toki/nomadcode
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

sync: agent-ops from agentic-framework v1.1.129

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
toki 2026-06-05 10:39:09 +09:00
parent bb43efc8a6
commit 6de9f3e3e3
4 changed files with 19 additions and 14 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

2
agent-ops/.version
View file

@ -1 +1 @@
1.1.126 1.1.129

2
agent-ops/skills/common/_templates/implementation-user-review-request-section.md
View file

@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
## 사용자 리뷰 요청 ## 사용자 리뷰 요청
_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._ _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. 구현 에이전트는 사용자에게 직접 질문하거나 선택지를 제시하거나 `request_user_input`을 호출하지 않는다. 후속 에이전트가 명령 재실행이나 산출물 수집으로 해소할 수 있는 검증 증거 공백만으로는 사용자 리뷰 요청을 작성하지 않는다._
- 상태: 없음 - 상태: 없음
- 사유 유형: 없음 - 사유 유형: 없음

15
agent-ops/skills/common/code-review/SKILL.md
View file

@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ plan skill -> implementation -> code-review skill
+----- issues found: new routed plan/review files +----- issues found: new routed plan/review files
``` ```
Implementation may stop early by filling the active review stub's `사용자 리뷰 요청` section from `agent-ops/skills/common/_templates/implementation-user-review-request-section.md`. Code-review validates that request and, when justified, writes `USER_REVIEW.md` from `agent-ops/skills/common/code-review/templates/user-review-template.md`. Implementation may stop early by filling the active review stub's `사용자 리뷰 요청` section from `agent-ops/skills/common/_templates/implementation-user-review-request-section.md`. This is the only implementation-time user-decision path: implementation must not ask the user directly, present choices in chat, or call a user-input tool such as `request_user_input`. Code-review validates that request and, when justified, writes `USER_REVIEW.md` from `agent-ops/skills/common/code-review/templates/user-review-template.md`.
## Core Loop Rules ## Core Loop Rules
@ -23,7 +23,8 @@ Implementation may stop early by filling the active review stub's `사용자 리
- 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. - 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-<milestone-slug>`, 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`. - Next state: `PASS` writes `complete.log` and moves the task under `agent-task/archive/YYYY/MM/`; if the task group is `m-<milestone-slug>`, 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, 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. - 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. - Do not replace `USER_REVIEW.md` with an inline user question. When the user-review gate triggers, write the file-based stop state and report its path.
- Do not ask for confirmation before WARN/FAIL follow-up files. If the user-review gate triggers, write `USER_REVIEW.md`; otherwise, if details are uncertain, 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. - 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 Gate
@ -34,6 +35,7 @@ Implementation may stop early by filling the active review stub's `사용자 리
- If `review-number >= 5` and the verdict is `WARN` or `FAIL`, stop the automatic loop and write `USER_REVIEW.md`. - 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 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 `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`. - 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`.
- If the active review file records a decision the implementer would otherwise ask as chat choices, treat it as an `implementation-blocked` user-review candidate when it has the required evidence and resume condition; do not ask that choice inline during review.
- 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 <tool>` or the project-equivalent check. Missing or non-verbatim verification evidence is a verification-trust failure, not a test environment problem. - 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 <tool>` 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. - 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. - 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.
@ -248,7 +250,7 @@ If the user-review gate does not trigger, write new routed plan/review files usi
- `WARN`: one grouped plan item for Suggested issues, plus related Nit issues if useful. - `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. - Each plan item needs problem, solution with before/after when non-trivial, checklist, test decision, intermediate verification.
- The follow-up plan and review stub must contain matching `구현 체크리스트` item text/order, including the final mandatory `CODE_REVIEW-*-G??.md` completion item. - The follow-up plan and review stub must contain matching `구현 체크리스트` item text/order, including the final mandatory `CODE_REVIEW-*-G??.md` completion item.
- The follow-up plan's implementer instructions and review stub must include the implementation-time `사용자 리뷰 요청` stop path so the next implementer can act without reading the plan skill. - The follow-up plan's implementer instructions and review stub must forbid direct user prompts and include the implementation-time `사용자 리뷰 요청` stop path so the next implementer can act without reading the plan skill.
- Copy `agent-ops/skills/common/_templates/implementation-user-review-request-section.md` into the follow-up review stub's `사용자 리뷰 요청` section. - Copy `agent-ops/skills/common/_templates/implementation-user-review-request-section.md` into the follow-up review stub's `사용자 리뷰 요청` section.
- If the archived plan had `Roadmap Targets` and the follow-up still works toward the same Milestone Task completion, copy that section into the follow-up plan and review stub. If the follow-up intentionally no longer claims roadmap Task completion, omit the section and explain why in the follow-up plan `범위 결정 근거`. - If the archived plan had `Roadmap Targets` and the follow-up still works toward the same Milestone Task completion, copy that section into the follow-up plan and review stub. If the follow-up intentionally no longer claims roadmap Task completion, omit the section and explain why in the follow-up plan `범위 결정 근거`.
@ -264,6 +266,7 @@ Routed review stub template (fill `{…}` placeholders; everything else is fixed
> Complete the `구현 체크리스트`; the final checklist item is mandatory before saving. > 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. > 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, 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. > 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.
> Do not ask the user directly, present choices in chat, or call `request_user_input` during implementation; record the needed decision in `사용자 리뷰 요청` and stop for code-review.
> Finalization (`코드리뷰 결과`, log rename, `complete.log`, archive moves, `코드리뷰 전용 체크리스트`) is review-agent-only, even after compaction/resume. > 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. > Follow the ownership table at the bottom of this file for which sections you own.
@ -328,7 +331,7 @@ _구현 에이전트가 주요 설계 결정 사항을 기록한다._
## 사용자 리뷰 요청 ## 사용자 리뷰 요청
_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._ _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. 구현 에이전트는 사용자에게 직접 질문하거나 선택지를 제시하거나 `request_user_input`을 호출하지 않는다. 후속 에이전트가 명령 재실행이나 산출물 수집으로 해소할 수 있는 검증 증거 공백만으로는 사용자 리뷰 요청을 작성하지 않는다._
- 상태: 없음 - 상태: 없음
- 사유 유형: 없음 - 사유 유형: 없음
@ -382,7 +385,7 @@ 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 | | 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 | | 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 | | 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, 자동 후속 불가 이유, 재개 조건을 기록 | | 사용자 리뷰 요청 | 구현 에이전트가 채움 | 진행에 사용자 입력이 필요하지 않으면 `상태: 없음` 유지; 구현 중 직접 질문은 금지; 필요하면 결정 항목, 근거, 명령 출력, 자동 후속 불가 이유, 재개 조건을 기록 |
| 리뷰어를 위한 체크포인트 | 스텁 생성 시 고정 | 계획에서 추출한 리뷰 포인트 | | 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 | | 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 | | 코드리뷰 결과 | 리뷰 에이전트가 append | 스텁에 포함하지 않음 |
@ -443,7 +446,7 @@ Report Required/Suggested counts, archive names, the final task archive path for
- PASS without `Roadmap Targets`: `complete.log` omits `Roadmap Completion` and reported metadata says `roadmap-completion=none`. - PASS without `Roadmap Targets`: `complete.log` omits `Roadmap Completion` and reported metadata says `roadmap-completion=none`.
- PASS split: empty active parent `agent-task/{task_group}/` removed after the subtask move; non-empty parent left in place. - PASS split: empty active parent `agent-task/{task_group}/` removed after the subtask move; non-empty parent left in place.
- WARN/FAIL without user-review gate: new active `PLAN-{build_lane}-GNN.md` and `CODE_REVIEW-{review_lane}-GNN.md` created with matching headers and matching `구현 체크리스트`; no `complete.log`. - WARN/FAIL without user-review gate: new active `PLAN-{build_lane}-GNN.md` and `CODE_REVIEW-{review_lane}-GNN.md` created with matching headers and matching `구현 체크리스트`; no `complete.log`.
- Follow-up review stubs include the `사용자 리뷰 요청` section from `agent-ops/skills/common/_templates/implementation-user-review-request-section.md`. - Follow-up review stubs include the `사용자 리뷰 요청` section from `agent-ops/skills/common/_templates/implementation-user-review-request-section.md` and forbid direct user prompts during implementation.
- USER_REVIEW: `USER_REVIEW.md` exists from template, no active `PLAN-*.md` or `CODE_REVIEW-*.md` remains, and no `complete.log` was written. - USER_REVIEW: `USER_REVIEW.md` exists from template, no active `PLAN-*.md` or `CODE_REVIEW-*.md` remains, and no `complete.log` was written.
- Implementation-requested USER_REVIEW: archived review log preserves the filled `사용자 리뷰 요청` evidence and the generated `USER_REVIEW.md` records the exact user decision needed. - Implementation-requested USER_REVIEW: archived review log preserves the filled `사용자 리뷰 요청` evidence and the generated `USER_REVIEW.md` records the exact user decision needed.
- USER_REVIEW resolved as PASS: archived task contains both resolved `USER_REVIEW.md` and `complete.log`. - USER_REVIEW resolved as PASS: archived task contains both resolved `USER_REVIEW.md` and `complete.log`.

14
agent-ops/skills/common/plan/SKILL.md
View file

@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ runtime -> for m-prefixed PASS completion events, state check and optional updat
`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. `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, 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. 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. This stop path is file-based only during implementation: the implementing agent must not interrupt the loop by asking the user directly, presenting choices in chat, or calling a user-input tool such as `request_user_input`. 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 ## Workflow Contract
@ -45,6 +45,7 @@ Role boundary rules:
- Implementing agents fill implementation-owned `CODE_REVIEW-*-G??.md` sections, keep active files in place, and report ready for review. - 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. 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. - 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.
- During implementation, do not ask the user directly, present multiple-choice prompts in chat, or call `request_user_input`/equivalent input tools. User choices belong in the review stub's `사용자 리뷰 요청` section so code-review can create `USER_REVIEW.md` and preserve the loop state.
- If required UI evidence capture needs a user-owned device, emulator, permission, secret, or interactive access unavailable to the agent, fill `사용자 리뷰 요청` with attempted commands, blocker evidence, and resume condition. - If required UI evidence capture needs a user-owned device, emulator, permission, secret, or interactive access unavailable to the agent, fill `사용자 리뷰 요청` with attempted commands, blocker evidence, and resume condition.
- Finalization (`코드리뷰 결과`, log rename, `complete.log`, archive moves, review-only checklist) is code-review-skill only. - Finalization (`코드리뷰 결과`, log rename, `complete.log`, archive moves, review-only checklist) is code-review-skill only.
@ -225,9 +226,9 @@ Header line must be exactly:
Required sections: Required sections:
- Title. - 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, 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. - `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 must not ask the user directly, present chat choices, call `request_user_input`, 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. - `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. - `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`; direct user prompts during implementation are forbidden, and code-review owns validation plus the actual `USER_REVIEW.md` file write.
- `Roadmap Targets`: include this section only when the plan is intended to complete one or more existing Milestone 기능 Task ids. Omit the section entirely for non-roadmap work or Milestone-adjacent work that should not check a Task on PASS. Format exactly: - `Roadmap Targets`: include this section only when the plan is intended to complete one or more existing Milestone 기능 Task ids. Omit the section entirely for non-roadmap work or Milestone-adjacent work that should not check a Task on PASS. Format exactly:
```markdown ```markdown
@ -310,6 +311,7 @@ Copy `agent-ops/skills/common/_templates/implementation-user-review-request-sect
> Complete the `구현 체크리스트`; the final checklist item is mandatory before saving. > 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. > 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, 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. > 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.
> Do not ask the user directly, present choices in chat, or call `request_user_input` during implementation; record the needed decision in `사용자 리뷰 요청` and stop for code-review.
> Finalization (`코드리뷰 결과`, log rename, `complete.log`, archive moves, `코드리뷰 전용 체크리스트`) is review-agent-only, even after compaction/resume. > 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. > Follow the ownership table at the bottom of this file for which sections you own.
@ -374,7 +376,7 @@ _구현 에이전트가 주요 설계 결정 사항을 기록한다._
## 사용자 리뷰 요청 ## 사용자 리뷰 요청
_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._ _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. 구현 에이전트는 사용자에게 직접 질문하거나 선택지를 제시하거나 `request_user_input`을 호출하지 않는다. 후속 에이전트가 명령 재실행이나 산출물 수집으로 해소할 수 있는 검증 증거 공백만으로는 사용자 리뷰 요청을 작성하지 않는다._
- 상태: 없음 - 상태: 없음
- 사유 유형: 없음 - 사유 유형: 없음
@ -428,7 +430,7 @@ 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 | | 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 | | 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 | | 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, why automatic follow-up cannot resolve it, and resume condition | | 사용자 리뷰 요청 | Implementing agent | Keep `상태: 없음` unless user input is required to proceed; do not ask the user directly during implementation; 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 | | 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 | | 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 | | 코드리뷰 결과 | Review agent appends | Not included in stub |
@ -458,7 +460,7 @@ Sections and their ownership:
- Dependent split plans record predecessor completion using active sibling `complete.log` or matching archived `complete.log`; ambiguous archive matches are not guessed. - Dependent split plans record predecessor completion using active sibling `complete.log` or matching archived `complete.log`; ambiguous archive matches are not guessed.
- Every plan item has problem, solution, checklist, test decision, and intermediate verification. - Every plan item has problem, solution, checklist, test decision, and intermediate verification.
- The plan and review stub have matching `구현 체크리스트` item text/order, and the final checkbox is the mandatory `CODE_REVIEW-*-G??.md` completion item. - The plan and review stub have matching `구현 체크리스트` item text/order, and the final checkbox is the mandatory `CODE_REVIEW-*-G??.md` completion item.
- The plan's implementer instructions and review stub both explain the implementation-time `사용자 리뷰 요청` stop path. - The plan's implementer instructions and review stub both forbid direct user prompts during implementation and explain the implementation-time `사용자 리뷰 요청` stop path.
- The review stub includes the `사용자 리뷰 요청` section from `agent-ops/skills/common/_templates/implementation-user-review-request-section.md`. - The review stub includes the `사용자 리뷰 요청` section from `agent-ops/skills/common/_templates/implementation-user-review-request-section.md`.
- The review stub has a clearly marked `코드리뷰 전용 체크리스트` owned only by the review agent. - The review stub has a clearly marked `코드리뷰 전용 체크리스트` owned only by the review agent.
- Routed review file completion table lists every plan item. - Routed review file completion table lists every plan item.