mirror of
https://github.com/wassname/pi-lgtm.git
synced 2026-06-27 15:31:29 +08:00
wassname
5b800653a3
Reviewer feedback: the LGTM extension's epistemic core is good but UX is too ceremonial — every task forced through lgtm_ask + /lgtm even bookkeeping like "monitor pueue 30". Two-tier split: - Tasks: agent-managed. TaskUpdate(status=completed) now allowed when no lgtm evidence is stored. Trivial subtasks lead up to verification without ceremony. - LGTMs: significant claims. lgtm_ask still triggers robot review; once evidence is stored, completion is locked to /lgtm so the gate can't be bypassed. Other UX: - TaskList output grouped: Active / Awaiting sign-off / Pending / Completed. - New getDisplayStatus(task) derives awaiting_signoff from pending_approval. - Widget header shows N awaiting sign-off count. - /lgtm accepts multiple ids: /lgtm 1 2 3 (also #1, commas). - lgtm_ask field descriptions encourage one short sentence per field — keep thinking discipline, drop verbosity. - SYSTEM_REMINDER nudges progress updates and cleanup of completed/irrelevant tasks, not just lgtm_ask. Also includes pending rubric extension on RobotReviewRecord. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
80 lines
2.6 KiB
TypeScript
80 lines
2.6 KiB
TypeScript
import { describe, expect, it } from "vitest";
|
|
import { appendRobotReviewMetadata, getLatestRobotReview, getRobotReviews } from "../src/robot-review.js";
|
|
import type { Task } from "../src/types.js";
|
|
|
|
function makeTask(overrides: Partial<Task> = {}): Task {
|
|
return {
|
|
id: "1",
|
|
subject: "Test",
|
|
description: "Desc",
|
|
done_criterion: "done",
|
|
pending_approval: false,
|
|
status: "pending",
|
|
progress_label: undefined,
|
|
metadata: {},
|
|
blocks: [],
|
|
blockedBy: [],
|
|
createdAt: 0,
|
|
updatedAt: 0,
|
|
...overrides,
|
|
};
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
describe("robot review helpers", () => {
|
|
it("reads legacy single-review metadata", () => {
|
|
const task = makeTask({
|
|
metadata: {
|
|
robot_review_reviewer: "opencode",
|
|
robot_review_scope: "task evidence",
|
|
robot_review_observations: ["Observed no command output for the core claim"],
|
|
robot_review_blind_spots: "Did not rerun tests",
|
|
robot_review_submitted_at: "2026-04-17T00:00:00.000Z",
|
|
},
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
const reviews = getRobotReviews(task);
|
|
expect(reviews).toHaveLength(1);
|
|
expect(reviews[0].reviewer).toBe("opencode");
|
|
expect(reviews[0].iteration).toBe(1);
|
|
expect(reviews[0].accepted).toBe(true);
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
it("appends robot reviews as iterations", () => {
|
|
const task = makeTask();
|
|
const metadata1 = appendRobotReviewMetadata(task, {
|
|
reviewer: "opencode",
|
|
scope: "task evidence",
|
|
observations: ["Observed missing benchmark output"],
|
|
blind_spots: "Did not inspect prod config",
|
|
accepted: false,
|
|
evidence_complete: false,
|
|
evidence_convincing: false,
|
|
missing_evidence: ["Benchmark output for the claimed speedup"],
|
|
submitted_at: "2026-04-17T00:00:00.000Z",
|
|
mode: "auto",
|
|
});
|
|
const task1 = makeTask({ metadata: metadata1 });
|
|
const metadata2 = appendRobotReviewMetadata(task1, {
|
|
reviewer: "opencode",
|
|
scope: "updated task evidence",
|
|
observations: ["Observed benchmark output and test transcript"],
|
|
blind_spots: "Did not inspect long-run stability",
|
|
accepted: true,
|
|
evidence_complete: true,
|
|
evidence_convincing: true,
|
|
missing_evidence: [],
|
|
submitted_at: "2026-04-17T01:00:00.000Z",
|
|
mode: "auto",
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
const task2 = makeTask({ metadata: metadata2 });
|
|
const reviews = getRobotReviews(task2);
|
|
expect(reviews).toHaveLength(2);
|
|
expect(reviews[0].iteration).toBe(1);
|
|
expect(reviews[1].iteration).toBe(2);
|
|
expect(getLatestRobotReview(task2)?.evidence_convincing).toBe(true);
|
|
expect(task2.metadata.robot_review_iteration_count).toBe(2);
|
|
});
|
|
});
|
|
|