Slang Review Judgment-Call Resolution
Review candidates marked Status: Needs judgment call or with Overlap decision: Needs judgment call. The goal is to resolve uncertainty through focused analysis, not to wait for a
human reviewer.
Do not post comments. Update the canonical candidate markdown file in place.
Inputs
Read:
- The canonical candidate markdown file after consolidation and scope filtering.
tmp/pr-diff.patch and tmp/pr-files.txt, or the equivalent PR diff and file list.- PR-version and base-version source around the candidate location.
- Callers, callees, tests, comments, and related declarations needed to answer the specific
uncertainty recorded in the candidate.
Decisions
For each judgment-call candidate, spend focused effort to make a decision:
Status: Keep when the concern is credible, in scope, and useful to post.Status: Revise when the concern is credible but the proposed comment needs a narrower
location, clearer wording, or a different request.Status: Drop when the concern is unsupported, duplicate, superseded, out of scope, or too
speculative after follow-up analysis.Status: Needs judgment call only when focused analysis still cannot resolve the question.
Update or add:
- Judgment decision: Keep | Revise | Drop | Needs judgment call
- Judgment rationale: <one or two sentences describing the decisive evidence or remaining uncertainty>
If keeping, revising, or leaving a candidate as Needs judgment call, make sure it still has
postable metadata:
- Scope decision: Direct | Contextual
- Scope rationale: <one sentence>
- Overlap decision: Keep
- Overlap rationale: <one sentence>
Working Process
- Inventory all candidates marked
Needs judgment call.
- For each one, read the recorded uncertainty and identify the smallest source context needed
to answer it.
- Follow local call graph, data-flow, type, declaration-reference, test, or documentation
evidence far enough to decide whether the concern is credible and useful.
- Revise the proposed comment when the concern is real but the wording overstates confidence
or points at the wrong location.
- Move dropped candidates to a later
## Dropped section when practical, preserving enough
rationale for auditability.
1---2name: slang-review-resolve-judgment-calls3description: Resolve Slang clarity review candidates marked as needing a judgment call. Use after consolidation and scope filtering, before posting, to perform focused follow-up analysis and decide whether uncertain candidates should be kept, revised, or dropped.4---56# Slang Review Judgment-Call Resolution78Review candidates marked `Status: Needs judgment call` or with `Overlap decision: Needs9judgment call`. The goal is to resolve uncertainty through focused analysis, not to wait for a10human reviewer.1112Do not post comments. Update the canonical candidate markdown file in place.1314## Inputs1516Read:1718- The canonical candidate markdown file after consolidation and scope filtering.19- `tmp/pr-diff.patch` and `tmp/pr-files.txt`, or the equivalent PR diff and file list.20- PR-version and base-version source around the candidate location.21- Callers, callees, tests, comments, and related declarations needed to answer the specific22 uncertainty recorded in the candidate.2324## Decisions2526For each judgment-call candidate, spend focused effort to make a decision:2728- `Status: Keep` when the concern is credible, in scope, and useful to post.29- `Status: Revise` when the concern is credible but the proposed comment needs a narrower30 location, clearer wording, or a different request.31- `Status: Drop` when the concern is unsupported, duplicate, superseded, out of scope, or too32 speculative after follow-up analysis.33- `Status: Needs judgment call` only when focused analysis still cannot resolve the question.3435Update or add:3637```md38- Judgment decision: Keep | Revise | Drop | Needs judgment call39- Judgment rationale: <one or two sentences describing the decisive evidence or remaining uncertainty>40```4142If keeping, revising, or leaving a candidate as `Needs judgment call`, make sure it still has43postable metadata:4445```md46- Scope decision: Direct | Contextual47- Scope rationale: <one sentence>48- Overlap decision: Keep49- Overlap rationale: <one sentence>50```5152## Working Process53541. Inventory all candidates marked `Needs judgment call`.552. For each one, read the recorded uncertainty and identify the smallest source context needed56 to answer it.573. Follow local call graph, data-flow, type, declaration-reference, test, or documentation58 evidence far enough to decide whether the concern is credible and useful.594. Revise the proposed comment when the concern is real but the wording overstates confidence60 or points at the wrong location.615. Move dropped candidates to a later `## Dropped` section when practical, preserving enough62 rationale for auditability.
shader-slang