cdocument-review

# Document Review Review requirements or plan documents through multi-persona analysis. Dispatches specialized reviewer agents in parallel, auto-fixes quality issues, and presents strategic questions for user decision. ## Support Files Read these on-demand at the step that needs them — do not bulk-load at start: - `references/subagent-template.md` — prompt template for dispatching persona agents (read at Phase 2) - `references/findings-schema.json` — JSON schema reviewers must conform to (read at Phase 2, pass to reviewers) - `references/review-output-template.md` — output format for presenting synthesized findings (read at Phase 4) ## Phase 0: Detect Mode Check the skill arguments for `mode:headless`. Arguments may contain a document path, `mode:headless`, or both. Tokens starting with `mode:` are flags, not file paths -- strip them from the arguments and use the remaining token (if any) as the document path for Phase 1. If `mode:headless` is present, set **headless mode** for the rest of the workflow. **Headless mode** changes the interaction model, not the classification boundaries. Document-review still applies the same judgment about what has one clear correct fix vs. what needs user judgment. The only difference is how non-auto findings are delivered: - `auto` fixes are applied silently (same as interactive) - `present` findings are returned as structured text for the caller to handle -- no `#askQuestions` prompts, no interactive approval - Phase 5 returns immediately with "Review complete" (no refine/complete question) The caller receives findings with their original classifications intact and decides what to do with them. If `mode:headless` is not present, the skill runs in its default interactive mode with no behavior change. ## Phase 1: Get and Analyze Document **If a document path is provided:** Read it, then proceed. **If no document is specified (interactive mode):** Ask which document to review using `#askQuestions`, or find the most recent in `docs/brainstorms/` or `docs/plans/` using Glob. **If no document is specified (headless mode):** Output "Review failed: headless mode requires a document path. Re-invoke with: `/cdocument-review mode:headless <path>`" without dispatching agents. ### Classify Document Type After reading, classify the document: - **requirements** -- from `docs/brainstorms/`, focuses on what to build and why - **plan** -- from `docs/plans/`, focuses on how to build it with implementation details ### Select Conditional Personas Analyze the document content to determine which conditional personas to activate. Check for these signals: **product-lens** -- activate when the document makes challengeable claims about what to build and why, or when the proposed work carries strategic weight beyond the immediate problem. Check for either leg: *Leg 1 — Premise claims:* The document stakes a position on what to build or why that a knowledgeable stakeholder could reasonably challenge: - Problem framing where the stated need is non-obvious or debatable - Solution selection where alternatives plausibly exist - Prioritization decisions that explicitly rank what gets built vs deferred - Goal statements that predict specific user outcomes *Leg 2 — Strategic weight:* The proposed work could affect system trajectory, user perception, or competitive positioning: - Changes that shape how the system is perceived or what it becomes known for - Complexity or simplicity bets that affect adoption, onboarding, or cognitive load - Work that opens or closes future directions (path dependencies, architectural commitments) - Opportunity cost implications **design-lens** -- activate when the document contains: - UI/UX references, frontend components, or visual design language - User flows, wireframes, screen/page/view mentions - Interaction descriptions (forms, buttons, navigation, modals) - References to responsive behavior or accessibility **security-lens** -- activate when the document contains: - Auth/authorization mentions, login flows, session management - API endpoints exposed to external clients - Data handling, PII, payments, tokens, credentials, encryption - Third-party integrations with trust boundary implications **scope-guardian** -- activate when the document contains: - Multiple priority tiers (P0/P1/P2, must-have/should-have/nice-to-have) - Large requirement count (>8 distinct requirements or implementation units) - Stretch goals, nice-to-haves, or "future work" sections - Scope boundary language that seems misaligned with stated goals **adversarial** -- activate when the document contains: - More than 5 distinct requirements or implementation units - Explicit architectural or scope decisions with stated rationale - High-stakes domains (auth, payments, data migrations, external integrations) - Proposals of new abstractions, frameworks, or significant architectural patterns ## Phase 2: Announce and Dispatch Personas ### Announce the Review Team Tell the user which personas will review and why. For conditional personas, include the justification: ``` Reviewing with: - coherence-reviewer (always-on) - feasibility-reviewer (always-on) - scope-guardian-reviewer -- plan has 12 requirements across 3 priority levels - security-lens-reviewer -- plan adds API endpoints with auth flow ``` ### Build Agent List Always include: - `coherence-reviewer` - `feasibility-reviewer` Add activated conditional personas: - `product-lens-reviewer` - `design-lens-reviewer` - `security-lens-reviewer` - `scope-guardian-reviewer` - `adversarial-document-reviewer` ### Dispatch **Read `references/subagent-template.md`** and **`references/findings-schema.json`** to build the prompt. Dispatch all agents in **parallel** using the Agent tool. Each agent receives the prompt built from the subagent template with these variables filled: | Variable | Value | |----------|-------| | `{persona_file}` | Full content of the agent's markdown file | | `{schema}` | Content of the findings schema | | `{document_type}` | "requirements" or "plan" from Phase 1 classification | | `{document_path}` | Path to the document | | `{document_content}` | Full text of the document | Pass each agent the **full document** -- do not split into sections. **Error handling:** If an agent fails or times out, proceed with findings from agents that completed. Note the failed agent in the Coverage section. Do not block the entire review on a single agent failure. **Dispatch limit:** Even at maximum (7 agents), use parallel dispatch. These are document reviewers with bounded scope reading a single document -- parallel is safe and fast. ## Phase 3: Synthesize Findings Process findings from all agents through this pipeline. **Order matters** -- each step depends on the previous. ### 3.1 Validate Check each agent's returned JSON against the findings schema: - Drop findings missing any required field defined in the schema - Drop findings with invalid enum values - Note the agent name for any malformed output in the Coverage section ### 3.2 Confidence Gate Suppress findings below 0.50 confidence. Store them as residual concerns for potential promotion in step 3.4. ### 3.3 Deduplicate Fingerprint each finding using `normalize(section) + normalize(title)`. Normalization: lowercase, strip punctuation, collapse whitespace. When fingerprints match across personas: - If the findings recommend **opposing actions** (e.g., one says cut, the other says keep), do not merge -- preserve both for contradiction resolution in 3.5 - Otherwise merge: keep the highest severity, keep the highest confidence, union all evidence arrays, note all agreeing reviewers (e.g., "coherence, feasibility") - **Coverage attribution:** Attribute the merged finding to the persona with the highest confidence. Decrement the losing persona's Findings count *and* the corresponding route bucket (Auto or Present) so `Findings = Auto + Present` stays exact. ### 3.4 Promote Residual Concerns Scan the residual concerns (findings suppressed in 3.2) for: - **Cross-persona corroboration**: A residual concern from Persona A overlaps with an above-threshold finding from Persona B. Promote at P2 with confidence 0.55-0.65. Inherit `finding_type` from the corroborating above-threshold finding. - **Concrete blocking risks**: A residual concern describes a specific, concrete risk that would block implementation. Promote at P2 with confidence 0.55. Set `finding_type: omission`. ### 3.5 Resolve Contradictions When personas disagree on the same section: - Create a **combined finding** presenting both perspectives - Set `autofix_class: present` - Set `finding_type: error` - Frame as a tradeoff, not a verdict Specific conflict patterns: - Coherence says "keep for consistency" + scope-guardian says "cut for simplicity" -> combined finding, let user decide - Feasibility says "this is impossible" + product-lens says "this is essential" -> P1 finding framed as a tradeoff - Multiple personas flag the same issue -> merge into single finding, note consensus, increase confidence ### 3.6 Route by Autofix Class **Severity and autofix_class are independent.** A P1 finding can be `auto` if the correct fix is obvious. | Autofix Class | Route | |---------------|-------| | `auto` | Apply automatically -- one clear correct fix | | `present` | Present individually for user judgment | Demote any `auto` finding that lacks a `suggested_fix` to `present`. **Auto-eligible patterns:** summary/detail mismatch (body is authoritative over overview), wrong counts, missing list entries derivable from elsewhere in the document, stale internal cross-references, terminology drift, prose/diagram contradictions where prose is more detailed, missing steps mechanically implied by other content, unstated thresholds implied by surrounding context, completeness gaps where the correct addition is obvious. ### 3.7 Sort Sort findings for presentation: P0 -> P1 -> P2 -> P3, then by finding type (errors before omissions), then by confidence (descending), then by document order (section position). ## Phase 4: Apply and Present ### Apply Auto-fixes Apply all `auto` findings to the document in a **single pass**: - Edit the document inline using the Edit tool - Track what was changed for the "Auto-fixes Applied" section - Do not ask for approval -- these have one clear correct fix List every auto-fix in the output summary so the user can see what changed. ### Present Remaining Findings **Headless mode:** Do not use `#askQuestions`. Output all non-auto findings as structured text: ``` Document review complete (headless mode). Applied N auto-fixes: - <section>: <what was changed> (<reviewer>) Findings (requires judgment): [P0] Section: <section> — <title> (<reviewer>, confidence <N>) Why: <why_it_matters> Suggested fix: <suggested_fix or "none"> Residual concerns: - <concern> (<source>) Deferred questions: - <question> (<source>) ``` Omit any section with zero items. Then proceed directly to Phase 5. **Interactive mode:** **Read `references/review-output-template.md`** for the exact output format. Present `present` findings using the review output template. Within each severity level, separate findings by type: - **Errors** first -- these need resolution - **Omissions** second -- these need additions Brief summary at the top: "Applied N auto-fixes. K findings to consider (X errors, Y omissions)." Include the Coverage table, auto-fixes applied, residual concerns, and deferred questions. ### Protected Artifacts During synthesis, discard any finding that recommends deleting or removing files in: - `docs/brainstorms/` - `docs/plans/` - `docs/solutions/` These are pipeline artifacts and must not be flagged for removal. ## Phase 5: Next Action **Headless mode:** Return "Review complete" immediately. Do not ask questions. **Interactive mode:** Use `#askQuestions` to offer these options. Use the document type from Phase 1 to set the "Review complete" description: 1. **Refine again** -- Address the findings above, then re-review 2. **Review complete** -- description based on document type: - requirements document: "Create technical plan with `/cplan`" - plan document: "Implement with `/cwork`" After 2 refinement passes, recommend completion -- diminishing returns are likely. But if the user wants to continue, allow it. Return "Review complete" as the terminal signal for callers. ## What NOT to Do - Do not rewrite the entire document - Do not add new sections or requirements the user didn't discuss - Do not over-engineer or add complexity - Do not create separate review files or add metadata sections - Do not modify caller skills (`/cbrainstorm`, `/cplan`, or external skills that invoke `/cdocument-review`) ## Iteration Guidance On subsequent passes, re-dispatch personas and re-synthesize. The auto-fix mechanism and confidence gating prevent the same findings from recurring once fixed. If findings are repetitive across passes, recommend completion. --- ## Included References ### Subagent Template @./references/subagent-template.md ### Findings Schema @./references/findings-schema.json ### Review Output Template @./references/review-output-template.md