[codex] Add implementation review workflow#1251
Draft
defin85 wants to merge 1 commit into
Draft
Conversation
Contributor
|
Important Review skippedDraft detected. Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the ⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Run ID: You can disable this status message by setting the Use the checkbox below for a quick retry:
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
clay-good
added a commit
to clay-good/OpenSpec
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 29, 2026
…sign After a comprehensive sweep of open issues, PRs, and discussions, grounded the proposal in the complete adjacent landscape and answered the open design questions the cluster raises: - Fission-AI#783 (Cross-artifact quality review before apply) is now a primary Closes: it IS audit mode. Answer its open "new skill vs. extend validate" question via the determinism split — deterministic checks (drift/completeness/coverage) are CLI/validate-shaped; the semantic cross-artifact review is the skill. Added a skill spec scenario for the Fission-AI#783 patterns (scope contradiction, spec gap, duplication). - Discussion Fission-AI#1206 ("refine proposal now?") + prior-art PR Fission-AI#372: official answer is /opsx:update. - New design Decision 8 (command family): delineate /opsx:update from /opsx:clarify (Fission-AI#702, within-artifact), /opsx:review (Fission-AI#1251, plan-vs-code), and verify; /opsx:update consolidates update+regen+refine into one action, addressing skill-sprawl (Fission-AI#1263, Fission-AI#783). - Reuse, don't reinvent: audit's empty/incomplete check reuses Fission-AI#1098's artifactOutputComplete (same outputs.ts the digest helper lives in); capability coverage reuses Fission-AI#1277's validateChangeCapabilityCoverage. - New open questions: surface deterministic coherence in `validate` for a CI gate (Fission-AI#783-B, Fission-AI#829); naming reconciliation with Fission-AI#783's /opsx:refine. - Confirmed add-update-command* branches are the `openspec update` tool-file refresh (not artifact update) — no collision. Validates clean under --strict; 10 deltas; all relative links resolve. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
clay-good
added a commit
to clay-good/OpenSpec
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 29, 2026
…ission-AI#880 Grounded the surface so an implementer builds it without guessing, and added proportionate forward-compatibility: - New design "Data contracts" section with exact shapes: extended ArtifactStatus (requires/dependents/digest/drift/driftFrom — additive to the real interface at instruction-loader.ts:120), the --impact response, and the `.openspec.yaml` baselines ledger. All additive; nothing existing changes type. - Digest scheme tag (`sha256-relpath-v1:`) + forward-compat: drift compares only same-scheme digests; an unrecognized/older scheme reports `unknown` rather than silently mis-comparing — re-reconcile restores it. Added a cli spec scenario and tasks for it. - Grounded the ledger write: there is no central change-metadata writer today (change-metadata/index.ts only re-exports schema), so reconcile does a safe read-modify-write of .openspec.yaml mirroring the store's parse/serialize/writeStoreMetadataState pattern (foundation.ts). - Coverage: re-swept; folded Fission-AI#880 (/opsx:validate code-vs-living-specs) into the plan-vs-code delineation alongside Fission-AI#1251/Fission-AI#1073. Main unchanged (546224e); all citations still valid. Validates clean under --strict; 10 deltas; links resolve. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
reviewworkflow exposed as/opsx:reviewandopenspec-review-impl-vs-planWhy
/opsx:verifyis useful for archive readiness, but mature brownfield projects often need a stricter read-only implementation review that traces plan items to actual code, default runtime wiring, tests, config, examples, and docs before accepting a change as implemented.Validation
pnpm exec vitest run test/core/profiles.test.ts test/core/shared/skill-generation.test.ts test/core/templates/skill-templates-parity.test.ts test/commands/config-profile.test.ts test/commands/config.test.tspnpm run buildpnpm run lint(passes with an existing warning insrc/core/references.ts)node bin/openspec.js validate --specs --no-interactiveGenerated with Codex using GPT-5.