feat(quick-dev): improve checkpoint 1 UX#2217
Conversation
6e052c9 to
9a26c0d
Compare
🤖 Augment PR SummarySummary: Improves Quick-Dev Step 2 Checkpoint 1 by showing the spec path as a clickable CWD-relative link and adding guidance about externally editing the spec before approval. 🤖 Was this summary useful? React with 👍 or 👎 |
100bb2c to
2a3171d
Compare
- Remove stray 'and options' from the editing-note intro so the note's position relative to the [A]/[E] menu is unambiguous. - Restructure the [A] bullet into explicit missing/exists branches so the missing-file HALT cannot fall through to status updates and recreate a deleted spec. Addresses augmentcode review comments on PR #2217.
|
Triage complete: 2 findings — FIX: 2, DISMISS: 0, DEFER: 0
Both fixes in commit 3942a51. |
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe PR updates the bmad-quick-dev workflow to treat Changes
Estimated code review effort🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~10 minutes Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3✅ Passed checks (3 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
⚔️ Resolve merge conflicts
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 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
src/bmm-skills/4-implementation/bmad-quick-dev/step-02-plan.md (1)
34-36: Consider adding a context-loss fallback to the change-detection instruction.The re-read-and-compare logic is sound for typical sessions: the 1600-token spec cap (line 18) and distilled subagent summaries (line 14) prevent context snowballing, and the explicit disk re-read (line 34) allows the agent to detect external edits. However, in edge cases where a long session exhausts context before the approval checkpoint, the agent may lose the ability to recall the original spec content accurately.
The current instruction assumes "Compare the content to what you wrote" will succeed. A minor addition—such as "If you cannot recall the original content clearly, inform the user and ask them to confirm any changes manually"—would provide a graceful fallback without disrupting the normal flow.
This is a defensive improvement aligned with the defensive "do not write, do not proceed" wording on the missing-file branch and would strengthen robustness in extended sessions.
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed. In `@src/bmm-skills/4-implementation/bmad-quick-dev/step-02-plan.md` around lines 34 - 36, Add a context-loss fallback to the re-read-and-compare step: when re-reading `{spec_file}` in the block that currently says "Compare the content to what you wrote", if the agent cannot confidently recall the original content (due to context limits), it should notify the user, present the current file contents and a short explanation that it cannot determine exact prior content, and ask the user to confirm or specify what changed before proceeding; only after explicit user confirmation should the agent set status `ready-for-dev` in `{spec_file}` and lock everything inside `<frozen-after-approval>` and continue to Step 3.
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
Nitpick comments:
In `@src/bmm-skills/4-implementation/bmad-quick-dev/step-02-plan.md`:
- Around line 34-36: Add a context-loss fallback to the re-read-and-compare
step: when re-reading `{spec_file}` in the block that currently says "Compare
the content to what you wrote", if the agent cannot confidently recall the
original content (due to context limits), it should notify the user, present the
current file contents and a short explanation that it cannot determine exact
prior content, and ask the user to confirm or specify what changed before
proceeding; only after explicit user confirmation should the agent set status
`ready-for-dev` in `{spec_file}` and lock everything inside
`<frozen-after-approval>` and continue to Step 3.
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: 633808fd-fad0-4bfb-a9e0-c3e973b37b28
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
src/bmm-skills/4-implementation/bmad-quick-dev/step-01-clarify-and-route.mdsrc/bmm-skills/4-implementation/bmad-quick-dev/step-02-plan.mdsrc/bmm-skills/4-implementation/bmad-quick-dev/workflow.md
…l editing note, and change detection Display spec file path as clickable CWD-relative link alongside the summary. Inform users they can open the spec in another session with any tool before approving. On approval, re-read the spec from disk and acknowledge any external edits before proceeding.
- Remove stray 'and options' from the editing-note intro so the note's position relative to the [A]/[E] menu is unambiguous. - Restructure the [A] bullet into explicit missing/exists branches so the missing-file HALT cannot fall through to status updates and recreate a deleted spec. Addresses augmentcode review comments on PR #2217.
- Drop boilerplate opener about the spec being a regular file. - Enumerate concrete options: editor, in-session Q&A, or bmad-advanced-elicitation / bmad-party-mode / bmad-code-review skills. - Flag that skills should ideally run in another session to avoid context bloat. - Change "add this note" to "display this note" for precision.
10b0ecf to
e42574b
Compare
Summary
Test plan