@antoneeo/agentic-sdlc-skill 1.26.0 → 1.27.0

package/skills/agentic-sdlc-skill/dispatch.md

@@ -65,6 +65,15 @@ Exactly three review touches per task, never a loop:
 If a review FAILs, fix and re-run `verify` — that is a normal loop iteration
 via the ledger's fail path, not an extra review slot.
 
+**The scoped re-review is a round INSIDE slot 2 or 3, never a fourth slot.**
+`review.md` §Receiving requires every review-driven correction to be
+re-reviewed against the correction alone — that round belongs to the slot whose
+findings caused it, and is bounded by the same cap of 3 rounds. "Never a loop"
+bounds the SLOTS (no unbounded re-reviewing of a task), not the rounds inside
+one slot: a fix nobody looked at is the defect the round exists to catch. Slot 1
+is the implementer's own pass, not an independent review, so its fixes carry no
+re-review round. The ledger records the round on the task's fail path as usual.
+
 ## Ledger protocol summary
 
 Read → skip-if-done → dispatch-if-pending → write. The ledger is the only

package/skills/agentic-sdlc-skill/review.md

@@ -124,14 +124,20 @@ A fix made in response to a finding is new, unreviewed work — stopping after
 therefore gets a **scoped re-review** before the review can PASS: hand the
 re-reviewer the original findings and ONLY the correction (the fix diff/range
 for code, the amended sections for a document), and require a per-finding
-verdict — `ADDRESSED`, `NOT ADDRESSED`, or `CONTESTED` with evidence. The
-re-review also checks the correction itself for new blocker-level
-breakage — and nothing else: out-of-scope observations become separately
+verdict — `ADDRESSED`, `NOT ADDRESSED`, or `CONTESTED` with evidence. **A PASS
+that carried findings is provisional until its corrections pass that round** —
+the commonest real case is a PASS with non-blocking findings the author then
+fixes, and stopping there ships precisely the unreviewed version this rule
+exists to catch. The re-review also checks the correction itself for new
+blocker-level breakage — and nothing else: out-of-scope observations become separately
 recorded findings, never an extension of the loop. Expect two rounds as the
 norm, not the exception — round 1 finds, round 2 verifies the fixes — inside
 the same cap of 3 (§When a review is due). One logical review stays ONE
-REVIEW_LOG row, its rounds narrated inside; a scoped re-review is a round,
-not a new review.
+REVIEW_LOG row — a scoped re-review is a round, not a new review — with the
+rounds narrated in the row's notes and **the verdict column carrying the
+round-1 verdict and the final one (`FAIL → PASS`), never the final one alone**:
+a first-round FAIL is the highest-value evidence the gate produces (§When a
+review is due), and collapsing it into a bare `PASS` erases exactly that.
 
 ## Reviewing
 
@@ -145,6 +151,15 @@ When you are the reviewer:
   (see `## Requesting`).
 - Cite evidence as `file:line` for every finding — a finding without a
   location is not actionable.
+- **An unproven completion claim is a finding** (closure reviews, on the diff).
+  When the work under review states or implies that something passes, is fixed,
+  is clean or is complete, the evidence must be present and must post-date the
+  final relevant change; a claim resting on a stale run, on a narrower check
+  than the claim needs, or on a delegated agent's own report rather than the
+  diff, is a finding — name the claim and what would prove it. This is the
+  enforcement point of the author-side rule in `SKILL.md` §5 Closure, and the
+  reason a requester hands it over is that the reviewer cannot cite a rule it
+  was never given.
 - **Say what you could NOT verify.** When a claim in the artifact cannot be
   verified from the inputs you were given (it lives in unchanged code, another
   document, or an environment you cannot reach), report it as a

package/skills/agentic-sdlc-skill/templates.md

@@ -507,8 +507,8 @@ adds values to the existing columns rather than a second table.
 
 | date | doc_key | tier | reviewer | findings_raised | findings_real | verdict | revise_rounds |
 |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
-| 2026-06-11 | ANALYSIS_login_sso.md | design | subagent (opus, fresh ctx) | 4 | 3 | PASS | 2 |
-| 2026-06-12 | diff feature/sso-login | closure | self-pass (declared; no subagent facility) | 2 | 2 | PASS | 1 |
+| 2026-06-11 | ANALYSIS_login_sso.md | design | subagent (opus, fresh ctx) | 4 | 3 | FAIL → PASS | 2 |
+| 2026-06-12 | diff feature/sso-login | closure | self-pass (declared; no subagent facility) | 2 | 2 | PASS with findings → corrections re-reviewed, PASS | 2 |
 
 ## Notes
 <!-- One short paragraph per review that found something worth remembering: what
@@ -527,6 +527,13 @@ records the realization actually used — fresh subagent, one-shot client run, o
 honest; writing nothing, or implying independence you did not have, is the failure
 this column exists to prevent. `findings_real` is how many raised findings survived
 triage: over time it is the only evidence of whether the gate earns its cost.
+`revise_rounds` counts **review rounds**, not fix cycles: the first review is round 1
+and every scoped re-review adds one. A review that produced findings which were then
+corrected therefore always reads ≥ 2 — the corrections are unreviewed work until a
+round verifies them (`review.md` §Receiving) — and 3 is the ceiling, past which the
+residue goes to the user rather than into a fourth round. `verdict` carries the
+round-1 verdict and the final one when they differ (`FAIL → PASS`): collapsing a
+first-round FAIL into a bare `PASS` erases the evidence this log exists to keep.
 Concurrent reviews: `init` writes a `.gitattributes` stanza giving this file
 `merge=union` — a **built-in** driver (no per-clone `git config`, unlike
 `merge=ours`, which silently does nothing until every clone configures it).