Skip to content

docs(spec): fold review-driven re-dispatch loop into Phase 5#77

Merged
thejustinwalsh merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
docs/review-loop-phase5
May 23, 2026
Merged

docs(spec): fold review-driven re-dispatch loop into Phase 5#77
thejustinwalsh merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
docs/review-loop-phase5

Conversation

@thejustinwalsh

@thejustinwalsh thejustinwalsh commented May 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Summary

Folds the review-driven re-dispatch loop into Phase 5 (Human-in-loop) of the build spec, pulling it forward from Phase 8 since it reuses the same waitFor/poller/resume machinery the asked-question path already requires.

What changed

  • Build-sequence tasks 26–29 reframed around a shared park → external-signal → resume spine, parameterized by a resume reason (answered-question | review-changes):
    • poller fires on a human reply or a PR review-state transition (CHANGES_REQUESTED / changes-requested label resumes; APPROVED ends the loop),
    • resume pulls the PR's review threads into .middle/prompt.md behind an "address review" brief,
    • bounded to 5 rounds, then parks in waiting-human.
  • Workflow snippet done path now parks on epic-N-review-resolved after mark-pr-ready, then resume-with-review-changes.
  • Prose describing the symmetric done-path loop (APPROVED ends it; middle never merges — the human does).

No task renumbering — Phase 6 still starts at task 30. Docs-only.

Test plan

  • Read the Phase 5 section + workflow done path for internal consistency.

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Documentation
    • Updated workflow specification to include a review gate after PR readiness check, enabling iterative review loops with up to 5 rounds before manual intervention.
    • Enhanced phased build plan documentation with details on parameterized park/resume mechanisms for handling review feedback and question responses.

Review Change Stack

@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented May 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Caution

Review failed

The pull request is closed.

ℹ️ Recent review info
⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 11a82d4c-10d5-4e02-b339-8b14b8ed51b8

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between b4430c2 and 0733fec.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • planning/middle-management-build-spec.md

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

This PR updates the build specification to introduce a parameterized review-loop mechanism to the implementation workflow. After PR readiness verification, the workflow waits for an epic-review-resolved signal, resumes with review changes, and loops up to 5 rounds before parking in waiting-human. Phase 5 planning is updated to document the shared park/resume spine, GitHub polling integration, and review-thread-based re-framing logic.

Changes

Review-loop integration

Layer / File(s) Summary
Implementation workflow review gate and loop behavior
planning/middle-management-build-spec.md
Workflow spec adds waitFor step for epic-<epicNumber>-review-resolved signal (1-week timeout) and resume-with-review-changes step in the done path. Descriptive paragraph updated to explain CHANGES_REQUESTED → resume with PR review threads, APPROVED → end loop, and bounded 5-round parking in waiting-human.
Phase 5 human-in-loop + review-loop planning
planning/middle-management-build-spec.md
Phase 5 redefined to specify a shared park→external-signal→resume spine parameterized by resume reason (asked-question vs review-changes), GitHub poller integration triggered by PR review-state transitions or issue replies, re-frame logic using human answers or PR review threads, and acceptance criteria covering full asked-question and review-changes loops with 5-round stop condition.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~8 minutes


Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant