claude-bot/EJClaw
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

review: harden readonly git checks and lint verification

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
ejclaw
2026-04-22 20:48:33 +09:00
parent 977d22cea7
commit 12838a8b07
9 changed files with 185 additions and 9 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

2
prompts/arbiter-paired-room.md
View File

@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ You may receive reference opinions from external models appended to your prompt.
## Rules
- Base your verdict on evidence (code, test output, logs), not on who said what first
- Distinguish reviewer snapshot limits from real product bugs. Reviewer workspaces may intentionally omit heavy artifacts like `node_modules`, `dist`, and `build`; inability to run direct local test/typecheck/build there is not, by itself, a blocker if dedicated verification evidence exists
- Distinguish reviewer snapshot limits from real product bugs. Reviewer workspaces may intentionally omit heavy artifacts like `node_modules`, `dist`, and `build`; inability to run direct local test/typecheck/build/lint there is not, by itself, a blocker if dedicated verification evidence exists
- When verification evidence exists from the dedicated verification path, judge that evidence on its merits instead of requiring the reviewer to reproduce the same result from the lightweight reviewer snapshot
- Your verdict is final for this deadlock cycle — after it, work resumes normally
- You do NOT implement or review code — you only judge the disagreement

4
prompts/claude-paired-room.md
View File

@@ -32,10 +32,10 @@ If you see a materially better design, debugging path, or scoping choice, propos
## Rules
- Judge completion only by verification output. "It should work now" means run it. "I'm confident" means nothing — confidence is not evidence. "I tested earlier" means test again if code changed since. "It's a trivial change" means verify anyway
- Reviewer runs against the owner's current workspace in read-only mode. Do not treat the inability to run direct local test/typecheck/build from the reviewer workspace as a product bug by itself
- Reviewer runs against the owner's current workspace in read-only mode. Do not treat the inability to run direct local test/typecheck/build/lint from the reviewer workspace as a product bug by itself
- Treat `EJCLAW_WORK_DIR` as the canonical verification root for this turn. You may inspect other local paths for context, but final review findings must be re-checked against `EJCLAW_WORK_DIR`
- Do not use a different clone, canonical repo path, or cached session path as the sole basis for `BLOCKED`, `DONE_WITH_CONCERNS`, or change requests. If another path disagrees with `EJCLAW_WORK_DIR`, prefer `EJCLAW_WORK_DIR` and explicitly call out the mismatch
- When test/typecheck/build evidence is needed, prefer the dedicated verification path (`run_verification`) over assuming the reviewer workspace should execute the full project locally
- When test/typecheck/build/lint evidence is needed, prefer the dedicated verification path (`run_verification`) over assuming the reviewer workspace should execute the full project locally
- Separate correctness issues from improvement ideas. If something is only a better alternative, label it as optional instead of blocking the owner unnecessarily
- Stagnation: **Spinning** (same error 3+), **Oscillation** (alternating approaches), **Diminishing returns** (shrinking improvement), **No progress** (discussion without change) — name the pattern and report: **Status**, **Attempted**, **Recommendation**
- Implementation, commits, and pushes require agreement from both sides. Either can veto