Skip to content

feat(quick-dev): improve checkpoint 1 UX#2217

Merged
alexeyv merged 3 commits intomainfrom
feat/checkpoint-ux
Apr 8, 2026
Merged

feat(quick-dev): improve checkpoint 1 UX#2217
alexeyv merged 3 commits intomainfrom
feat/checkpoint-ux

Conversation

@alexeyv
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@alexeyv alexeyv commented Apr 5, 2026

Summary

  • Display spec file path as clickable CWD-relative link alongside the checkpoint summary (moved from post-approval to presentation time)
  • Add note informing users they can open the spec externally with any tool (party mode, advanced elicitation, code review, etc.) before approving
  • On approval, re-read spec from disk and acknowledge any external edits before proceeding; HALT if file missing

Test plan

  • Run quick-dev through step-02 and verify the spec path appears clickable in the summary
  • Verify the external editing note is displayed below the options
  • Edit the spec externally during the HALT, approve, and confirm external changes are acknowledged
  • Approve without external edits and confirm no change mention appears

@alexeyv alexeyv force-pushed the refactor/eliminate-wip-file branch from 6e052c9 to 9a26c0d Compare April 5, 2026 20:14
@augmentcode
Copy link
Copy Markdown

augmentcode bot commented Apr 6, 2026

🤖 Augment PR Summary

Summary: 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.
Behavior: On approval, re-reads the spec from disk, acknowledges any external edits, and halts if the file is missing before proceeding to implementation.

🤖 Was this summary useful? React with 👍 or 👎

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@augmentcode augmentcode bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Review completed. 2 suggestions posted.

Fix All in Augment

Comment augment review to trigger a new review at any time.

@alexeyv alexeyv force-pushed the refactor/eliminate-wip-file branch 2 times, most recently from 100bb2c to 2a3171d Compare April 7, 2026 13:16
Base automatically changed from refactor/eliminate-wip-file to main April 7, 2026 17:14
alexeyv added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 7, 2026
- 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.
@alexeyv
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

alexeyv commented Apr 7, 2026

Triage complete: 2 findings — FIX: 2, DISMISS: 0, DEFER: 0

  • F1 [LOW] Note ordering ambiguity vs [A]/[E] menu in step-02-plan.md — FIX
  • F2 [MEDIUM] Missing-file HALT followed by spec_file mutations in A flow — FIX

Both fixes in commit 3942a51.

@coderabbitai
Copy link
Copy Markdown

coderabbitai bot commented Apr 7, 2026

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The PR updates the bmad-quick-dev workflow to treat draft-status spec files as resumable artifacts, routes them to step-02, removes the {wipFile} singleton path definition, and modifies step-02's approval flow to write and update specs in {spec_file} with enhanced disk validation.

Changes

Cohort / File(s) Summary
Workflow Routing and Configuration
src/bmm-skills/4-implementation/bmad-quick-dev/step-01-clarify-and-route.md, src/bmm-skills/4-implementation/bmad-quick-dev/workflow.md
Added routing logic for draft-status specs as resumable artifacts with early-exit to ./step-02-plan.md; updated artifact selection menu to include and list draft as resumable; removed wipFile path definition and renumbered workflow sections.
Spec Approval and File Handling
src/bmm-skills/4-implementation/bmad-quick-dev/step-02-plan.md
Changed spec output destination from {wipFile} to {spec_file}, updated checkpoint to present CWD-relative {spec_file} path, and implemented new approval flow that re-reads spec from disk, validates file presence, detects external changes, and sets status to ready-for-dev with frozen-after-approval locking.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~10 minutes

Possibly related PRs

Suggested reviewers

  • bmadcode
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3
✅ Passed checks (3 passed)
Check name Status Explanation
Title check ✅ Passed The title 'feat(quick-dev): improve checkpoint 1 UX' clearly summarizes the main change—improving user experience at checkpoint 1 in the quick-dev workflow, which aligns with the primary objective of adding clickable spec paths, external-editing notes, and change detection.
Description check ✅ Passed The description is directly related to the changeset, detailing specific UX improvements (clickable spec path, external editing note, change detection on approval) and providing a test plan that aligns with the file modifications in step-02-plan.md.
Docstring Coverage ✅ Passed No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.

✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Commit unit tests in branch feat/checkpoint-ux
⚔️ Resolve merge conflicts
  • Resolve merge conflict in branch feat/checkpoint-ux

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.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

🧹 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

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 9ca0316 and 3942a51.

📒 Files selected for processing (3)
  • src/bmm-skills/4-implementation/bmad-quick-dev/step-01-clarify-and-route.md
  • src/bmm-skills/4-implementation/bmad-quick-dev/step-02-plan.md
  • src/bmm-skills/4-implementation/bmad-quick-dev/workflow.md

alexeyv added 3 commits April 8, 2026 07:17
…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.
@alexeyv alexeyv force-pushed the feat/checkpoint-ux branch from 10b0ecf to e42574b Compare April 8, 2026 14:25
@alexeyv alexeyv merged commit f9925eb into main Apr 8, 2026
5 checks passed
@alexeyv alexeyv deleted the feat/checkpoint-ux branch April 8, 2026 14:27
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant