- Use
$ac-memoryto validate the active task state structure before review. - Set
CURRENT_ROLE: reviewer. - Compare actual changes against the Contract:
- Scope
- Forbidden
- Steps
- Checks
- If the original user request or Contract explicitly matches an exact review trigger, lock review mode before judging findings:
开发态联调 review-> dev-stage integration review问题修复 review-> fix / regression review- no trigger -> default code review
- If the Contract / Evidence / Gaps explicitly describe development-stage assumptions, backend contract premises, local cache policy, or non-goals, review against those boundaries first.
- Verify the changed artifacts are internally consistent:
- repo paths and module names match the current project
- docs-only checks were recorded honestly
- skill descriptions still explain what they do and when to use them
- for dev-stage integration tasks, unresolved items that depend on unverified backend behavior should be framed as
Gaps/assumption/open questionunless code or evidence clearly contradicts the declared boundary - low-risk non-copy-edit work does not require review by default when it stays within a single docs / skills / template surface, or when it only aligns wording across a few coupled workflow assets without changing workflow semantics
- escalate when workflow routing semantics, Execution Contract / review conclusions, AGENTS core rules, shared templates, or coupled terminology across multiple workflow assets also change
- Update
验收证据(Evidence)with concrete proof. - Update
未验证清单(Gaps)with residual risks, missing checks, and untested continue/doc workflows. 8.5. If review findings or follow-up comments appear, record each item inReview Findings(闭环)and close it explicitly with exactly one outcome:
fixedrejected with evidenceaccepted as gaprequires re-plan8.6. Update the active task state file with the closure result before pass/fail conclusion, and keep.agents/state/INDEX.mdaligned. 8.7. If a finding changes scope, files, checks, assumptions, or rollback strategy, setPLAN_FROZEN=falseand return to$ac-plan.
- When review reveals repeated mistakes, cross-document drift, or reusable workflow lessons, recommend
$self-improving-agentafter review to write candidate patterns into its ownmemory/. - Decide outcome:
- Pass: set
CURRENT_ROLE: reviewer, setWORKFLOW_STATUS: completed, keepPLAN_FROZEN=true, then return control to$ac-workflowfor final summary closeout and final[STATE]echo when helpful - Fail: set
CURRENT_ROLE: reviewer, setWORKFLOW_STATUS: active, setPLAN_FROZEN=false, and route back to$ac-plan
Hard rules:
- Base conclusions on Contract and evidence only.
- Do not skip Gaps when any verification is missing.
- Do not pass work that still contains known cross-document inconsistencies.
- Do not leave
Review Findings(闭环)entries without an explicit closure outcome. - Do not leave
WORKFLOW_STATUS: activeafter a pass conclusion. - Do not require
$self-improving-agentfor pass/fail; it is an optional post-review follow-up. - Do not treat
$ac-reviewas the final summary owner; passed work must return to$ac-workflowfor📝 总结. - Do not treat development-only cache cleanup, debug placeholders, or declared backend assumptions as confirmed regressions unless release expectations or evidence clearly reject those assumptions.
- Do not switch into dev-stage or fix-review mode from fuzzy wording; only the exact trigger phrase or an explicit Contract record can do that.