Lane: work · Category: improvement
Triggering example
claude[bot] PR review on #564 (fix for #459 — triage's autonomous-mode direction gate) surfaced two minor documentation nits, both explicitly assessed as non-blocking ("Good to merge"), deferred here rather than fixed inline to keep #459's PR minimal.
Observed vs expected
- "standing rules" is undefined in
work-items's own vocabulary. plugins/work-items/skills/triage/SKILL.md's new autonomous-mode branch uses the term "standing rules" (explained inline via a parenthetical), but the term already exists elsewhere in the codebase — in the re-anchor plugin — with a different sense (project-configured rules there, vs. per-invocation directive here). Expected: either a cross-reference disambiguating the two senses, or renaming this plugin's usage to avoid the collision.
- The autonomous branch has an implicit double condition with no guidance for the ambiguous middle case. The gate triggers when (a) running via
/loop//schedule AND (b) the invocation directive "already authorizes triage mutations" — but the skill gives no guidance on what counts as sufficient authorization when the standing directive is general (e.g., "handle all routine work") rather than triage-specific. Expected: either explicit guidance on what qualifies as authorization, or an accepted note that this is left to model judgment by design.
Notes
Both nits are cosmetic/documentation-scoped per this review; no correctness, security, or architectural concern. Full bot review: #564 (comment) (see PR #564 for the complete assessment).
Lane: work · Category: improvement
Triggering example
claude[bot] PR review on #564 (fix for #459 — triage's autonomous-mode direction gate) surfaced two minor documentation nits, both explicitly assessed as non-blocking ("Good to merge"), deferred here rather than fixed inline to keep #459's PR minimal.
Observed vs expected
work-items's own vocabulary.plugins/work-items/skills/triage/SKILL.md's new autonomous-mode branch uses the term "standing rules" (explained inline via a parenthetical), but the term already exists elsewhere in the codebase — in there-anchorplugin — with a different sense (project-configured rules there, vs. per-invocation directive here). Expected: either a cross-reference disambiguating the two senses, or renaming this plugin's usage to avoid the collision./loop//scheduleAND (b) the invocation directive "already authorizes triage mutations" — but the skill gives no guidance on what counts as sufficient authorization when the standing directive is general (e.g., "handle all routine work") rather than triage-specific. Expected: either explicit guidance on what qualifies as authorization, or an accepted note that this is left to model judgment by design.Notes
Both nits are cosmetic/documentation-scoped per this review; no correctness, security, or architectural concern. Full bot review: #564 (comment) (see PR #564 for the complete assessment).