Files
sar/.claude/skills/bmad-code-review/steps/step-03-triage.md
julian 17c08e6392 chore: initial monorepo scaffold + WDS Phase 1+2 artifacts
- Nx 22.7 monorepo (pnpm 11.1, TypeScript 5.9, Node 24)
- apps/api: NestJS 11 (CJS conforme CODING-RULES.md PGD-DB-004)
- apps/web: React 19 + Vite 8 (ESM)
- libs/shared/api-interface: Zod contract base
- Docker Compose dev: Postgres 18, Valkey 8, MinIO, Mailpit
- WDS artifacts:
  - design-artifacts/A-Product-Brief/ (5 docs canônicos + 16 dialogs)
  - design-artifacts/B-Trigger-Map/ (hub + 4 personas + feature impact)
- Stack canon: STACK.md v2.2 + CODING-RULES.md v2.0 + brand.md
- AGENTS.md + README.md como entrada para devs/agentes

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-05-27 14:34:20 +00:00

2.6 KiB

Step 3: Triage

RULES

  • YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT in your Agent communication style with the config {communication_language}
  • Be precise. When uncertain between categories, prefer the more conservative classification.

INSTRUCTIONS

  1. Normalize findings into a common format. Expected input formats:

    • Adversarial (Blind Hunter): markdown list of descriptions
    • Edge Case Hunter: JSON array with location, trigger_condition, guard_snippet, potential_consequence fields
    • Acceptance Auditor: markdown list with title, AC/constraint reference, and evidence

    If a layer's output does not match its expected format, attempt best-effort parsing. Note any parsing issues for the user.

    Convert all to a unified list where each finding has:

    • id -- sequential integer
    • source -- blind, edge, auditor, or merged sources (e.g., blind+edge)
    • title -- one-line summary
    • detail -- full description
    • location -- file and line reference (if available)
  2. Deduplicate. If two or more findings describe the same issue, merge them into one:

    • Use the most specific finding as the base (prefer edge-case JSON with location over adversarial prose).
    • Append any unique detail, reasoning, or location references from the other finding(s) into the surviving detail field.
    • Set source to the merged sources (e.g., blind+edge).
  3. Classify each finding into exactly one bucket:

    • decision_needed -- There is an ambiguous choice that requires human input. The code cannot be correctly patched without knowing the user's intent. Only possible if {review_mode} = "full".
    • patch -- Code issue that is fixable without human input. The correct fix is unambiguous.
    • defer -- Pre-existing issue not caused by the current change. Real but not actionable now.
    • dismiss -- Noise, false positive, or handled elsewhere.

    If {review_mode} = "no-spec" and a finding would otherwise be decision_needed, reclassify it as patch (if the fix is unambiguous) or defer (if not).

  4. Drop all dismiss findings. Record the dismiss count for the summary.

  5. If {failed_layers} is non-empty, report which layers failed before announcing results. If zero findings remain after dropping dismissed AND {failed_layers} is non-empty, warn the user that the review may be incomplete rather than announcing a clean review.

  6. If zero findings remain after triage (all rejected or none raised): state " Clean review — all layers passed." (Step 3 already warned if any review layers failed via {failed_layers}.)

NEXT

Read fully and follow ./step-04-present.md