@jwilger/pi-development-system 0.41.0 → 0.43.0

package/agents/reviewer.md

@@ -53,4 +53,4 @@ Use exactly this packet; the coordinator parses it.
 no-blocking | blocking
 ```
 
-Severity: **blocking** = demonstrable defect or broken non-negotiable; **should-fix** = real defect or missing test with a realistic trigger; **nit** = style, naming, report-only. Zero findings is a valid result. End with **Not verified**: checks you could not run.
+Severity: **blocking** = demonstrable defect or broken non-negotiable; **should-fix** = real defect or missing test with a realistic trigger; **nit** = style or naming; do not report these unless asked, because nothing stores them. Zero findings is a valid result. End with **Not verified**: checks you could not run.

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "@jwilger/pi-development-system",
-  "version": "0.41.0",
+  "version": "0.43.0",
   "description": "A pi extension package representing a seasoned approach to software development using a full AI SDLC.",
   "keywords": [
     "pi-package"
@@ -55,6 +55,8 @@
   },
   "scripts": {
     "test": "node --experimental-transform-types --no-warnings --test \"test/**/*.test.ts\"",
+    "test:jev": "node --experimental-transform-types --no-warnings --test \"test/live/*.live.ts\"",
+    "check:jev": "node scripts/run-jev-fixtures.ts",
     "typecheck": "tsc --noEmit",
     "lint": "biome check .",
     "lint:fix": "biome check --write .",

package/skills/code-review/SKILL.md

@@ -48,8 +48,9 @@ The verdict must agree with the findings.
 
 - **blocking**: a demonstrable defect or a broken non-negotiable.
 - **should-fix**: a real defect or missing test with a realistic trigger.
-- **nit**: style or report-only. Nits never reset the streak; they go to
-  `docs/decisions/followups.md`.
+- **nit**: style or report-only. Reviewers should not send these. If one arrives it
+  never resets the streak, and nothing stores it: fix it now, or drop it and say why
+  in your reply. A finding nobody will act on is not worth recording.
 - **false-positive**: refuted; ignored.
 
 Jev may raise a finding's severity when it is at least 0.8 confident; it never

package/src/core/review-flow.ts

@@ -143,16 +143,17 @@ export function adoptSeverity(
 const where = (f: Finding): string =>
   f.path === undefined ? "" : ` \`${f.path}${f.line === undefined ? "" : `:${f.line}`}\``;
 
-/** The nits of a round, as a section for docs/decisions/followups.md. */
-export function renderFollowups(
-  slice: SliceRef,
-  round: number,
-  findings: readonly Finding[],
-): string | undefined {
+/**
+ * Nits are never stored. Each is reported back so the coordinator fixes it now or drops it
+ * with a stated reason; a finding nobody will act on is not worth recording.
+ */
+export function nitLines(findings: readonly Finding[]): string[] {
   const nits = findings.filter((f) => f.severity === "nit");
-  if (nits.length === 0) return undefined;
-  const lines = nits.map((f) => `- ${f.lens}${where(f)} — ${f.summary}`);
-  return `\n## From ${slice} review round ${round}\n\n${lines.join("\n")}\n`;
+  if (nits.length === 0) return [];
+  return [
+    "Nits are not stored anywhere: fix each now, or drop it and say why in your reply.",
+    ...nits.map((f) => `- nit ${f.lens}${where(f)} — ${f.summary}`),
+  ];
 }
 
 /** The task text for a fresh reviewer: slice, lenses, how to see the diff, and the packet to return. */

package/src/review/review-tools.ts

@@ -1,5 +1,3 @@
-import { appendFile, mkdir } from "node:fs/promises";
-import { join } from "node:path";
 import type { ExtensionContext, ToolDefinition } from "@earendil-works/pi-coding-agent";
 import { type Static, Type } from "typebox";
 import type { Exec } from "../core/exec.ts";
@@ -16,7 +14,7 @@ import {
 import {
   adoptSeverity,
   combinePackets,
-  renderFollowups,
+  nitLines,
   reviewerTask,
   reviewLabel,
   reviewOf,
@@ -209,7 +207,7 @@ export function createReviewRecordTool(
     name: "devsys_review_record",
     label: "Record review round",
     description:
-      "Record one review round from the reviewer's packet(s): parses findings, lets Jev adjust severity when confident, files nits in docs/decisions/followups.md, and returns the clean-round count and the next action.",
+      "Record one review round from the reviewer's packet(s): parses findings, lets Jev adjust severity when confident, and returns the clean-round count and the next action.",
     promptSnippet: "Record a reviewer packet as a review round",
     parameters: RecordParameters,
     exposure: "direct",
@@ -259,27 +257,7 @@ export function createReviewRecordTool(
 
       const merged = combinePackets(packets);
       const { findings, notes } = await adjusted(deps, ctx, merged.findings, snap.value.sample);
-      // File the nits first: if this fails nothing is recorded and a retry cannot count the round twice.
-      const followups = renderFollowups(slice, expected, findings);
-      let reviewed = snap.value;
-      if (followups !== undefined) {
-        try {
-          const dir = join(ctx.cwd, "docs", "decisions");
-          await mkdir(dir, { recursive: true });
-          await appendFile(join(dir, "followups.md"), followups);
-        } catch (cause) {
-          return reply(
-            `could not write docs/decisions/followups.md (${cause instanceof Error ? cause.message : String(cause)}); the round was not recorded, retry`,
-            true,
-          );
-        }
-        // The file is part of the work tree, so writing it changed the diff. The round covers the
-        // reviewed code plus its own follow-up note; otherwise `done` would be stale on arrival.
-        const after = await snapshotDiff(deps.exec, ctx.cwd, params.diffRange?.trim() || "HEAD");
-        if (!after.ok)
-          return reply(`cannot read the diff after filing follow-ups: ${after.error}`, true);
-        reviewed = after.value;
-      }
+      const reviewed = snap.value;
       const review = addRound(
         { ...before, required },
         {
@@ -298,6 +276,7 @@ export function createReviewRecordTool(
           `Round ${review.rounds.length} recorded: ${counts("blocking")} blocking, ${counts("should-fix")} should-fix, ${counts("nit")} nit, ${counts("false-positive")} false-positive.`,
           reviewLabel(review),
           ...notes,
+          ...nitLines(findings),
           `next: ${nextAction(review, reviewed.digest)}`,
           ...(range === "HEAD" ? [] : [GATE_RANGE_NOTE]),
         ].join("\n"),