Formal review of all 13 review-sets; apply findings

[Copilot]

Ran the @code-review agent against each of the 13 review-sets defined in .reviewmark.yaml, processing each separately. Seven actionable findings were identified and fixed.

Description

docs/design/cli/context.md

• Property table entry Elaborate | bool → ElaborateId | string? to match actual implementation
• Property table entry WorkingDirectory | string → WorkingDirectory | string? to match actual implementation (null when --dir is not provided)

docs/design/program.md

• Corrected Run() dispatch: banner is printed unconditionally (except --version); --index is not a standalone priority but part of RunToolLogic
• Split PrintBanner() and PrintHelp() descriptions accurately; prior doc conflated the two methods

test/DemaConsulting.ReviewMark.Tests/Cli/ContextTests.cs

• Replaced 13 Assert.Throws<ArgumentException>() with Assert.ThrowsExactly<ArgumentException>() per MSTest V4 standards — the looser assertion would silently pass if a derived exception type (e.g. ArgumentNullException) were thrown instead

docs/user_guide/introduction.md

• Fixed the lint "What Lint Checks" section: none was omitted from the list of valid evidence-source type values (none, url, fileshare)
• Rephrased the evidence-source block description to make location conditional: required only for url/fileshare, not used with none

docs/reqstream/reviewmark-system.yaml

• Added Failed to the ReviewMark-System-ReviewReport justification — the tool emits four statuses (Current, Stale, Missing, and Failed), not three
• Expanded the ReviewMark-System-Enforce justification to cover both enforcement triggers: uncovered files in the Review Plan (files matching needs-review not covered by any review-set) and non-Current statuses in the Review Report (Stale, Missing, or Failed)

Type of Change

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
• Documentation update
• Code quality improvement

Related Issues

Pre-Submission Checklist

Before submitting this pull request, ensure you have completed the following:

Build and Test

• Code builds successfully: dotnet build --configuration Release
• All unit tests pass: dotnet test --configuration Release
• Self-validation tests pass:
  dotnet run --project src/DemaConsulting.ReviewMark --configuration Release --framework net10.0
--no-build -- --validate
• Code produces zero warnings

Code Quality

• Code formatting is correct: dotnet format --verify-no-changes
• New code has appropriate XML documentation comments
• Static analyzer warnings have been addressed

Quality Checks

Please run the following checks before submitting:

• Spell checker passes: cspell "**/*.{md,cs}"
• Markdown linter passes: markdownlint "**/*.md"
• YAML linter passes: yamllint .

Testing

• Added unit tests for new functionality
• Updated existing tests if behavior changed
• All tests follow the AAA (Arrange, Act, Assert) pattern
• Test coverage is maintained or improved

Documentation

• Updated README.md (if applicable)
• Updated ARCHITECTURE.md (if applicable)
• Added code examples for new features (if applicable)
• Updated requirements.yaml (if applicable)

Additional Notes

All 13 review-sets passed. The remaining reviews (ReviewMark-ReviewMarkConfiguration, ReviewMark-GlobMatcher, ReviewMark-ReviewIndex, ReviewMark-PathHelpers, ReviewMark-Validation, ReviewMark-Cli, ReviewMark-Indexing, ReviewMark-SelfTest, ReviewMark-System, ReviewMark-Design, ReviewMark-AllRequirements) had no blocking issues.

[Malcolmnixon]

@copilot Please review the README.md, docs/user_guide/introduction.md, docs/reqstream/reviewmark-system.yaml, docs/design/introduction.md and docs/design/system.md files and determine whether the requirements and design of reviewmark accurately reflect what's being advertised to the user.

[Copilot]

@copilot Please review the README.md, docs/user_guide/introduction.md, docs/reqstream/reviewmark-system.yaml, docs/design/introduction.md and docs/design/system.md files and determine whether the requ...

Cross-checked the five files. Two gaps found and fixed (commit dba0ff5):

1. docs/user_guide/introduction.md — lint "What Lint Checks" section listed only url and fileshare as valid evidence-source types. none is also accepted by the tool (and skips the location requirement). Updated to list all three types.

2. docs/reqstream/reviewmark-system.yaml — both the ReviewMark-System-ReviewReport and ReviewMark-System-Enforce justifications mentioned only Stale and Missing statuses. The tool also produces a Failed status (evidence exists with a matching fingerprint but result ≠ pass) and enforcement triggers on it too. Both justification texts now include Failed.

Everything else in the five files accurately reflects the implementation:

• All 9 self-validation tests listed in README and user guide are correct
• Feature list in README matches implemented CLI flags
• The four statuses (Current/Stale/Missing/Failed) are correctly described in docs/design/system.md
• The evidence source types and workflow steps are accurate

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Updates project documentation and test assertions based on a formal pass over all configured review-sets, aligning docs/requirements with actual CLI/config behavior and tightening MSTest exception assertions.

Changes:

• Updated CLI/design docs to reflect current Program.Run() dispatch behavior and Context property semantics.
• Corrected user guide lint documentation for evidence-source supported types and location requirements.
• Tightened CLI argument validation tests by switching to Assert.ThrowsExactly<ArgumentException>().

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 5 out of 5 changed files in this pull request and generated 3 comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
test/DemaConsulting.ReviewMark.Tests/Cli/ContextTests.cs	Uses ThrowsExactly for stricter exception-type assertions in CLI parsing tests.
docs/user_guide/introduction.md	Updates lint checks description for evidence-source values and location requirement.
docs/reqstream/reviewmark-system.yaml	Updates system requirement justifications to include Failed status and enforcement behavior.
docs/design/program.md	Corrects Run() dispatch narrative; separates PrintBanner() vs PrintHelp() behavior.
docs/design/cli/context.md	Updates Context property table (ElaborateId) to match implementation.

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[Malcolmnixon]

@copilot apply changes based on the comments in this thread

[Copilot]

@copilot apply changes based on the comments in this thread

Applied in commit b84f71e:

• docs/user_guide/introduction.md — rephrased the evidence-source block lint check description to use the suggested wording (conditional location requirement, type: none note)
• docs/reqstream/reviewmark-system.yaml — expanded ReviewMark-System-Enforce justification to cover both plan coverage issues (uncovered files) and review report statuses (Stale/Missing/Failed)
• docs/design/cli/context.md — WorkingDirectory was already corrected to string? in the prior commit