User intent, priorities, and accepted tradeoffs are authoritative. Technical explanations and proposed fixes remain claims to verify against the code and evidence.

Process

Read all feedback and its surrounding diff context.
Separate requested outcomes from technical assertions about the cause or solution.
Verify each technical assertion against repository behavior, tests, and relevant documentation.
Apply correct in-scope fixes one at a time with focused verification.
Push back concisely when a suggestion is technically wrong, breaks existing behavior, conflicts with an accepted decision, or expands scope without value.
Report what changed, what was declined, and the evidence supporting either result.

Avoid performative agreement, but ordinary human acknowledgment is fine. If your earlier technical conclusion was wrong, correct it directly without defensive explanation.

Más de este repositorio

mismo repositorio

auto

KodingDev/meridian

Run a task autonomously with reversible defaults and a reviewable handback.

2026-07-144

brainstorm

KodingDev/meridian

Turn an idea into an approved implementation spec through collaborative design.

2026-07-144

commit

KodingDev/meridian

Inspect and commit the intended local changes cleanly.

2026-07-144

debug

KodingDev/meridian

Diagnose bugs, test failures, and unexpected behavior from evidence before changing code.

2026-07-144

delegate

KodingDev/meridian

Isolate independent or context-heavy work when parallelism or fresh context materially improves the task.

2026-07-144

document

KodingDev/meridian

Capture hard-won engineering knowledge in durable project documentation.

2026-07-144

name	respond
description	Evaluate and address concrete code-review feedback against repository reality.

Respond

User intent, priorities, and accepted tradeoffs are authoritative. Technical explanations and proposed fixes remain claims to verify against the code and evidence.

Process

Read all feedback and its surrounding diff context.
Separate requested outcomes from technical assertions about the cause or solution.
Verify each technical assertion against repository behavior, tests, and relevant documentation.
Apply correct in-scope fixes one at a time with focused verification.
Push back concisely when a suggestion is technically wrong, breaks existing behavior, conflicts with an accepted decision, or expands scope without value.
Report what changed, what was declined, and the evidence supporting either result.

Avoid performative agreement, but ordinary human acknowledgment is fine. If your earlier technical conclusion was wrong, correct it directly without defensive explanation.