@productbrain/mcp 0.0.1-beta.67 → 0.0.1-beta.68

package/dist/{chunk-YARRUQBW.js → chunk-OI3Q6G7U.js}

@@ -3236,7 +3236,18 @@ var IMPLEMENTATION_REVIEW_WORKFLOW_DESCRIPTOR = {
 
 ## Sub-Agent Classification (for test failures)
 
-When reviewing test results: (a) test staleness \u2014 code changed, test not updated; (b) regression \u2014 code broke behavior; (c) flaky/bad test \u2014 harness or timing issue.`,
+When reviewing test results: (a) test staleness \u2014 code changed, test not updated; (b) regression \u2014 code broke behavior; (c) flaky/bad test \u2014 harness or timing issue.
+
+## Structured Verdict (CRITICAL)
+
+Round 05 MUST end with a structured verdict block containing exactly these five items:
+1. **Verdict:** Y (ship) or N (do not ship) \u2014 one word, no hedging.
+2. **What shipped:** One sentence describing what was built.
+3. **Why it matters:** One sentence on the problem this solves.
+4. **User benefit:** One sentence on the value for users.
+5. **How to validate:** One sentence on how to verify it works as intended.
+
+This block is the final deliverable of the review. Everything else is supporting evidence.`,
   rounds: [
     {
       id: "orient",
@@ -3300,10 +3311,10 @@ When reviewing test results: (a) test staleness \u2014 code changed, test not up
       label: "Synthesis & Sign-Off",
       type: "commit",
       instruction: "Summarize the review. Answer: Does this bring us closer to our vision and make our code and architecture cleaner? Refactoring needed? Ship or conditional? End with BET/chain IDs.",
-      facilitatorGuidance: "Present the full synthesis: standards pass/fail, code grade, test honesty, chain validation. Explicitly answer: Does this bring us closer to our vision and make our code and architecture cleaner? **Counter-Metric Mandate (STD-19):** For EVERY quantitative result you present, you MUST include: (1) the denominator \u2014 what is the total population measured, (2) the coverage/abstention rate \u2014 what was excluded, (3) at least one counter-metric that tells the opposite story (recall vs precision, error rate vs success rate), (4) the 'student exam' reframe \u2014 score on the full exam, not just questions answered. **Red-team your own synthesis:** Before presenting, ask yourself: 'What's the worst honest interpretation of these numbers? What metric looks good but hides a real problem? What would a skeptic challenge?' Present that alongside the headline. Recommend: ship, ship with conditions, or do not ship. CRITICAL: The output MUST end with one sentence: 'BET/feature IDs reviewed: [IDs]. [One-line summary].' Example: 'BET-xxx, STD-xxx reviewed. Conditional ship \u2014 fix [specific issues] and add [missing tests].'",
+      facilitatorGuidance: "Present the full synthesis: standards pass/fail, code grade, test honesty, chain validation. Explicitly answer: Does this bring us closer to our vision and make our code and architecture cleaner? **Counter-Metric Mandate (STD-19):** For EVERY quantitative result you present, you MUST include: (1) the denominator \u2014 what is the total population measured, (2) the coverage/abstention rate \u2014 what was excluded, (3) at least one counter-metric that tells the opposite story (recall vs precision, error rate vs success rate), (4) the 'student exam' reframe \u2014 score on the full exam, not just questions answered. **Red-team your own synthesis:** Before presenting, ask yourself: 'What's the worst honest interpretation of these numbers? What metric looks good but hides a real problem? What would a skeptic challenge?' Present that alongside the headline. Recommend: ship, ship with conditions, or do not ship. CRITICAL: The output MUST end with one sentence: 'BET/feature IDs reviewed: [IDs]. [One-line summary].' Example: 'BET-xxx, STD-xxx reviewed. Conditional ship \u2014 fix [specific issues] and add [missing tests].' **Structured Verdict Block (REQUIRED):** After the full synthesis, present the verdict block with exactly 5 items: (1) Verdict: Y or N \u2014 one word. (2) What shipped: one sentence. (3) Why it matters: one sentence on the problem solved. (4) User benefit: one sentence on value for users. (5) How to validate: one sentence on verification. This block is the final deliverable. Everything else is supporting evidence.",
       outputSchema: {
         field: "synthesis",
-        description: "Full review synthesis with BET/chain IDs",
+        description: "Full review synthesis with BET/chain IDs and structured verdict block (verdict Y/N, what shipped, why it matters, user benefit, how to validate)",
         format: "structured"
       },
       maxDurationHint: "5 min"
@@ -3314,7 +3325,7 @@ When reviewing test results: (a) test staleness \u2014 code changed, test not up
       label: "Capture & Close",
       type: "close",
       instruction: "Finalize the review as an insight draft. Use session-wrapup. Thank the participant.",
-      facilitatorGuidance: "Summarize the review for finalization. Complete the terminal round through `workflows action=checkpoint` with `isFinal=true` so the workflow substrate creates the draft insight record. Include: BET/feature IDs, verdict, key findings. Run session-wrapup before closing. Thank the participant. Remind them to commit-entry when ready.",
+      facilitatorGuidance: "Summarize the review for finalization. Complete the terminal round through `workflows action=checkpoint` with `isFinal=true` so the workflow substrate creates the draft insight record. Include: BET/feature IDs, verdict, key findings, and the structured verdict block from Round 05. The insight description MUST include the 5-item verdict block (verdict Y/N, what shipped, why it matters, user benefit, how to validate). Run session-wrapup before closing. Thank the participant. Remind them to commit-entry when ready.",
       outputSchema: {
         field: "capture",
         description: "Insight entry created, BET IDs referenced",
@@ -11741,4 +11752,4 @@ export {
   SERVER_VERSION,
   createProductBrainServer
 };
-//# sourceMappingURL=chunk-YARRUQBW.js.map
+//# sourceMappingURL=chunk-OI3Q6G7U.js.map