2dc5cf1102
意図的な設計判断をレビュアーが誤検知（FP）しないよう、全 review-*.md に
{report:coder-decisions.md} の参照セクションを追加。ただし設計判断自体の
妥当性も評価する指示を含め、盲目的な通過を防ぐ。
33 lines
1.5 KiB
Markdown
33 lines
1.5 KiB
Markdown
Focus on reviewing **architecture and design**.
|
|
Do not review AI-specific issues (already covered by the ai_review movement).
|
|
|
|
**Review criteria:**
|
|
- Structural and design validity
|
|
- Modularization (high cohesion, low coupling, no circular dependencies)
|
|
- Functionalization (single responsibility per function, operation discoverability, consistent abstraction level)
|
|
- Code quality
|
|
- Appropriateness of change scope
|
|
- Test coverage
|
|
- Dead code
|
|
- 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`
|
|
- If status is `persists`, provide concrete unresolved evidence (file/line)
|
|
|
|
## Judgment Procedure
|
|
|
|
1. First, extract previous open findings and preliminarily classify as `new / persists / resolved`
|
|
2. Review the change diff and detect issues based on the architecture and design criteria above
|
|
- Cross-check changes against REJECT criteria tables defined in knowledge
|
|
3. For each detected issue, classify as blocking/non-blocking based on Policy's scope determination table and judgment rules
|
|
4. If there is even one blocking issue (`new` or `persists`), judge as REJECT
|