し、記録された設計判断を把握してください。 +- 記録された意図的な判断は FP として指摘しない +- ただし設計判断自体の妥当性も評価し、問題がある場合は指摘する + ## 判定手順 1. 変更差分を確認し、フロントエンド開発の観点に基づいて問題を検出する diff --git a/builtins/ja/facets/instructions/review-qa.md b/builtins/ja/facets/instructions/review-qa.md index 3114a03..ff9a759 100644 --- a/builtins/ja/facets/instructions/review-qa.md +++ b/builtins/ja/facets/instructions/review-qa.md @@ -7,6 +7,12 @@ - ログとモニタリング - 保守性 + +**設計判断の参照:** +{report:coder-decisions.md} を確認し、記録された設計判断を把握してください。 +- 記録された意図的な判断は FP として指摘しない +- ただし設計判断自体の妥当性も評価し、問題がある場合は指摘する + **前回指摘の追跡（必須）:** - まず「Previous Response」から前回の open findings を抽出する - 各 finding に `finding_id` を付け、今回の状態を `new / persists / resolved` で判定する diff --git a/builtins/ja/facets/instructions/review-requirements.md b/builtins/ja/facets/instructions/review-requirements.md index 206848f..eab99ba 100644 --- a/builtins/ja/facets/instructions/review-requirements.md +++ b/builtins/ja/facets/instructions/review-requirements.md @@ -6,6 +6,12 @@ - 要求にない変更（スコープクリープ）が紛れていないか - 部分実装や未実装がないか + +**設計判断の参照:** +{report:coder-decisions.md} を確認し、記録された設計判断を把握してください。 +- 記録された意図的な判断は FP として指摘しない +- ただし設計判断自体の妥当性も評価し、問題がある場合は指摘する + **前回指摘の追跡（必須）:** - まず「Previous Response」から前回の open findings を抽出する - 各 finding に `finding_id` を付け、今回の状態を `new / persists / resolved` で判定する diff --git a/builtins/ja/facets/instructions/review-security.md b/builtins/ja/facets/instructions/review-security.md index 44b2b97..f915eb0 100644 --- a/builtins/ja/facets/instructions/review-security.md +++ b/builtins/ja/facets/instructions/review-security.md @@ -4,6 +4,12 @@ - データ露出リスク - 暗号化の弱点 + +**設計判断の参照:** +{report:coder-decisions.md} を確認し、記録された設計判断を把握してください。 +- 記録された意図的な判断は FP として指摘しない +- ただし設計判断自体の妥当性も評価し、問題がある場合は指摘する + ## 判定手順 1. 変更差分を確認し、セキュリティの観点に基づいて問題を検出する diff --git a/builtins/ja/facets/instructions/review-terraform.md b/builtins/ja/facets/instructions/review-terraform.md index 3975fc9..42ef820 100644 --- a/builtins/ja/facets/instructions/review-terraform.md +++ b/builtins/ja/facets/instructions/review-terraform.md @@ -11,6 +11,12 @@ AI特有の問題はレビューしないでください（ai_reviewムーブメ - コストトレードオフの文書化 - 未使用の variable / output / data source + +**設計判断の参照:** +{report:coder-decisions.md} を確認し、記録された設計判断を把握してください。 +- 記録された意図的な判断は FP として指摘しない +- ただし設計判断自体の妥当性も評価し、問題がある場合は指摘する + **前回指摘の追跡（必須）:** - まず「Previous Response」から前回の open findings を抽出する - 各 finding に `finding_id` を付け、今回の状態を `new / persists / resolved` で判定する diff --git a/builtins/ja/facets/instructions/review-test.md b/builtins/ja/facets/instructions/review-test.md index e127e8b..dbda188 100644 --- a/builtins/ja/facets/instructions/review-test.md +++ b/builtins/ja/facets/instructions/review-test.md @@ -7,6 +7,12 @@ - 過不足（不要なテスト、足りないケース） - モック・フィクスチャの適切さ + +**設計判断の参照:** +{report:coder-decisions.md} を確認し、記録された設計判断を把握してください。 +- 記録された意図的な判断は FP として指摘しない +- ただし設計判断自体の妥当性も評価し、問題がある場合は指摘する + ## 判定手順 1. Report Directory内のテスト計画・テストスコープに関するレポートと実装されたテストを突合する