reviewer-solve-task

name	reviewer_solve-task
description	Gather disciplined context for solving a task, then hand off to development. Use when the user asks to solve/implement a task ("solve PRI-4", "/reviewer_solve-task <key or description>", "реши задачу X"). Reads a keyed task from the reviewer store, pulls related/similar tasks and relevant code, distills a brief, and enters brainstorming. Requires the reviewer MCP server.

Solve Task

Gather the right context for a task, distill it into a brief, then enter the normal development workflow. This skill does NOT plan or implement — it disciplines context-gathering and hands the brief to superpowers:brainstorming (which leads to writing-plans → subagent-driven-development).

Inputs

$ARGUMENTS is either:

• a task key (e.g. PRI-4, matching the board's key_pattern), or
• a free-text description (e.g. "add a logout endpoint").

Pipeline

0. Preflight (index freshness + task-corpus warm-up). Run this BEFORE anything else. First resolve, once, the repo path (git rev-parse --show-toplevel) and the working branch (git branch --show-current; if it is in REVIEW_BRANCHES use it, else the primary branch) — step 3 reuses the same branch for search_codebase.

   Resolve task_board exactly once before any board call. Read the repo .review.yml block: its task_board mapping has priority; an absent block falls back to get_board_config(); an explicit empty task_board: disables board work for this run. Keep the resolved {type, project, key_pattern, create_target, done_target, options} value and reuse this resolved value in Step 1 and every board operation. Never call the deploy fallback when the repo explicitly disables the board.

   1. Base-index freshness. Run uvx --from rag-reviewer reviewer status <path> --branch <branch> --json and read drift for that branch:
      • drift == 0 → continue;
      • drift > 0 → tell the user (in Russian) «индекс отстаёт на N коммитов» and ask for confirmation: reindex now? Yes → delegate to /reviewer_sync-codebase (--path <path> --ref <branch>), which reindexes and reports problems, then continue; No → continue on the stale index and record the gap under Constraints / open questions in the brief;
      • drift == null (no clone / no index record) → do not block; note it in the brief.
   2. Problem report — in the style of sync-codebase. If reviewer status fails (Postgres / reviewer MCP / Neo4j unreachable, no index, or uvx missing): tell the user (in Russian) what is missing and the command to fix it. Fail-open — never abort; continue on the stale/unknown index.
   3. Warm the task corpus. Call sync_board(board=<task_board.project or null>, board_type=<task_board.type or null>, provider_options=<task_board.options or {}>, limit=null, purge_orphaned=false) — the resolved task_board.type, task_board.project, and task_board.options from this preflight. If board work is disabled or no board resolves, skip this call and continue board-less. Скоупированный прогрев корпуса своего проекта (PRI-170); пустой project → весь корпус. Incremental (timestamp watermark), cheap when the corpus is warm. Board not configured or status=error → tell the user to run reviewer init, configure the selected registered provider's registry-declared credentials as documented in docs/board-providers.md, run reviewer check, and reconnect MCP; continue board-less.
   4. Summary warmth. Call get_subsystem_summaries(repo, branch) (without query) and check the returned count. Skip this check if drift == null (no index at all — summaries can't exist). If count == 0 (summaries not built yet):
      • Tell the user (in Russian): «Сводки подсистем не построены — архитектурный приор будет пустым. Как поступим?» and present three options:
        1. «Прогреть сейчас» → delegate to /reviewer_summarize-subsystems, wait for it to complete, then continue. (Good if using the default model.)
        2. «Прогрею сам» → PAUSE HERE and wait for the user to write something like «готово», «прогрел», «done» or any confirmation that they have run their own tool (e.g. an external CLI with a cheaper model). Once confirmed, call get_subsystem_summaries(repo, branch) again to verify count > 0, then continue.
        3. «Пропустить» → note in brief under Constraints: «сводки подсистем не построены; /reviewer_summarize-subsystems не запускался». Continue without them.
      • If count > 0: silently continue (no message needed — summaries are warm).
      • Fail-open: an error from get_subsystem_summaries → treat as count == 0 and offer the same options, but include the error detail in option 3's Constraints note.

   Decisions: stale → confirmation, never auto (Voyage free tier is 3 RPM / 10K TPM); failures → reported like sync-codebase; sync_board runs incrementally at start; summaries missing → three-way choice (build now / build yourself / skip).

1. Config. Reuse the resolved value from preflight; do not read .review.yml or call get_board_config() again. If no board resolved, continue board-less. For incomplete metadata call get_board_targets(board_type=<task_board.type>, project=<task_board.project>, provider_options=<task_board.options or {}>): select from targets by label, and use option required_for / choices to ask for missing options. Never guess a target or an option and never branch on a board type.

1.5. Choose the brief model (cross-CLI). Building the brief (Steps 2–4: gather + distill) is a light reasoning task over session-less retrieval tools — a top-tier model is overkill and burns tokens. If auto permission mode is active, silently choose the mid tier (Sonnet-class) and continue without asking the user. Otherwise, Ask the user which model tier to use for building the brief, phrasing the choice by tier (cheap / mid / premium) — not by concrete model names — so it works across CLIs (Claude Code, Codex, Gemini, Cursor, …). Recommend a mid tier (Sonnet-class) as the default (do not recommend Fable — a coarse tier is fine but the brief still needs sound judgment). Talk to the user in Russian. Remember the choice for this run. Fail-open: no answer, a decline, or inability to detect auto mode → use the default tier (or, on Path B below, the session model inline). Never block.

Brief-building unit (Steps 2–4) runs on the chosen model. Steps 2–4 (identify → gather → distill → persist) are non-interactive; run them on the model chosen in Step 1.5:

• Path A — per-subagent model override available: dispatch a subagent on the chosen model to execute Steps 2–4, giving it the reviewer session-less tools (get_task, search_codebase, get_subsystem_summaries, get_task_context, search_tasks, the graph tools, get_pr_diff) plus the harness Read/Bash/Glob/Write (to persist the brief). The subagent returns the brief file path and a short summary (kept / dropped).
• Path B — per-subagent model override unavailable (some CLIs): build the brief inline on the session model, or offer the escape-hatch «switch model / run it yourself» in the spirit of the preflight «Прогрею сам» option (Step 0.4). Note in the report that the brief was built inline.
• Existing-artifacts warn (Step 4, user-facing «warn, don't block»): the orchestrator runs that scan-and-warn before dispatch (a subagent must not prompt the user). It derives the task KEY itself — the same $ARGUMENTS-vs-key_pattern regex match Step 2 opens with (no get_task needed) — so the KEY-based artifact globs run pre-dispatch. When Steps 2–4 run in a subagent, the Step 4 warn is thus orchestrator-only; only the idempotency overwrite-glob stays inside the subagent's persist.
• After the unit returns, the orchestrator appends a marker line to the brief: Собран на: <tier/модель>, режим: subagent | inline — records which model built the brief. The brief_cost token block is best-effort and may miss subagent sidechain tokens (documented limitation).
• Fail-open: an error or empty return from the subagent → the orchestrator finishes the brief inline on the session model. Model choice must never break the pipeline.

2. Identify the task.

   • If $ARGUMENTS matches the board's key_pattern:
     1. Store-first. Call reviewer get_task(key, project=<task_board.project>) — it returns the task's own normalized content ({key, aliases[], title, description, criteria[], status, url}) from the reviewer store, which the preflight sync_board (step 0.3) just refreshed.
        • Hit (a task object with a key): use it directly as the TaskBrief. The task is already indexed (the preflight sync persisted it) — do NOT call index_task. Note in the brief that the task data came from the reviewer store (after sync).
          • Thin criteria (optional, fail-open). The store can return criteria=[]; requirements normally live in description. If it has NO heading matching (?i)(критери|приёмк|acceptance), leave criteria empty and record the gap. Do NOT call index_task.
        • Miss (null / no key) AND a board is resolved: call generic incremental sync_board(board=<task_board.project or null>, board_type=<task_board.type>, provider_options=<task_board.options or {}>, limit=null, purge_orphaned=false), then retry get_task(key, project=<task_board.project>) once. Error or second miss → board-less: treat $ARGUMENTS as the task description and record the gap.
        • Miss AND no board: board-less — treat $ARGUMENTS as the task description.
   • Otherwise: treat $ARGUMENTS as the task description; do not perform external task reads.

   Store-first cuts the double-fetch: the preflight sync_board already pulled the whole board into the reviewer store, and a miss gets one generic incremental sync/retry (fewer LLM tokens and no provider-specific client dependency).

3. Gather context (best-effort, fail-open). Any tool returning a "(… unavailable)" / "(ничего не найдено)" note or an error is non-fatal — continue.

   • Subsystem prior (architectural map). Call get_subsystem_summaries(repo, branch, query="<task title>. <first lines of description>") → top-k relevant subsystems by proximity (top-k vs all is server-side; PRI-167). Use the same branch as search_codebase. Fail-open: an empty list / a (… недоступно) note / an error is non-fatal — omit the ## Subsystems brief section and note the gap. The summary is only a prior — every path:line in the brief still comes from search_codebase snippets, never from the summary text.
   • Project scope. Pass project=<task_board.project> (from Step 1; empty = unscoped) to get_task, get_task_context, and search_tasks so only this repo's project surfaces (PRI-170).
   • If you have a task key: get_task_context(key, project=<task_board.project>) → linked tasks, their PRs, and the code those PRs touched.
   • search_tasks("<title>. <first lines of description>", project=<task_board.project>) → semantically similar tasks from the reviewer store. Use their indexed fields only; if detail is missing, record that task-context gap.
   • Related work = linked ∪ similar. The «Related work» brief section draws from two sources — get_task_context (linked) and search_tasks (similar). They overlap; the Step 4 filter deduplicates them by key before the cap.
   • search_codebase("<task description>") → relevant existing code (files/symbols to touch or mimic).
   • Lazy expansion (no user prompt). If a tool's output ends with a cliff/rails note reporting a high-scoring tail beyond the cut AND the task looks broad, you MAY re-call the tool once with a higher ceiling (pass top_k=<bigger>), then merge. Do this silently — never pause to ask the user.
   • Test exemplars (optional — when search_codebase surfaced concrete symbols). One extra search_codebase("<how the task's area is tested — fixtures/mocks for the feature>", include_tests=True) on the same branch — a targeted test query (how the area is tested), not the code query with the flag flipped, so it surfaces the testing pattern the TDD hand-off should mimic. Snippets are line-numbered like the code retrieval → cite path:line directly. Apply the same Step 4 adaptive relevance filter (every directly-informing test file/symbol, no fixed cap). Fail-open: no tests surfaced / a (ничего не найдено) note / an error → omit the ## Test exemplars brief section; the default code retrieval (include_tests=False) is unchanged.
   • Deepen via the code graph (optional — when search_codebase surfaced concrete symbols). search_codebase chunks are headed by path#fqn (path:start-end); feed those node_ids to the session-less graph tools to sharpen the brief. The default search_codebase (code retrieval, include_tests=False) returns deduplicated, line-numbered, test-free snippets — expand only the few symbols central to the task (feed graph tools the code node_ids, not test-exemplar ones), and cite path:line from the line-numbered snippets directly (no re-Read needed for grounding). For OO/registry/dispatch tasks («add a new provider / handler»), prefer directed implementations(node_id) (incoming IMPLEMENTS — who subclasses/overrides X) over the undirected related_symbols, which mixes callers/tests/implements. A class node → its subclasses; a method node → its overrides. Accurate after a full reviewer index with SCIP; fail-soft (implementations не найдены) is non-fatal — continue. Pass the same branch you pass to search_codebase. Fail-open: a (граф недоступен) / (нет связей) / (вызовов не найдено) note is non-fatal — continue.
   • Lazy PR diff (optional). get_task_context surfaces a task and its PRs (id form owner/name#N); search_tasks surfaces similar task keys — fetch a key's context to see its PRs. If a related task passed the relevance filter AND its PR is worth inspecting for the implementation, parse repo/number from the PR id and call get_pr_diff(repo, number) to see what that PR changed — pull it lazily, only when the LLM judges it useful (don't fetch diffs for low-relevance tasks). Fail-open: a (diff PR недоступен) / (repo не задан…) note is non-fatal — continue.
   • Relevance signals → Step 4 filter. search_tasks score is an RRF rank score (≈0.016–0.033), not comparable across queries; search_codebase has no score, only order. Carry rank/order — not absolute score — into the Step 4 filter, and fetch get_pr_diff only for a related task that survives that filter (within top-3, directly informing).

Use the session-less tools above.

Branch selection for search_codebase.

4. Distill the solution brief. Write a structured markdown brief whose only job is to seed brainstorming — compact, scannable, nothing the implementer won't act on.

   Relevance filter (adaptive — retrieval is already bounded server-side). Server-side cliff (search_codebase) and rails (search_tasks) already cap retrieval adaptively per task — and search_tasks's score is an RRF rank score (SUM(1/(60+rank)), ≈0.016–0.033), NOT comparable across queries, so never gate on an absolute value (search_codebase exposes no score at all, only result order). So DO NOT re-truncate to a fixed number and DO NOT pad artificially: include EVERY returned item that directly informs the implementation. The keep/drop judgment stays binary (directly-informs), and end each section with (dropped N: reason).

   • Order candidates by result rank (tasks: rank/score; code: rank).
   • No fixed ceilings. Take exactly the directly-informing items the tools returned. Related tasks are bounded by the search rails; the brief lists those that directly inform. Expand the graph (related_symbols/callers/definition) only for the few symbols central to the task.
   • Keep/drop is a binary judgment — include an item ONLY if it directly informs the implementation. Rank/score only sets review order; it is not a numeric gate.
     • ✅ INCLUDE: a symbol/file you will edit or mimic; a task whose PR shows a concrete pattern to follow; a constraint that narrows the approach.
     • ❌ EXCLUDE: a task in the same area but a different mechanism; a file the search surfaced that you won't touch or copy; background you won't act on.
   • Report what you dropped: end the Related work, Relevant code and Test exemplars sections with (dropped N: reason).
   • Dedup related sources by key (linked ∪ similar). «Related work» draws from get_task_context (linked) and search_tasks (similar). Deduplicate by canonical task key before inclusion, matching PRI-N↔ID-N via aliases (one task, two codes). On collision keep the linked entry (richer — carries PR/graph context) and drop the similar duplicate, so a task never appears twice in the brief.

   Brief skeleton — fill it, keep each item to one line:

   # Brief — <KEY> <title>
   ## Task — key/title/requirements/criteria (or the user's formulation in board-less mode). ≤~6 lines.
   ## Related work — every directly-informing task, one line each: «KEY — what to reuse / follow». (dropped N: …)
   ## Subsystems — ≤8 relevant subsystems, one line: «cluster_key — gist of summary». (omit if prior empty)
   ## Relevant code — every directly-informing file/symbol, one line: «path:line — why» (+ blast radius from the graph). (dropped N: …)
   ## Test exemplars — every directly-informing test file/symbol, one line: «path:line — what's mocked / which pattern». (omit if none; dropped N: …)
   ## Constraints / open questions — terse bullets: limits, unknowns, context gaps (e.g. "board unavailable", "task corpus empty").
   

   Cite path:line straight from the line-numbered Step 3 snippets — no re-Read (Step 3 contract).

   Persist the brief (survivability). After distilling, save the brief to a file so it survives context compaction / a new session and seeds the trace задача→бриф→спека→план→PR.

   • Directory: docs/superpowers/briefs/ — create it if missing (mkdir -p). Committed like specs//plans/ (leave a trace, do not gitignore).
   • Filename: with a task key — YYYY-MM-DD-<KEY>-<slug>.md, where KEY is the board key matching key_pattern (e.g. PRI-163, NOT the normalized store key ID-163) and slug is a short ASCII kebab of the title. Board-less (no key): YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>.md (slug from the user's formulation). YYYY-MM-DD = today's date.
   • Check for existing artifacts (warn, don't block). Before writing the brief, scan the three artifact directories for files matching this task key (case-insensitive):
     • docs/superpowers/briefs/*<KEY>*
     • docs/superpowers/specs/*<key>*-design.md
     • docs/superpowers/plans/*<key>*.md Use case-insensitive matching (e.g., try both PRI-176 and pri-176 globs, or lowercase file names before matching). If any artifacts are found, warn the user (in Russian):

     "⚠️ Похожие артефакты уже существуют: briefs/PRI-176-..., specs/pri-176-...-design.md, plans/pri-176-....md. Продолжить? [Y/n]" Do not block — continue unless the user explicitly says no. If the user continues (or auto-permission mode leaves no choice), list the found artifacts under ## Constraints with the tag [existing_artifacts].

   • Idempotency: before writing, glob docs/superpowers/briefs/*-<KEY>-*.md and overwrite the match if any (slug drift between runs must not spawn duplicates); board-less → exact name.
   • Content: the distilled brief verbatim (the # Brief — <KEY> <title> skeleton); add the task url on the line below the heading when available, for grep-by-key.
   • Fail-open: a failed write (read-only FS, no permission) is non-fatal — note it and still hand off with the in-context brief.

5. Hand off to development. Show the brief, state the saved file path (docs/superpowers/briefs/…), then invoke superpowers:brainstorming with the brief file path as the seed/context — so the brief survives compaction, not just the in-context text. From there the normal cycle takes over (brainstorming → writing-plans → subagent-driven-development/TDD). Your job ends at the handoff — do NOT plan or implement here.

   After the PR is created (later in the dev cycle): offer to close the task with the /reviewer_finish-task skill — it appends the PR link to the task and marks it done (bumping last-modified so the sync re-indexes the closed task). Skip in board-less mode (no task key).

   Board-less mode: when the user's formulation has no task key and a board IS configured, you may offer /reviewer_create-task first — it files the task with the canonical structure, so the work gets a key, a URL and a place in the task corpus before implementation starts.

Failure handling (fail-open)

• No configured task_board / failed generic sync / task not found → board-less: build the brief from search_tasks (if the corpus is warm) + search_codebase + the user's formulation; note the missing task context.
• Neo4j down → get_task_context / index_task graph parts degrade (empty + warning); build the brief from search_tasks + search_codebase.
• Empty task corpus (no prior /reviewer_sync-tasks or reviews) → search_tasks is empty; use search_codebase + the user's formulation and note the missing task context.
• Postgres down → search_codebase / search_tasks return empty; build the brief from the user's formulation alone and note the missing task context; still hand off to brainstorming.
• Never abort: with any gap, distill what you have, note the deficit in the brief, and still hand off to brainstorming.
• This skill reads task data only through the reviewer store and generic sync_board/retry. The brief file under docs/superpowers/briefs/ is its only repository write.