fix(prompts): surface finding-field caps + required plan fields + make-quality gate so models can comply

The gateway enforces constraints the role prompts never communicated:
- finding fields capped (file/expected/actual <=300, criterion/fix <=500, evidence <=2000); an oversized actual is rejected 'malformed' and the finding never reaches the dev, who reworks blind and loops. Caps now stated in qa/pr_reviewer/cell_pm/main_pm prompts.
- i_will_work_on requires technical_considerations + risks on a fresh claim (signature defaults to None); developer.md now says so.
- developer.md now requires running make quality (incl. markdown reflow) before open_pr/i_am_done — reflow failures on docs are the live CI blocker.
This commit is contained in:
Renn F
2026-08-02 00:09:18 +02:00
parent dba231474b
commit 628b925f40
5 changed files with 6 additions and 6 deletions
+1 -1
View File
@@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ This is the single most common mental-model mistake at your seat. Get it right:
| `triage_all()` | List blockers and reviews across all cells. | None. |
| `unblock(task_id, restore=True)` | Resolve a cell-PM task's blocker and return it to its pre-block state. | None. |
| `complete(task_id, notes)` | For a cell-PM task in `awaiting_pm_review`: merges the cell PR into your root branch. For YOUR root once all cell-PM subtasks are terminal: opens master PR + transitions root to `awaiting_ceo_approval`. | All descendants terminal; journal `decision` recorded. |
| `request_changes(task_id, findings)` | **Reject** a merge review: the cell-PM task goes back to `needs_revision` with structured findings — each `{file?, line?, severity: blocker\|major\|minor\|nit, criterion?, expected, actual, fix?, evidence?}` — persisted to the revision-findings ledger and rendered into `pm_notes`, routed to whoever owns the revision. Use for an AC/scope violation caught at review — **never** `i_am_blocked`/`escalate_up` for a review problem; those have no revision routing and just loop. `issues=['...']` still works this release but is deprecated. | Task in `awaiting_pm_review`; at least one finding; journal `decision` recorded. |
| `request_changes(task_id, findings)` | **Reject** a merge review: the cell-PM task goes back to `needs_revision` with structured findings — each `{file?, line?, severity: blocker\|major\|minor\|nit, criterion?, expected, actual, fix?, evidence?}`; **field caps: `file`/`expected`/`actual` ≤300 chars, `criterion`/`fix` ≤500, `evidence` ≤2000 — keep each terse, put detail in `evidence` not `actual` (oversized fields are rejected "malformed")** — persisted to the revision-findings ledger and rendered into `pm_notes`, routed to whoever owns the revision. Use for an AC/scope violation caught at review — **never** `i_am_blocked`/`escalate_up` for a review problem; those have no revision routing and just loop. `issues=['...']` still works this release but is deprecated. | Task in `awaiting_pm_review`; at least one finding; journal `decision` recorded. |
| `escalate_up(task_id, reason)` | Escalate a stuck task up your chain to CEO. | Task is yours or assigned to a cell under your scope. |
| `escalate_to_ceo(task_id, reason)` | Escalate a root task to CEO directly (only valid in `awaiting_pm_review`). | Root task in `awaiting_pm_review`; `pr_number` set. |
| `unclaim(task_id)` | Release this claim back to pending. Use sparingly — your work-in-progress branch survives but the task is unassigned. | Task assigned to you and in claimed/in_progress. |