diff --git a/agent-ops/.version b/agent-ops/.version index 2088b5b..872d3b2 100644 --- a/agent-ops/.version +++ b/agent-ops/.version @@ -1 +1 @@ -1.1.101 +1.1.104 diff --git a/agent-ops/skills/common/_templates/implementation-user-review-request-section.md b/agent-ops/skills/common/_templates/implementation-user-review-request-section.md index 998a3b2..156dbad 100644 --- a/agent-ops/skills/common/_templates/implementation-user-review-request-section.md +++ b/agent-ops/skills/common/_templates/implementation-user-review-request-section.md @@ -1,10 +1,11 @@ ## 사용자 리뷰 요청 -_기본값은 `없음`이다. 구현 중 사용자 결정, 외부 환경 준비, 또는 계획 범위 변경 없이는 안전하게 진행할 수 없으면 아래 항목을 실제 내용으로 교체하고, 구현을 중단한 뒤 active 파일을 그대로 둔 채 리뷰를 요청한다. code-review가 이 내용을 검증해 `USER_REVIEW.md`를 작성한다._ +_기본값은 `없음`이다. 구현 중 사용자 결정, 사용자 소유 외부 환경/secret/서비스 준비, 또는 계획 범위 변경 없이는 안전하게 진행할 수 없으면 아래 항목을 실제 내용으로 교체하고, 구현을 중단한 뒤 active 파일을 그대로 둔 채 리뷰를 요청한다. 후속 에이전트가 명령 재실행이나 산출물 수집으로 해소할 수 있는 검증 증거 공백만으로는 사용자 리뷰 요청을 작성하지 않는다._ - 상태: 없음 - 사유 유형: 없음 - 결정 필요: 없음 - 차단 근거: 없음 - 실행한 검증/명령: 없음 +- 자동 후속 불가 이유: 없음 - 재개 조건: 없음 diff --git a/agent-ops/skills/common/code-review/SKILL.md b/agent-ops/skills/common/code-review/SKILL.md index 2233edc..c840991 100644 --- a/agent-ops/skills/common/code-review/SKILL.md +++ b/agent-ops/skills/common/code-review/SKILL.md @@ -22,21 +22,21 @@ Implementation may stop early by filling the active review stub's `사용자 리 - Trigger: Korean or English active-task review requests, including `리뷰 진행해` and `리뷰해줘`, must use this skill when an active `CODE_REVIEW-*-G??.md` or `USER_REVIEW.md` exists under `agent-task/*/` or `agent-task/*/*/`, excluding `agent-task/archive/**`. - Finalize every selected active state: for `CODE_REVIEW-*-G??.md`, append one verdict, archive the active review and plan files, then create exactly one next state; for `USER_REVIEW.md` completion, update the stop state, write `complete.log`, and archive the task. Do not report before finalization is complete. - Next state: `PASS` writes `complete.log` and moves the task under `agent-task/archive/YYYY/MM/`; if the task group is `m-`, report completion metadata for the runtime event. `WARN` or `FAIL` normally writes the next active `PLAN-{build_lane}-GNN.md` and `CODE_REVIEW-{review_lane}-GNN.md`; if the user-review gate triggers, write `USER_REVIEW.md` instead. A completed `USER_REVIEW.md` uses the same terminal `complete.log` and archive path as `PASS`. -- A filled implementation-owned `사용자 리뷰 요청` is a review input, not a next state by itself. If it is a genuine user-only decision, external environment prerequisite, or scope conflict, the user-review gate triggers and this skill writes `USER_REVIEW.md`; if it is vague, unsupported, or repo-fixable, write a normal WARN/FAIL follow-up plan instead. +- A filled implementation-owned `사용자 리뷰 요청` is a review input, not a next state by itself. If it is a genuine user-only decision, user-owned external environment prerequisite, or scope conflict, the user-review gate triggers and this skill writes `USER_REVIEW.md`; if it is vague, unsupported, repo-fixable, or only missing evidence that a follow-up agent can produce by rerunning commands or collecting artifacts, write a normal WARN/FAIL follow-up plan instead. - Do not ask for confirmation before WARN/FAIL follow-up files unless the user-review gate triggers. If details are uncertain but the gate does not trigger, write the smallest concrete follow-up plan with file references and verification commands. - Recovery: if a prior turn appended a verdict without archive or next-state files, or resolved `USER_REVIEW.md` without `complete.log`, resume at the matching finalization step and finish the missing artifacts first. ## User Review Gate -`USER_REVIEW.md` is a loop stop state for cases where automatic follow-up is likely to waste cycles or needs a human decision. +`USER_REVIEW.md` is a loop stop state for loop-limit exhaustion or user-owned blockers. Default to a normal WARN/FAIL follow-up; the gate requires positive evidence that another implementation/review agent cannot resolve the blocker without user action. - Compute `review-number` as `count(agent-task/{task_name}/code_review_*.log) + 1` before archiving the active review. - If `review-number >= 5` and the verdict is `WARN` or `FAIL`, stop the automatic loop and write `USER_REVIEW.md`. -- If `review-number == 1`, the verdict is `FAIL`, and the blocking issue is a test environment problem rather than a repo-fixable implementation issue, stop the automatic loop and write `USER_REVIEW.md`. -- If the active review file has a filled `사용자 리뷰 요청` with `상태` other than `없음`, and the blocker is a user-only decision, external environment prerequisite, or scope conflict that the repository cannot safely resolve by code changes alone, stop the automatic loop and write `USER_REVIEW.md`. -- Treat a first-review failure as a test environment problem only with evidence: missing SDK/tool/runtime, unavailable external service, absent secret/credential, unsupported OS/device/interactive environment, or another prerequisite outside the repository. Record the exact command and stdout/stderr. Before claiming a tool is missing, require `command -v ` or the project-equivalent check. -- Treat an implementation-owned `사용자 리뷰 요청` as valid only with specific decision questions, evidence, attempted commands/output or a reason commands could not run, and clear resume conditions. Vague uncertainty, repo-owned setup bugs, and ordinary incomplete implementation become normal WARN/FAIL follow-up plans instead. -- Do not classify repo-owned setup bugs as environment problems. If a manifest, bootstrap script, test fixture, or documented project entrypoint should provide the dependency, write a normal follow-up plan instead. +- If `review-number == 1`, the verdict is `FAIL`, and the blocking issue is a test environment problem that requires user action rather than repo-owned setup or evidence a follow-up agent can produce by rerunning commands or collecting artifacts, stop the automatic loop and write `USER_REVIEW.md`. +- If the active review file has a filled `사용자 리뷰 요청` with `상태` other than `없음`, and the blocker is a user-only decision, user-owned external environment prerequisite, or scope conflict that the repository and a capable next agent cannot safely resolve by code changes or verification reruns, stop the automatic loop and write `USER_REVIEW.md`. +- Treat a first-review failure as a test environment problem only with evidence from an attempted command: missing SDK/tool/runtime, unavailable external service, absent secret/credential, unsupported OS/device/interactive environment, or another prerequisite outside the repository. Record the exact command and stdout/stderr. Before claiming a tool is missing, require `command -v ` or the project-equivalent check. Missing or non-verbatim verification evidence is a verification-trust failure, not a test environment problem. +- Treat an implementation-owned `사용자 리뷰 요청` as valid only with specific decision questions, evidence, attempted commands/output or a reason commands could not run, and clear resume conditions. The not-run reason must identify user-owned action or an external prerequisite; agent execution limits, missing handoff evidence, or incomplete verification records become normal WARN/FAIL follow-up plans when a capable follow-up lane can produce the evidence. +- Do not classify repo-owned setup bugs or verification evidence gaps as environment problems. If a manifest, bootstrap script, test fixture, documented project entrypoint, or follow-up agent can provide the dependency or evidence, write a normal follow-up plan instead. - `USER_REVIEW.md` is created from `agent-ops/skills/common/code-review/templates/user-review-template.md`, filled with the archived loop history, current archived plan/review paths, verdict, loop count, blocking evidence, and user decision options. ## User Review Resolution @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ Directory states: | State | Meaning | |-------|---------| | `PLAN-*-G??.md` + `CODE_REVIEW-*-G??.md` stub or placeholders | Implementation is pending/incomplete; review should fail completeness if invoked | -| `PLAN-*-G??.md` + `CODE_REVIEW-*-G??.md` with filled `사용자 리뷰 요청` | Implementation is blocked on user input; review validates the request and writes `USER_REVIEW.md` if justified | +| `PLAN-*-G??.md` + `CODE_REVIEW-*-G??.md` with filled `사용자 리뷰 요청` | Implementation claims a user-only blocker; review validates the request and writes `USER_REVIEW.md` only if justified | | `PLAN-*-G??.md` + filled `CODE_REVIEW-*-G??.md` | Ready for code-review skill | | `complete.log` + `*.log` files | Task complete (PASS or user-review-resolved PASS), before final task-directory archive move | | `USER_REVIEW.md` + `*.log` files | Automatic loop stopped; user decision is required before creating another plan | @@ -151,8 +151,8 @@ Before writing the verdict: - Compare the plan `구현 체크리스트` and review stub `구현 체크리스트`; item text/order must match. - If a checklist item contains integrated verification for a feature, treat that feature item as incomplete until both implementation evidence and the matching verification output are present. Do not accept a separate unchecked completion-criteria item as a substitute. - Confirm the implementation marked the matching checklist items in the active review file, including the final mandatory `CODE_REVIEW-*-G??.md` completion item. -- Treat blank placeholder sections, missing actual implementation notes, missing checklist completion, or missing actual stdout/stderr in the active review file as a completeness or verification-trust failure. -- Read the `사용자 리뷰 요청` section. If `상태` is not `없음`, validate the exact decision needed, blocker evidence, command output or not-run reason, and resume condition before deciding whether the user-review gate triggers. +- Treat blank placeholder sections, missing actual implementation notes, missing checklist completion, or missing actual stdout/stderr in the active review file as a completeness or verification-trust failure. This alone does not trigger `USER_REVIEW.md`; route it to a normal follow-up plan unless there is separate user-only blocker evidence. +- Read the `사용자 리뷰 요청` section. If `상태` is not `없음`, validate the exact decision needed, blocker evidence, command output or not-run reason, why automatic follow-up cannot resolve it, and resume condition before deciding whether the user-review gate triggers. - Grep renamed/removed symbols for stale references. - Confirm every required test exists, name matches, and assertions are meaningful. - Cross-check claimed verification output in the active review file against actual code and project commands. @@ -231,12 +231,13 @@ If the user-review gate does not trigger, write new routed plan/review files usi - If the selected task group is `m-`, write the follow-up plan/review under the same `m-` task group. - Base the follow-up scope directly on the archived review findings. Keep it narrow and actionable. - Choose lane/grade again; preserve the prior route only when it was adequate, otherwise raise `GNN` and/or move `local -> cloud`. +- If the finding is only missing or untrusted verification evidence that an appropriate follow-up lane can produce by rerunning commands or collecting artifacts, do not write `USER_REVIEW.md` solely for that reason. Write a follow-up plan that reruns the exact commands in an appropriate lane and records actual stdout/stderr. - Before choosing the follow-up route, apply this escalation gate: - If the archived plan was `local-*` and the verdict is `FAIL` for correctness, completeness, test coverage, or verification trust, move the follow-up build lane to `cloud` unless the issue is trivially deterministic and review-detectable without live environment behavior. - If the follow-up work is terminal-agent work (shell/CLI workflow implementation, bin script orchestration, process control, stdout/stderr parsing, exit-status contracts, long-running command diagnosis, or terminal benchmark-style tasks), use `cloud-G07` or higher. - If unit tests passed but a real bin/smoke/integration command failed, use `cloud-G07` or higher. - If the task depends on interactive TUI/PTY/browser/external CLI behavior, screen repaint/cursor stream parsing, or live command-palette state, use `cloud-G07` or higher. - - If recorded verification output was reconstructed, stale, or mismatched on rerun, use `cloud-G07` or higher and make verification trust recovery a plan item. + - If verification evidence is missing, reconstructed, stale, untrusted, or mismatched on rerun, use `cloud-G07` or higher and make verification trust recovery a plan item. - `FAIL`: one plan item per Required issue. - `WARN`: one grouped plan item for Suggested issues, plus related Nit issues if useful. - Each plan item needs problem, solution with before/after when non-trivial, checklist, test decision, intermediate verification. @@ -255,7 +256,7 @@ Routed review stub template (fill `{…}` placeholders; everything else is fixed > The task is NOT complete until every implementation-owned section below is filled in. > Complete the `구현 체크리스트`; the final checklist item is mandatory before saving. > Fill implementation-owned sections, then stop with active files in place and report ready for review. -> If implementation is blocked by a user-only decision, external environment prerequisite, or scope conflict, fill `사용자 리뷰 요청` with evidence and stop with active files in place; code-review decides whether to write `USER_REVIEW.md`. +> If implementation is blocked by a user-only decision, user-owned external environment prerequisite, or scope conflict, fill `사용자 리뷰 요청` with evidence and stop with active files in place; code-review decides whether to write `USER_REVIEW.md`. Evidence gaps that a follow-up agent can close by rerunning commands or collecting artifacts are normal follow-up issues, not user-review blockers by themselves. > Finalization (`코드리뷰 결과`, log rename, `complete.log`, archive moves, `코드리뷰 전용 체크리스트`) is review-agent-only, even after compaction/resume. > Follow the ownership table at the bottom of this file for which sections you own. @@ -317,13 +318,14 @@ _구현 에이전트가 주요 설계 결정 사항을 기록한다._ ## 사용자 리뷰 요청 -_기본값은 `없음`이다. 구현 중 사용자 결정, 외부 환경 준비, 또는 계획 범위 변경 없이는 안전하게 진행할 수 없으면 아래 항목을 실제 내용으로 교체하고, 구현을 중단한 뒤 active 파일을 그대로 둔 채 리뷰를 요청한다. code-review가 이 내용을 검증해 `USER_REVIEW.md`를 작성한다._ +_기본값은 `없음`이다. 구현 중 사용자 결정, 사용자 소유 외부 환경/secret/서비스 준비, 또는 계획 범위 변경 없이는 안전하게 진행할 수 없으면 아래 항목을 실제 내용으로 교체하고, 구현을 중단한 뒤 active 파일을 그대로 둔 채 리뷰를 요청한다. 후속 에이전트가 명령 재실행이나 산출물 수집으로 해소할 수 있는 검증 증거 공백만으로는 사용자 리뷰 요청을 작성하지 않는다._ - 상태: 없음 - 사유 유형: 없음 - 결정 필요: 없음 - 차단 근거: 없음 - 실행한 검증/명령: 없음 +- 자동 후속 불가 이유: 없음 - 재개 조건: 없음 ## 리뷰어를 위한 체크포인트 @@ -368,7 +370,7 @@ Sections and their ownership: | 구현 체크리스트 (항목 텍스트/순서) | follow-up plan에서 복사해 스텁 생성 시 고정 | 구현 에이전트가 `[ ]` → `[x]` 체크만 수행; 마지막 체크박스는 저장 전 필수 | | 코드리뷰 전용 체크리스트 | Review agent only | Implementing agent must not modify or check this section | | 계획 대비 변경 사항, 주요 설계 결정 | 구현 에이전트가 채움 | placeholder 텍스트를 실제 내용으로 교체 | -| 사용자 리뷰 요청 | 구현 에이전트가 채움 | 진행에 사용자 입력이 필요하지 않으면 `상태: 없음` 유지; 필요하면 결정 항목, 근거, 명령 출력, 재개 조건을 기록 | +| 사용자 리뷰 요청 | 구현 에이전트가 채움 | 진행에 사용자 입력이 필요하지 않으면 `상태: 없음` 유지; 필요하면 결정 항목, 근거, 명령 출력, 자동 후속 불가 이유, 재개 조건을 기록 | | 리뷰어를 위한 체크포인트 | 스텁 생성 시 고정 | 계획에서 추출한 리뷰 포인트 | | 검증 결과 (섹션 제목 + 명령) | 스텁 생성 시 고정 | 실행 출력만 구현 에이전트가 채움; 명령 변경은 `계획 대비 변경 사항`에 기록 | | 코드리뷰 결과 | 리뷰 에이전트가 append | 스텁에 포함하지 않음 | diff --git a/agent-ops/skills/common/plan/SKILL.md b/agent-ops/skills/common/plan/SKILL.md index 151d20b..b882b7d 100644 --- a/agent-ops/skills/common/plan/SKILL.md +++ b/agent-ops/skills/common/plan/SKILL.md @@ -16,9 +16,9 @@ code-review skill -> verdict + archive, complete.log, and PASS/user-review-resol runtime -> for m-prefixed PASS completion events, state check and optional update-roadmap call ``` -`code-review` may stop the automatic loop with `USER_REVIEW.md` when repeated non-PASS reviews or first-review test environment blockers require a user decision. Plan creation after `USER_REVIEW.md` requires an explicit user decision. If the user decision closes the task as complete/PASS, code-review resolves `USER_REVIEW.md`, writes `complete.log`, and archives the task instead of creating a new plan. +`code-review` may stop the automatic loop with `USER_REVIEW.md` when repeated non-PASS reviews or first-review test environment blockers require a user decision. Verification evidence gaps that a follow-up agent can close by rerunning commands or collecting artifacts are not user decisions by themselves; they should become normal follow-up plans that record the required evidence. Plan creation after `USER_REVIEW.md` requires an explicit user decision. If the user decision closes the task as complete/PASS, code-review resolves `USER_REVIEW.md`, writes `complete.log`, and archives the task instead of creating a new plan. -The plan file and review stub must be self-sufficient for implementation agents that do not read this skill. If implementation discovers a user-only decision, external environment prerequisite, or scope conflict that blocks safe progress, the implementing agent records a `사용자 리뷰 요청` in the active `CODE_REVIEW-*-G??.md`, leaves active files in place, and reports ready for review. The code-review skill validates that request and writes `USER_REVIEW.md` when the stop is justified. Use `agent-ops/skills/common/_templates/implementation-user-review-request-section.md` as the shared section template. +The plan file and review stub must be self-sufficient for implementation agents that do not read this skill. If implementation discovers a user-only decision, user-owned external environment prerequisite, or scope conflict that blocks safe progress, the implementing agent records a `사용자 리뷰 요청` in the active `CODE_REVIEW-*-G??.md`, leaves active files in place, and reports ready for review. The code-review skill validates that request and writes `USER_REVIEW.md` when the stop is justified. Use `agent-ops/skills/common/_templates/implementation-user-review-request-section.md` as the shared section template. ## Workflow Contract @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ Filename rules: Role boundary rules: - Implementing agents fill implementation-owned `CODE_REVIEW-*-G??.md` sections, keep active files in place, and report ready for review. -- If implementation cannot continue without user input, implementing agents fill the review stub's `사용자 리뷰 요청` section with the exact decision needed, evidence, commands/output, and resume condition, then stop with active files in place. +- If implementation cannot continue without user input, implementing agents fill the review stub's `사용자 리뷰 요청` section with the exact decision needed, evidence, commands/output, and resume condition, then stop with active files in place. Evidence gaps that a follow-up agent can close by rerunning commands or collecting artifacts should be recorded in `검증 결과` or `계획 대비 변경 사항`, not escalated to user review. - Finalization (`코드리뷰 결과`, log rename, `complete.log`, archive moves, review-only checklist) is code-review-skill only. Split decision policy: @@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ Routing rules: - Use `cloud` for weak tests, broad API/call-site impact, ambiguity, storage/concurrency/protocol/auth risk, or prior local failure. - Use `cloud-G07` or higher for terminal-agent work: shell/CLI workflow implementation, bin script orchestration, process control, stdout/stderr parsing, exit-status contracts, long-running command diagnosis, or terminal benchmark-style tasks. Merely running deterministic tests such as `go test` does not make a task terminal-agent work. - Use `cloud-G07` or higher when acceptance depends on a real interactive external tool, TUI, PTY, browser, screen repaint/cursor stream, or bin-level smoke output. This is mandatory when unit tests pass but the real smoke/integration command fails. -- Use `cloud-G07` or higher when a prior review found verification trust failure, reconstructed command output, or claimed stdout/stderr that does not match a rerun. +- Use `cloud-G07` or higher when a prior review found missing, untrusted, reconstructed, or rerun-mismatched verification evidence. - Keep high-risk design judgment on `cloud` with a higher grade; the runtime may map `cloud-GNN` to frontier-class models. - Review may be `local` for narrow/low-risk checks and `cloud` for multi-file/API/test-meaning reviews, security/auth, storage/migration, concurrency, protocol/schema, cross-domain, or repeated Required issues. - Raise `GNN` with scope, ambiguity, missing tests, irreversible behavior, and blast radius; keep grade model-independent. @@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ Directory states: |-------|---------| | `PLAN-*-G??.md` only | Invalid; plan skill always writes both active files | | `PLAN-*-G??.md` + `CODE_REVIEW-*-G??.md` stub | Implementation is pending/in progress | -| `PLAN-*-G??.md` + `CODE_REVIEW-*-G??.md` with filled `사용자 리뷰 요청` | Implementation is blocked on user input; ready for code-review to validate and create `USER_REVIEW.md` if justified | +| `PLAN-*-G??.md` + `CODE_REVIEW-*-G??.md` with filled `사용자 리뷰 요청` | Implementation claims a user-only blocker; ready for code-review to validate and create `USER_REVIEW.md` only if justified | | `PLAN-*-G??.md` + filled `CODE_REVIEW-*-G??.md` | Ready for code-review skill | | `complete.log` + `*.log` files | Task complete (PASS or user-review-resolved PASS), before final task-directory archive move | | `USER_REVIEW.md` + `*.log` files | Automatic loop stopped; user decision is required before creating another plan | @@ -210,7 +210,7 @@ Header line must be exactly: Required sections: - Title. -- `이 파일을 읽는 구현 에이전트에게`: warn that filling implementation-owned `CODE_REVIEW-*-G??.md` sections is mandatory. Tell the implementer to run verification, fill actual notes/output, keep active files in place, and report ready for review; finalization is code-review-skill only. Also state that if implementation is blocked by a user-only decision, external environment prerequisite, or scope conflict, the implementer must fill the review stub's `사용자 리뷰 요청` section with exact evidence and stop for code-review; the implementer does not create `USER_REVIEW.md`, archive logs, or write `complete.log`. +- `이 파일을 읽는 구현 에이전트에게`: warn that filling implementation-owned `CODE_REVIEW-*-G??.md` sections is mandatory. Tell the implementer to run verification, fill actual notes/output, keep active files in place, and report ready for review; finalization is code-review-skill only. Also state that if implementation is blocked by a user-only decision, user-owned external environment prerequisite, or scope conflict, the implementer must fill the review stub's `사용자 리뷰 요청` section with exact evidence and stop for code-review; the implementer does not create `USER_REVIEW.md`, archive logs, or write `complete.log`. State that evidence gaps a follow-up agent can close by rerunning commands or collecting artifacts are not user-review requests by themselves. - `배경`: 2-4 sentences explaining why the work is needed. - `사용자 리뷰 요청 흐름`: state that implementation-time blockers are recorded in the active review stub's `사용자 리뷰 요청` section, copied from `agent-ops/skills/common/_templates/implementation-user-review-request-section.md`; code-review owns validation and the actual `USER_REVIEW.md` file write. - `분석 결과`: record the findings from Step 2 and Step 3. This section is the written output of the analysis — not a summary, but the actual findings that justify the plan's scope and decisions. Must include all of the following subsections: @@ -282,7 +282,7 @@ Copy `agent-ops/skills/common/_templates/implementation-user-review-request-sect > The task is NOT complete until every implementation-owned section below is filled in. > Complete the `구현 체크리스트`; the final checklist item is mandatory before saving. > Fill implementation-owned sections, then stop with active files in place and report ready for review. -> If implementation is blocked by a user-only decision, external environment prerequisite, or scope conflict, fill `사용자 리뷰 요청` with evidence and stop with active files in place; code-review decides whether to write `USER_REVIEW.md`. +> If implementation is blocked by a user-only decision, user-owned external environment prerequisite, or scope conflict, fill `사용자 리뷰 요청` with evidence and stop with active files in place; code-review decides whether to write `USER_REVIEW.md`. Evidence gaps that a follow-up agent can close by rerunning commands or collecting artifacts are normal follow-up issues, not user-review blockers by themselves. > Finalization (`코드리뷰 결과`, log rename, `complete.log`, archive moves, `코드리뷰 전용 체크리스트`) is review-agent-only, even after compaction/resume. > Follow the ownership table at the bottom of this file for which sections you own. @@ -344,13 +344,14 @@ _구현 에이전트가 주요 설계 결정 사항을 기록한다._ ## 사용자 리뷰 요청 -_기본값은 `없음`이다. 구현 중 사용자 결정, 외부 환경 준비, 또는 계획 범위 변경 없이는 안전하게 진행할 수 없으면 아래 항목을 실제 내용으로 교체하고, 구현을 중단한 뒤 active 파일을 그대로 둔 채 리뷰를 요청한다. code-review가 이 내용을 검증해 `USER_REVIEW.md`를 작성한다._ +_기본값은 `없음`이다. 구현 중 사용자 결정, 사용자 소유 외부 환경/secret/서비스 준비, 또는 계획 범위 변경 없이는 안전하게 진행할 수 없으면 아래 항목을 실제 내용으로 교체하고, 구현을 중단한 뒤 active 파일을 그대로 둔 채 리뷰를 요청한다. 후속 에이전트가 명령 재실행이나 산출물 수집으로 해소할 수 있는 검증 증거 공백만으로는 사용자 리뷰 요청을 작성하지 않는다._ - 상태: 없음 - 사유 유형: 없음 - 결정 필요: 없음 - 차단 근거: 없음 - 실행한 검증/명령: 없음 +- 자동 후속 불가 이유: 없음 - 재개 조건: 없음 ## 리뷰어를 위한 체크포인트 @@ -395,7 +396,7 @@ Sections and their ownership: | 구현 체크리스트 (item text/order) | Fixed at stub creation from plan | Implementing agent checks `[ ]` → `[x]` only; final checkbox is mandatory before saving | | 코드리뷰 전용 체크리스트 | Review agent only | Implementing agent must not modify or check this section | | 계획 대비 변경 사항, 주요 설계 결정 | Implementing agent | Replace placeholder text with actual content | -| 사용자 리뷰 요청 | Implementing agent | Keep `상태: 없음` unless user input is required to proceed; when filled, include exact decision, evidence, commands/output, and resume condition | +| 사용자 리뷰 요청 | Implementing agent | Keep `상태: 없음` unless user input is required to proceed; when filled, include exact decision, evidence, commands/output, why automatic follow-up cannot resolve it, and resume condition | | 리뷰어를 위한 체크포인트 | Fixed at stub creation | Pre-filled from plan | | 검증 결과 (section headings + commands) | Fixed at stub creation | Implementing agent fills in command output only; command changes require a `계획 대비 변경 사항` entry | | 코드리뷰 결과 | Review agent appends | Not included in stub |