@erclx/aitk 3.11.1 → 3.11.2

package/claude/.claude-plugin/plugin.json

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 {
   "name": "aitk",
   "description": "Automated governance, versioning, and discovery tools for Claude Code.",
-  "version": "3.11.1",
+  "version": "3.11.2",
   "author": {
     "name": "Eric Le",
     "url": "https://github.com/erclx"

package/claude/skills/claude-pr-review/REQUIREMENT.md

@@ -11,6 +11,8 @@ Without this skill, a pull request is reviewed only by the session that wrote it
 
 A finding also stops being true by argument rather than by a fix. A worker naming the plan question that already declined it, or a constraint the pass could not see, settles it in the exchange that carried the answer, and the pass that accepts the argument drops the finding from its next body. A reader then sees a finding raised once and never mentioned again, which is indistinguishable from one everyone forgot.
 
+A request written under `## For the reviewer` also reached no reader. The authoring standard names it as what the reviewing session should confirm, and nothing on this side read the section by that name, so a branch author's question sat in the body until this skill answered it.
+
 ## Must
 
 - Post until the review closes. A first pass opens against the whole change, and each later pass checks whether the prior findings landed.
@@ -22,6 +24,7 @@ A finding also stops being true by argument rather than by a fix. A worker namin
 - State a withdrawal or a regrade on the thread with the fact that settled it, since a finding dropped in silence reads the same as one nobody answered
 - Key the body file on the pull request number and the head commit, and on the response it answers once the head repeats, so no two passes overwrite each other
 - Scan the comment for banned characters and internal phase labels before posting, since a finding phrased against a phase label reaches a reader with no task board
+- Answer a `## For the reviewer` bullet in the body, bounded to the section itself rather than the Summary or the Technical Context around it, so the independent vantage stays clear of the author's framing
 
 ## Must not
 

package/claude/skills/claude-pr-review/SKILL.md

@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ review against the whole change, and every later pass reads only the commits
 added since. The heading reports state rather than pass number: a pass carrying
 anything owed takes `## Review`, and `## Review closed` covers a pass carrying
 none, so the most recent comment's heading reports whether any work is owed.
-Owed is a finding at any severity or a Testing question, defined once at Step 4. Every pass is this skill, and which one it is gets detected from
+Owed is a finding at any severity, a Testing question, or a reviewer request nobody has answered, defined once at Step 4. Every pass is this skill, and which one it is gets detected from
 the thread rather than named by the caller.
 
 ## Guards
@@ -89,6 +89,10 @@ Test every unchecked box against the testing discipline in `${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/
 
 Ask rather than grade. Whether a human is genuinely required is a reading the branch author may hold a reason this session cannot see, so the question carries no severity and enters no count. What it does carry is the heading and the dispatch, on the rule Step 4 states, because a question the author never receives corrects nothing and the author is the only party who can answer it. Answering it closes it, and the answer may be that the requirement holds.
 
+Read `## For the reviewer` the same way, bounded to the bullets under that heading rather than the Summary or the Technical Context around it. Those two carry the author's argument for the change, and reading them while judging it is most of what an independent pass exists to avoid, so the read stops at the section itself.
+
+Answer each bullet in the body, on the same terms as a Testing question: no severity, no count. A request nobody can answer stays owed under the heading and dispatch Step 4 states, keeping the thread open exactly as an unanswered Testing box does. One the pass does answer carries no further weight, since the answer is discharged in the same comment that carries it.
+
 Apply the high-signal filter: flag only what will cause incorrect behavior, break a documented rule, or mislead a downstream feature. If uncertain, do not flag.
 
 A later pass applies the same axes to the delta, and adds one check the first pass cannot make: did each prior finding land, and did the fix regress anything it touched. Findings of its own are normal findings, stated at the same severity and counted the same way. That count is one of the two things Step 4 reads to pick the heading, so a pass raising a finding of its own is not a close-out at any severity.
@@ -160,7 +164,17 @@ A Testing box the Step 3 check raised goes in a `**Testing**` block placed after
 
 Keep it to the boxes the check raised. Restating a box whose stated requirement holds teaches the branch author to skip the block.
 
-The threshold is stated here and nowhere else, and every other surface acting on it cites this skill rather than restating the grades. One rule governs both the heading and the dispatch: a pass carrying anything owed takes `## Review` and owes a dispatch to the session holding the branch, and a pass carrying nothing at all takes `## Review closed` and owes none. Owed covers a finding at any severity and a Testing question alike, which is what keeps the two halves from separating. Sending that dispatch is `claude-orchestrate`'s step rather than this one, which posts and stops. Post the open heading whether it is the first pass or the fourth. A pull request thread then reads as `## Review`, the worker's answer under `## Review response` from `claude-address-review`, another `## Review` while anything stays open, and `## Review closed` when nothing does.
+Every `## For the reviewer` bullet Step 3 read goes in a `**For the reviewer**` block placed after the Testing block, one bullet per request, each followed by its answer or, where the pass could not answer it, by what would settle it. It carries no severity and enters no count.
+
+An unanswered bullet is owed the same way an unanswered Testing box is, so a pass carrying one takes `## Review` and the full body rather than either ✅ line. A bullet the pass answered is not owed, since the answer is discharged in the same comment that carries it. A pass still posting a numeric summary line, because a finding, a Testing question, or an unanswered bullet already forces one, says so there as `plus N reviewer request(s)`. The all-answered close-out below carries the block in place of that line and needs no addition to it.
+
+```markdown
+**For the reviewer**
+
+- Confirm the 401 and 403 split reads correctly for the public API. Confirmed — `AuthService.authenticate()` returns 401 for an expired token and 403 for a missing scope, and both paths are covered under `## Testing`.
+```
+
+The threshold is stated here and nowhere else, and every other surface acting on it cites this skill rather than restating the grades. One rule governs both the heading and the dispatch: a pass carrying anything owed takes `## Review` and owes a dispatch to the session holding the branch, and a pass carrying nothing at all takes `## Review closed` and owes none. Owed covers a finding at any severity, a Testing question, and a reviewer request nobody has answered alike, which is what keeps the two halves from separating. Sending that dispatch is `claude-orchestrate`'s step rather than this one, which posts and stops. Post the open heading whether it is the first pass or the fourth. A pull request thread then reads as `## Review`, the worker's answer under `## Review response` from `claude-address-review`, another `## Review` while anything stays open, and `## Review closed` when nothing does.
 
 Keying either half on the grade was measured wrong: across 8 findings on one archived pass, 3 were posted as minor and 2 of those were defects a worker fixed rather than recorded, so a floor at should-fix loses real fixes to a grade that runs low. Splitting the two halves so the dispatch fired lower than the heading was the other candidate, and it left a thread reading closed while work was owed on it. The Testing question was first written to sit outside both, which is that same split reached from the other side, and it left the one party who could answer the question with no route to it.
 
@@ -192,7 +206,7 @@ gh pr review <number> --comment --body-file .claude/.tmp/pr-review/body-<number>
 
 A pass carrying nothing at all takes `## Review closed` and a short body, with the footer line included either way. On a first pass, post `✅ No findings. Reviewed against project docs and the board.` On a later pass, post `✅ Prior findings addressed. Re-reviewed <short-sha>, N commits since the prior pass.`
 
-A pass carrying only minors is an ordinary finding-carrying pass, so it takes the open heading and the full shape rather than either short line, since the minors have to be readable and neither line reports them. A pass carrying only Testing questions takes the same route for the same reason. Keep whichever scope sentence the pass owes on the summary line:
+A pass carrying only minors is an ordinary finding-carrying pass, so it takes the open heading and the full shape rather than either short line, since the minors have to be readable and neither line reports them. A pass carrying only Testing questions, or only an unanswered reviewer request, takes the same route for the same reason. Keep whichever scope sentence the pass owes on the summary line:
 
 ```markdown
 ## Review
@@ -208,6 +222,8 @@ A pass carrying only minors is an ordinary finding-carrying pass, so it takes th
 
 A pass that closed by withdrawing a finding rather than by reading its fix takes neither ✅ line, per the withdrawal rule in Step 3. Both claim a fix landed, and the second names it, so posting either over a withdrawal credits work nobody did on the one comment a reader treats as the verdict. Write the withdrawal and the fact that settled it in place of the canned line, keeping the heading and the footer.
 
+A pass whose only content is a `## For the reviewer` block with every bullet answered, and that owes nothing else, takes the same shape: `## Review closed`, the block in place of the canned line, and the footer. The heading reports what the branch author still owes rather than what the pass did, and an answer discharged in the same comment owes nothing back.
+
 Post a close-out even when there is nothing to report. A review left with no closing comment reads as one nobody answered.
 
 ## Step 5: output
@@ -218,4 +234,6 @@ X critical, Y should-fix, Z minor. Posted to PR #<number>.
 
 Add `N Testing question(s) raised.` to that line when the Step 3 check raised any. The counts cover findings alone, so a pass whose only output was a question otherwise reports as silent to the session that drove it. That session is not who the question is addressed to, which is what the dispatch covers.
 
+Add `N reviewer request(s) answered.` to that line when the PR body carried a `## For the reviewer` section. The counts and the Testing question line both cover something else, so a pass that only answered a request otherwise reports as silent too.
+
 Report the merge decision as a plain recommendation in chat (merge, or address findings first). Do not merge.

package/package.json

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 {
   "name": "@erclx/aitk",
   "type": "module",
-  "version": "3.11.1",
+  "version": "3.11.2",
   "description": "Infrastructure and quality tooling for developer workflows",
   "license": "MIT",
   "bin": {

package/standards/pr.md

@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ Does not govern:
 - `## Testing` (optional): specify exact commands or test cases run
 - Omit Testing for docs, config, or trivial sync changes
 - Use checkboxes, never prose. See Testing discipline for which box gets ticked.
-- `## For the reviewer` (optional): what the reviewer should confirm, one bullet per request
+- `## For the reviewer` (optional): what the reviewing session should confirm, one bullet per request
 - Visuals: include only when they clarify architecture, UI, or complex logic flows
 
 ## Testing discipline
@@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ Does not govern:
 
 ## For the reviewer
 
-- <What the reviewer should confirm>
+- <What the reviewing session should confirm>
 ```
 
 ### Correct
@@ -134,5 +134,5 @@ This PR updates the authentication system to be more robust. # "This PR" opener
 
 - Tested manually # no specific command or case
 - [ ] `npm run test:auth` # unchecked box for a check the agent can run
-- [ ] Reviewer confirms the error split reads correctly # a reviewer request, belongs under `## For the reviewer`
+- [ ] The reviewing session confirms the error split reads correctly # a reviewer request, belongs under `## For the reviewer`
 ```