docs(architect): add DESIGN-REVIEW template with YAML frontmatter#1205
docs(architect): add DESIGN-REVIEW template with YAML frontmatter#1205rjmurillo-bot wants to merge 2 commits intomainfrom
Conversation
Update all architect agent variants to include mandatory YAML frontmatter template for DESIGN-REVIEW documents. This enables automated parsing for blocking verdict enforcement. Changes: - Add Design Review Template (MANDATORY) section with full template - Include status definitions (APPROVED, NEEDS_CHANGES, NEEDS_ADR, etc) - Document CI enforcement via synthesis-panel-gate.yml workflow - Update Output Location to reference template requirements Related to #946 (ADR), #942 (CI gate) Fixes #937 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
Codex usage limits have been reached for code reviews. Please check with the admins of this repo to increase the limits by adding credits. |
github-actions
bot
added
enhancement
PR Validation ReportCaution ❌ Status: FAIL Description Validation
QA Validation
|
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
The pull request successfully updates all architect agent variants to include a mandatory YAML frontmatter template for DESIGN-REVIEW documents. This change is consistent across all modified files and aligns with the project's goal of enabling automated parsing and CI enforcement for architectural reviews. The documentation follows the established style guidelines, including the use of active voice, quantified impact, and appropriate status indicators. No high or critical severity issues were identified during the review.
coderabbitai
bot
added
area-workflows
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded
⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. 📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughAdds a mandatory Design Review Template requiring YAML frontmatter (status, priority, blocking, reviewer, date, pr, issue) for DESIGN-REVIEW documents, mandates storage under Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)mermaid Estimated code review effort🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~20 minutes Suggested reviewers
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Comment |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
Duplicate comments:
In `@src/copilot-cli/architect.agent.md`:
- Around line 525-605: There is a duplicated review comment about "Generated
file drift is already tracked from the template" appearing twice; remove the
duplicate so the guidance appears only once in the DESIGN-REVIEW template block
(the section under the "## Design Review Template (MANDATORY)" header that
includes the YAML frontmatter and example markdown), consolidating any notes
referencing generated-file drift into a single clear line and ensuring no
duplicate comments remain (also remove the redundant reference "Also applies to:
639-640").
In `@src/vs-code-agents/architect.agent.md`:
- Around line 526-606: The review flagged a duplicated reviewer comment about
generated file drift in the "Design Review Template (MANDATORY)" content; remove
the redundant instance of the sentence "[P1] Generated file drift is already
tracked from the template." and consolidate to a single occurrence (or delete
entirely) so the template only contains one authoritative note about
generated-file drift; update the same duplicate instance found elsewhere in this
document (e.g., near the "Status Definitions" section) so both places no longer
repeat the comment.
The generated copilot-cli and vs-code-agents architect files were manually edited instead of being produced by the generator. Running generate_agents.py produces the correct output. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
github-actions
bot
added
the
infrastructure-failure
AI Quality Gate ReviewTip ✅ Final Verdict: PASS WalkthroughThis PR was reviewed by six AI agents in parallel, analyzing different aspects of the changes:
Review Summary
💡 Quick Access: Click on individual agent jobs (e.g., "🔒 security Review", "🧪 qa Review") in the workflow run to see detailed findings and step summaries. Security Review DetailsI have reviewed the PR content. All 6 changed files are agent prompt markdown files ( I have completed the security review of PR #1205. Security Review: PR #1205PR Type Classification
All changed files are agent prompt markdown files in Analysis ResultsContent Review:
Prompt Injection Surface Assessment:
Secret Detection:
Findings
RecommendationsNone required. Documentation-only change with no security-relevant code paths. VerdictQA Review DetailsI have reviewed the PR content. Let me verify the YAML frontmatter validity in one of the changed files and check for any broken links. I have gathered sufficient evidence to complete the QA review. QA Review VerdictAnalyst Review DetailsLet me examine the files directly from the local repository. Now let me examine the remaining files to see all the changes. I have reviewed all 6 files. All contain the "Design Review Template (MANDATORY)" section with YAML frontmatter. Now I can provide my analysis. Code Quality Score
Overall: 4.5/5 Impact Assessment
Findings
Recommendations
VerdictArchitect Review DetailsI have reviewed the PR changes. The PR adds a DESIGN-REVIEW template with YAML frontmatter to all architect agent variants. Design Quality Assessment
Overall Design Score: 5/5 Architectural Concerns
Breaking Change Assessment
Technical Debt Analysis
ADR Assessment
Recommendations
VerdictDevOps Review DetailsThese are agent definition markdown files (documentation), not workflow or action files. Let me confirm the PR category by checking the remaining files. Based on the PR description and the files I've examined, I have enough information to complete my review. DevOps Review: PR #1205PR Scope Detection
Changed Files:
Note: Pipeline Impact Assessment
CI/CD Quality Checks
Findings
Template Assessment
Automation Opportunities
PR description mentions Recommendations
VerdictRoadmap Review DetailsNow I have context on the product roadmap. Let me also check Issue #937 to understand the specific requirement being addressed. I have sufficient context to complete the roadmap review. The PR adds YAML frontmatter templates to architect agents to enable automated parsing for blocking verdict enforcement. This is infrastructure work supporting CI quality gates. Strategic Alignment Assessment
Feature Completeness
Impact Analysis
Concerns
Recommendations
VerdictRun Details
Powered by AI Quality Gate workflow |
|
Re-triggering CI after description fix |
|
Retriggering CI |
Spec-to-Implementation ValidationCaution ❌ Final Verdict: FAIL What is Spec Validation?This validation ensures your implementation matches the specifications:
Validation Summary
Spec References
Requirements Traceability DetailsLet me check the local files directly since this appears to be a local PR context. Let me also check the other modified files to ensure they all contain the DESIGN-REVIEW template. I found that Let me now verify the presence of the Design Review Template section in Now I have sufficient evidence. The Based on Issue #937 acceptance criteria and the PR implementation, here is my requirements coverage analysis: Requirements Coverage Matrix
Summary
Gaps
Implementation Completeness DetailsNow I have all the implementation files. Let me check if a DESIGN-REVIEW template file was created and check for the pre-PR validation script. Let me check for a pre-PR validation script that can parse frontmatter and check for the synthesis-panel-gate.yml workflow. The Acceptance Criteria Checklist
Missing Functionality
Edge Cases Not Covered
Implementation Quality
Run Details
Powered by AI Spec Validator workflow |
Review Triage RequiredNote Priority: NORMAL - Human approval required before bot responds Review Summary
Next Steps
Powered by PR Maintenance workflow - Add triage:approved label |
2 participants
Summary
Update all architect agent variants to include mandatory YAML frontmatter template for DESIGN-REVIEW documents. This enables automated parsing for blocking verdict enforcement.
Specification References
Changes
synthesis-panel-gate.ymlworkflowFiles Modified
.claude/agents/architect.md.github/agents/architect.agent.mdsrc/claude/architect.mdsrc/copilot-cli/architect.agent.mdsrc/vs-code-agents/architect.agent.mdtemplates/agents/architect.shared.mdType of Change
Testing
Agent Review
Security Review
Other Agent Reviews
Checklist
Related Issues
Fixes #937
Related: #946 (ADR-048 template), #942 (CI quality gate workflow)
Generated with Claude Code