From ef16e82b058243c25ea26785f31db1a2b3c9e036 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: ejclaw Date: Tue, 19 May 2026 14:17:34 +0900 Subject: [PATCH] Clarify reviewer verification evidence --- prompts/claude-paired-room.md | 1 + src/platform-prompts.test.ts | 3 +++ 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+) diff --git a/prompts/claude-paired-room.md b/prompts/claude-paired-room.md index 7e9de69..cf1e2a8 100644 --- a/prompts/claude-paired-room.md +++ b/prompts/claude-paired-room.md @@ -38,6 +38,7 @@ If you see a materially better design, debugging path, or scoping choice, propos - 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/lint evidence is needed, prefer the dedicated verification path (`run_verification`) over assuming the reviewer workspace should execute the full project locally +- If direct execution is unavailable, request `run_verification` or owner-provided evidence. Do not present static analysis as completed verification - 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 diff --git a/src/platform-prompts.test.ts b/src/platform-prompts.test.ts index 75f1c1f..574b841 100644 --- a/src/platform-prompts.test.ts +++ b/src/platform-prompts.test.ts @@ -83,6 +83,9 @@ describe('platform-prompts', () => { expect(codexPairedPrompt).toContain( 'Separate correctness issues from improvement ideas', ); + expect(codexPairedPrompt).toContain( + 'Do not present static analysis as completed verification', + ); expect(codexPairedPrompt).toContain('Keep reviewer output owner-facing'); expect(codexPairedPrompt).toContain('prefer 3-6 lines'); expect(codexPairedPrompt).not.toContain('owner-side paired agent');