@cluesmith/codev 2.0.12 → 2.0.13

This diff represents the content of publicly available package versions that have been released to one of the supported registries. The information contained in this diff is provided for informational purposes only and reflects changes between package versions as they appear in their respective public registries.
@@ -0,0 +1,120 @@
1
+ # Review: [Feature/Project Name]
2
+
3
+ ## Summary
4
+
5
+ [1-3 sentences: what was built, how many phases, net outcome.]
6
+
7
+ ## Spec Compliance
8
+
9
+ - [x] AC1: [Description] (Phase N)
10
+ - [x] AC2: [Description] (Phase N)
11
+ - [ ] ACn: [Not met — reason]
12
+
13
+ ## Deviations from Plan
14
+
15
+ - **Phase N**: [What changed and why]
16
+
17
+ ## Key Metrics
18
+
19
+ - **Commits**: [N] on the branch
20
+ - **Tests**: [N] passing ([N] existing + [N] new)
21
+ - **Files created**: [list]
22
+ - **Files deleted**: [list]
23
+ - **Net LOC impact**: [+/-N lines]
24
+
25
+ ## Timelog
26
+
27
+ All times [timezone], [date range].
28
+
29
+ | Time | Event |
30
+ |------|-------|
31
+ | HH:MM | First commit: [description] |
32
+ | HH:MM | [Phase/milestone] |
33
+ | — | **GATE: [gate-name]** (human approval required) |
34
+ | HH:MM | Implementation begins |
35
+ | HH:MM | Phase N complete after N iterations |
36
+ | HH:MM | **GATE: pr** |
37
+
38
+ ### Autonomous Operation
39
+
40
+ | Period | Duration | Activity |
41
+ |--------|----------|----------|
42
+ | Spec + Plan | ~Nm | [Summary] |
43
+ | Human gate wait | ~Nh Nm | Idle — waiting for approval |
44
+ | Implementation → PR | ~Nh Nm | N phases, N consultation rounds |
45
+
46
+ **Total wall clock** (first commit to pr): **Xh Ym**
47
+ **Total autonomous work time** (excluding gate waits): **~Xh Ym**
48
+ **Context window resets**: [N] (resumed automatically / required manual restart)
49
+
50
+ ## Consultation Iteration Summary
51
+
52
+ [N] consultation files produced ([N] rounds x [N] models). [N] APPROVE, [N] REQUEST_CHANGES, [N] COMMENT.
53
+
54
+ | Phase | Iters | Who Blocked | What They Caught |
55
+ |-------|-------|-------------|------------------|
56
+ | Specify | N | [Model] | [Brief description] |
57
+ | Plan | N | [Model] | [Brief description] |
58
+ | Phase 1 | N | [Model] | [Brief description] |
59
+ | Phase N | N | [Model] | [Brief description] |
60
+ | Review | N | [Model] | [Brief description] |
61
+
62
+ **Most frequent blocker**: [Model] — blocked in N of N rounds, focused on: [pattern].
63
+
64
+ ### Avoidable Iterations
65
+
66
+ Iterations that could have been prevented with better builder behavior:
67
+
68
+ 1. **[Pattern]**: [Specific thing the builder should have done without needing reviewer feedback. E.g., "Run exhaustive grep before claiming all instances fixed."]
69
+
70
+ 2. **[Pattern]**: [Another avoidable iteration pattern.]
71
+
72
+ ## Consultation Feedback
73
+
74
+ [For each phase that had consultation, summarize every reviewer's concerns and how the builder responded. Use **Addressed** (fixed), **Rebutted** (disagreed with reasoning), or **N/A** (out of scope/moot) for each concern. If all reviewers approved with no concerns: "No concerns raised — all consultations approved."]
75
+
76
+ ### [Phase] Phase (Round N)
77
+
78
+ #### Gemini
79
+ - **Concern**: [Summary of concern]
80
+ - **Addressed**: [What was changed]
81
+
82
+ #### Codex
83
+ - **Concern**: [Summary of concern]
84
+ - **Rebutted**: [Why current approach is correct]
85
+
86
+ #### Claude
87
+ - No concerns raised (APPROVE)
88
+
89
+ ## Lessons Learned
90
+
91
+ ### What Went Well
92
+ - [Specific positive observation — what worked and why]
93
+
94
+ ### Challenges Encountered
95
+ - **[Challenge]**: [How it was resolved. How many iterations it cost.]
96
+
97
+ ### What Would Be Done Differently
98
+ - [Actionable improvement for future builders]
99
+
100
+ ## Architecture Updates
101
+
102
+ [What was added/changed in `codev/resources/arch.md`, or why no changes were needed.]
103
+
104
+ - Updated: [section name] — [what was added/changed]
105
+ - Or: "No architecture updates needed — [brief reason]"
106
+
107
+ ## Lessons Learned Updates
108
+
109
+ [What was added/changed in `codev/resources/lessons-learned.md`, or why no changes were needed.]
110
+
111
+ - Added: [category] — [lesson summary]
112
+ - Or: "No lessons learned updates needed — [brief reason]"
113
+
114
+ ## Technical Debt
115
+
116
+ - [Any shortcuts taken or inconsistencies introduced]
117
+
118
+ ## Follow-up Items
119
+
120
+ - [Items identified for future work, outside this spec's scope]
@@ -0,0 +1,182 @@
1
+ # Specification: [Title]
2
+
3
+ <!--
4
+ SPEC vs PLAN BOUNDARY:
5
+ This spec defines WHAT and WHY. The plan defines HOW and WHEN.
6
+
7
+ DO NOT include in this spec:
8
+ - Implementation phases or steps
9
+ - File paths to modify
10
+ - Code examples or pseudocode
11
+ - "First we will... then we will..."
12
+
13
+ These belong in codev/plans/XXXX-*.md
14
+ -->
15
+
16
+ ## Metadata
17
+ - **ID**: spec-[YYYY-MM-DD]-[short-name]
18
+ - **Status**: draft
19
+ - **Created**: [YYYY-MM-DD]
20
+
21
+ ## Clarifying Questions Asked
22
+ <!-- Document the questions you asked the user/stakeholder and their answers -->
23
+ [List the questions you asked to understand the problem better and the responses received. This shows the discovery process.]
24
+
25
+ ## Problem Statement
26
+ [Clearly articulate the problem being solved. Include context about why this is important, who is affected, and what the current pain points are.]
27
+
28
+ ## Current State
29
+ [Describe how things work today. What are the limitations? What workarounds exist? Include specific examples.]
30
+
31
+ ## Desired State
32
+ [Describe the ideal solution. How should things work after implementation? What specific improvements will users see?]
33
+
34
+ ## Stakeholders
35
+ - **Primary Users**: [Who will directly use this feature?]
36
+ - **Secondary Users**: [Who else is affected?]
37
+ - **Technical Team**: [Who will implement and maintain this?]
38
+ - **Business Owners**: [Who has decision authority?]
39
+
40
+ ## Success Criteria
41
+ - [ ] [Specific, measurable criterion 1]
42
+ - [ ] [Specific, measurable criterion 2]
43
+ - [ ] [Specific, measurable criterion 3]
44
+ - [ ] All tests pass with >90% coverage
45
+ - [ ] Performance benchmarks met (specify below)
46
+ - [ ] Documentation updated
47
+
48
+ ## Constraints
49
+ ### Technical Constraints
50
+ - [Existing system limitations]
51
+ - [Technology stack requirements]
52
+ - [Integration points]
53
+
54
+ ### Business Constraints
55
+ - [Timeline requirements]
56
+ - [Budget considerations]
57
+ - [Compliance requirements]
58
+
59
+ ## Assumptions
60
+ - [List assumptions being made]
61
+ - [Include dependencies on other work]
62
+ - [Note any prerequisites]
63
+
64
+ ## Solution Approaches
65
+
66
+ ### Approach 1: [Name]
67
+ **Description**: [Brief overview of this approach]
68
+
69
+ **Pros**:
70
+ - [Advantage 1]
71
+ - [Advantage 2]
72
+
73
+ **Cons**:
74
+ - [Disadvantage 1]
75
+ - [Disadvantage 2]
76
+
77
+ **Estimated Complexity**: [Low/Medium/High]
78
+ **Risk Level**: [Low/Medium/High]
79
+
80
+ ### Approach 2: [Name]
81
+ [Repeat structure for additional approaches]
82
+
83
+ [Add as many approaches as appropriate for the problem]
84
+
85
+ ## Open Questions
86
+
87
+ ### Critical (Blocks Progress)
88
+ - [ ] [Question that must be answered before proceeding]
89
+
90
+ ### Important (Affects Design)
91
+ - [ ] [Question that influences technical decisions]
92
+
93
+ ### Nice-to-Know (Optimization)
94
+ - [ ] [Question that could improve the solution]
95
+
96
+ ## Performance Requirements
97
+ - **Response Time**: [e.g., <200ms p95]
98
+ - **Throughput**: [e.g., 1000 requests/second]
99
+ - **Resource Usage**: [e.g., <500MB memory]
100
+ - **Availability**: [e.g., 99.9% uptime]
101
+
102
+ ## Security Considerations
103
+ - [Authentication requirements]
104
+ - [Authorization model]
105
+ - [Data privacy concerns]
106
+ - [Audit requirements]
107
+
108
+ ## Test Scenarios
109
+ ### Functional Tests
110
+ 1. [Scenario 1: Happy path]
111
+ 2. [Scenario 2: Edge case]
112
+ 3. [Scenario 3: Error condition]
113
+
114
+ ### Non-Functional Tests
115
+ 1. [Performance test scenario]
116
+ 2. [Security test scenario]
117
+ 3. [Load test scenario]
118
+
119
+ ## Dependencies
120
+ - **External Services**: [List any external APIs or services]
121
+ - **Internal Systems**: [List internal dependencies]
122
+ - **Libraries/Frameworks**: [List required libraries]
123
+
124
+ ## References
125
+ - [Link to relevant documentation in codev/ref/]
126
+ - [Link to related specifications]
127
+ - [Link to architectural diagrams]
128
+ - [Link to research materials]
129
+
130
+ ## Risks and Mitigation
131
+ | Risk | Probability | Impact | Mitigation Strategy |
132
+ |------|------------|--------|-------------------|
133
+ | [Risk 1] | Low/Med/High | Low/Med/High | [How to address] |
134
+ | [Risk 2] | Low/Med/High | Low/Med/High | [How to address] |
135
+
136
+ ## Expert Consultation
137
+ <!-- Only if user requested multi-agent consultation -->
138
+ **Date**: [YYYY-MM-DD]
139
+ **Models Consulted**: [e.g., GPT-5 and Gemini Pro]
140
+ **Sections Updated**:
141
+ - [Section name]: [Brief description of change based on consultation]
142
+ - [Section name]: [Brief description of change based on consultation]
143
+
144
+ Note: All consultation feedback has been incorporated directly into the relevant sections above.
145
+
146
+ ## Approval
147
+ - [ ] Technical Lead Review
148
+ - [ ] Product Owner Review
149
+ - [ ] Stakeholder Sign-off
150
+ - [ ] Expert AI Consultation Complete
151
+
152
+ ## Notes
153
+ [Any additional context or considerations not covered above]
154
+
155
+ ---
156
+
157
+ ## Amendments
158
+
159
+ This section tracks all TICK amendments to this specification. TICKs are lightweight changes that refine an existing spec rather than creating a new one.
160
+
161
+ <!-- When adding a TICK amendment, add a new entry below this line in chronological order -->
162
+
163
+ <!--
164
+ ### TICK-001: [Amendment Title] (YYYY-MM-DD)
165
+
166
+ **Summary**: [One-line description of what changed]
167
+
168
+ **Problem Addressed**:
169
+ [Why this amendment was needed - what gap or issue in the original spec]
170
+
171
+ **Spec Changes**:
172
+ - [Section modified]: [What changed and why]
173
+ - [New section added]: [Purpose]
174
+
175
+ **Plan Changes**:
176
+ - [Phase added/modified]: [Description]
177
+ - [Implementation steps]: [What was updated]
178
+
179
+ **Review**: See `reviews/####-name-tick-001.md`
180
+
181
+ ---
182
+ -->
@@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ This project uses **Codev** for AI-assisted development.
9
9
  ## Available Protocols
10
10
 
11
11
  - **SPIR**: Multi-phase development with consultation (`codev/protocols/spir/protocol.md`)
12
+ - **ASPIR**: Autonomous SPIR — no human gates on spec/plan (`codev/protocols/aspir/protocol.md`)
12
13
  - **TICK**: Fast autonomous implementation (`codev/protocols/tick/protocol.md`)
13
14
  - **EXPERIMENT**: Disciplined experimentation (`codev/protocols/experiment/protocol.md`)
14
15
  - **MAINTAIN**: Codebase maintenance (`codev/protocols/maintain/protocol.md`)
@@ -7,6 +7,7 @@ This project uses **Codev** for AI-assisted development.
7
7
  ## Available Protocols
8
8
 
9
9
  - **SPIR**: Multi-phase development with consultation (`codev/protocols/spir/protocol.md`)
10
+ - **ASPIR**: Autonomous SPIR — no human gates on spec/plan (`codev/protocols/aspir/protocol.md`)
10
11
  - **TICK**: Fast autonomous implementation (`codev/protocols/tick/protocol.md`)
11
12
  - **EXPERIMENT**: Disciplined experimentation (`codev/protocols/experiment/protocol.md`)
12
13
  - **MAINTAIN**: Codebase maintenance (`codev/protocols/maintain/protocol.md`)