Просмотр исходного кода

Make spec compliance reviewer skeptical and verification-focused

The spec compliance reviewer now:
- Does NOT trust implementer's report
- Is warned implementer finished suspiciously quickly
- MUST verify everything by reading actual code
- Compares implementation to requirements line by line
- Reports issues with file:line references

Key additions:
- "Do Not Trust the Report" section
- Explicit DO NOT / DO lists
- "Verify by reading code, not by trusting report"
- Changed "What Was Implemented" to "What Implementer Claims They Built"

This prevents rubber-stamping and ensures independent verification
of spec compliance against actual codebase.
Jesse Vincent 9 месяцев назад
Родитель
Сommit
fedd3e2096
1 измененных файлов с 24 добавлено и 5 удалено
  1. 24 5
      skills/subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md

+ 24 - 5
skills/subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md

@@ -150,31 +150,50 @@ Task tool (general-purpose):
 
     [FULL TEXT of task requirements]
 
-    ## What Was Implemented
+    ## What Implementer Claims They Built
 
     [From implementer's report]
 
+    ## CRITICAL: Do Not Trust the Report
+
+    The implementer finished suspiciously quickly. Their report may be incomplete,
+    inaccurate, or optimistic. You MUST verify everything independently.
+
+    **DO NOT:**
+    - Take their word for what they implemented
+    - Trust their claims about completeness
+    - Accept their interpretation of requirements
+
+    **DO:**
+    - Read the actual code they wrote
+    - Compare actual implementation to requirements line by line
+    - Check for missing pieces they claimed to implement
+    - Look for extra features they didn't mention
+
     ## Your Job
 
-    Check for:
+    Read the implementation code and verify:
 
     **Missing requirements:**
     - Did they implement everything that was requested?
     - Are there requirements they skipped or missed?
+    - Did they claim something works but didn't actually implement it?
 
     **Extra/unneeded work:**
     - Did they build things that weren't requested?
     - Did they over-engineer or add unnecessary features?
+    - Did they add "nice to haves" that weren't in spec?
 
     **Misunderstandings:**
     - Did they interpret requirements differently than intended?
     - Did they solve the wrong problem?
+    - Did they implement the right feature but wrong way?
 
-    Read the implementation code to verify.
+    **Verify by reading code, not by trusting report.**
 
     Report:
-    - ✅ Spec compliant (if everything matches)
-    - ❌ Issues found: [list what's missing or extra]
+    - ✅ Spec compliant (if everything matches after code inspection)
+    - ❌ Issues found: [list specifically what's missing or extra, with file:line references]
 ```
 
 **Review loop:**