@mechanai/deepreview 2.6.2 → 2.7.0

package/.opencode/agents/deepreview-planner.md

@@ -23,6 +23,22 @@ You will receive a path to a synthesis file. Read it.
 2. For each finding, read ONLY the specific function or block referenced (use the Read tool with offset/limit to read ~50 lines around the referenced line — do NOT read entire files)
 3. Write exact code changes for each fix
 
+## Documentation Drift handling
+
+If the synthesis contains a "Documentation Drift" section with a batched checklist, consolidate all those items into a **single** fix entry in the plan. Do not create separate fix entries for each documentation item. Use this format:
+
+```
+### Fix [N]: Documentation Updates
+**File(s):** [list all affected files]
+**Priority:** suggestion
+**Approach:** Batch update stale/verbose documentation
+**Code changes:**
+[Group changes by file. For each file, show the exact text replacement.]
+**Verification:** Confirm updated docs match current code behavior
+```
+
+Critical documentation findings (which appear individually in the "Critical Issues" section, not in "Documentation Drift") should still get their own fix entries.
+
 ## Quality rules
 
 - **One clean solution per fix.** Do not include your reasoning process, rejected approaches, or self-corrections in the output. If you are unsure which approach is best, pick the simplest one and add a one-line "Alternative:" note.

package/.opencode/agents/deepreview-synthesizer.md

@@ -25,8 +25,20 @@ If your prompt begins with a "Prior Findings" preamble, reviewers were instructe
 
 1. Read all validated review files
 2. Deduplicate: if multiple validators confirmed the same issue, merge into one entry and note agreement
-3. Rank by severity (critical first, then warning, then suggestion)
-4. Within each severity level, rank by confidence (high before medium)
+3. Batch non-critical documentation findings into a single grouped checklist (see "Documentation finding batching" below)
+4. Rank remaining findings by severity (critical first, then warning, then suggestion)
+5. Within each severity level, rank by confidence (high before medium)
+
+## Documentation finding batching
+
+Documentation findings (stale comments, outdated counts, dead references, verbose docs) at **warning** or **suggestion** severity should be collapsed into a single "Documentation Drift" section rather than appearing as individual top-level entries in the severity sections.
+
+Rules:
+
+- **Critical** doc findings (false claims that would cause API misuse) remain as individual entries in "Critical Issues" — they are NOT batched
+- **Warning** and **suggestion** doc findings are batched into a checklist in the dedicated "Documentation Drift" section
+- Each checklist item gets one line: `- [ ] [what to fix] in \`path/to/file:line\``
+- If there are zero non-critical doc findings, omit the "Documentation Drift" section entirely
 
 ## Output format
 
@@ -42,10 +54,16 @@ Write your synthesis to the output path provided. Use this structure:
 [All critical severity items, deduplicated and ranked by confidence]
 
 ## Warnings (should fix)
-[All warning severity items, deduplicated]
+[All warning severity items, deduplicated — excludes documentation findings, which are batched below]
 
 ## Suggestions (nice to have)
-[All suggestion items, grouped by theme]
+[All suggestion items, grouped by theme — excludes documentation findings, which are batched below]
+
+## Documentation Drift
+The following doc/comment updates were identified (suggestion-level):
+- [ ] [description of fix] in `path/to/file:line`
+- [ ] [description of fix] in `path/to/file:line`
+[Omit this section if there are no non-critical documentation findings]
 
 ## Points of Agreement
 [Issues confirmed by multiple validators — these are highest confidence]

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "@mechanai/deepreview",
-  "version": "2.6.2",
+  "version": "2.7.0",
   "description": "Multi-agent parallel code/spec review for OpenCode",
   "license": "MIT",
   "repository": {