feat(review-kit-pi-method): v0.1.0 — pi-native clean-context review subagent spawn (verified live on pi 0.84.1: -nc -ns -nt = unprompted)

2026-08-12 18:25:05 +03:00
parent 5b67c1d0e6
commit 11c083918c
5 changed files with 144 additions and 0 deletions
--- a/.tasks/STATUS.md
+++ b/.tasks/STATUS.md
@@ -508,4 +508,13 @@ needs-claude

 ---
 <!-- closed-by: vitya@DESKTOP-NSEF0UK / 2026-08-12 / VERDICT PASS 6/6; report .workshop/.brainstorm/brainstorming-skill-review.md -->
+## ⚪ [diagnosing-bugs-writing-skills-review] — Review новых скилов `diagnosing-bugs` + `writing-skills` (v0.1.0 оба, не-имплементер сессия). Scope: HARD-GATE не ослаблен (diagnosing: no fixes w/o root cause; writing: no skill w/o failing test); анти-дубль гард (anti-sproul 45+); триггер-дискриминация clean pi -p (коллизии: «зафиксируй» в writing-skills вс гриллинг docs-mode, «почему падает» вс using-vds-ops инциденты); lint/dist/install/pin/README.

+**Status:** ready
+**Where I stopped:** (not started)
+**Next action:** clean-context pi -p субагенты (пос и нег для обоих скилов) + статика; отчёт в .workshop/.brainstorm/diagnosing-bugs-writing-skills-review.md; pull перед push.
+**Branch:** n/a
+**Notify:** OpeItcLoc03/workshop
+<!-- created-by: vitya@DESKTOP-NSEF0UK / from: reviewer session (workshop offered, I took it) / 2026-08-12 -->
+
+---
--- a/README.md
+++ b/README.md
@@ -117,6 +117,7 @@ an explicit `adapted-from` marker in its frontmatter.
 | `brainstorming` | `adapted-from: obra/superpowers @ 6.2.0` (MIT) — divergent phase, visual-companion dropped |
 | `diagnosing-bugs` | `adapted-from: mattpocock/skills @ 84fdeffd` (MIT) + superpowers 6.2.0 concepts (Iron Law, red flags) |
 | `loop-me` | `adapted-from: mattpocock/skills @ 84fdeffd` (MIT) — workflow-spec design gate |
+| `review-kit-pi-method` | `author: ours` — pi-native spawn for clean-context review subagents |
 | `writing-skills` | `adapted-from: obra/superpowers @ 6.2.0` (MIT) — TDD-for-skills core + ideya 8 self-skill-authoring |
 | all other `skills/*` | `author: ours` |

--- a/README.ru.md
+++ b/README.ru.md
@@ -87,6 +87,7 @@ bash scripts/build.sh caveman          # один
 | `brainstorming` | `adapted-from: obra/superpowers @ 6.2.0` (MIT) — расходящаяся фаза, visual-companion выброшен |
 | `diagnosing-bugs` | `adapted-from: mattpocock/skills @ 84fdeffd` (MIT) + superpowers 6.2.0 (Iron Law, red flags) |
 | `loop-me` | `adapted-from: mattpocock/skills @ 84fdeffd` (MIT) — дизайн-гейт workflow-спец |
+| `review-kit-pi-method` | `author: ours` — pi-спавн чистых review-субагентов |
 | `writing-skills` | `adapted-from: obra/superpowers @ 6.2.0` (MIT) — TDD-for-skills ядро + идея 8 self-skill-authoring |
 | остальные `skills/*` | `author: ours` |

--- a/dist/review-kit-pi-method.skill
+++ b/dist/review-kit-pi-method.skill
--- a/skills/review-kit-pi-method/SKILL.md
+++ b/skills/review-kit-pi-method/SKILL.md
@@ -0,0 +1,133 @@
+---
+name: review-kit-pi-method
+author: ours
+version: 0.1.0
+description: >
+  Spawn clean-context non-implementer subagents for review, trigger-testing,
+  and spec validation under pi — the pi-native port of the review-kit method.
+  Use when reviewing a skill/code/spec by a non-implementer agent, testing
+  trigger discrimination of skills (clean pi -p subagents), or validating a
+  workflow spec against loop-me's "implementer asks no questions" criterion.
+  Triggers: «отдай на ревью», «прогони субагентами», "review with subagents",
+  «чистый контекст», «непрайменный», trigger-дискриминация.
+---
+
+# Review-kit under pi
+
+The review-kit method (clean-context non-implementer subagents) was
+claude-centric: spawn subprocesses, keep them unprompted. Under pi the same
+method is a `pi -p` invocation with the right flags. This skill pins the exact
+command and the anti-priming checklist.
+
+## The spawn command
+
+A fully unprompted (clean) subagent:
+
+```bash
+pi -p -nc -ns -nt --no-session "<question>"
+```
+
+| Flag | Effect |
+|---|---|
+| `-p` | headless, one-shot |
+| `-nc` (`--no-context-files`) | no AGENTS.md / CLAUDE.md loading — the subagent does NOT inherit project rules |
+| `-ns` (`--no-skills`) | no skill discovery — it does not know our catalog exists |
+| `-nt` (`--no-tools`) | no tools — it cannot read files to self-prompt; answers from model knowledge + the prompt only |
+| `--no-session` | ephemeral, nothing persisted |
+
+Verified live (pi v0.84.1): with `-nc -ns -nt` the subagent reports "no
+project-specific instructions" and cannot recite CLAUDE.md rules; without the
+flags it can quote them verbatim. The difference is the anti-priming
+guarantee: **the review verdict is not contaminated by the reviewer knowing
+what the implementer intended.**
+
+## Anti-priming checklist (per subagent run)
+
+Before trusting a verdict, confirm the spawn was clean:
+
+- [ ] `-nc` present — subagent has no context files
+- [ ] `-ns` present — subagent has no skills
+- [ ] `-nt` present — subagent cannot read files (no self-prompting)
+- [ ] `--no-session` — no session bleed
+- [ ] The question does NOT name the expected answer, the skill name being
+      tested, or the files to read (naming them re-primes: e.g. "what does
+      CLAUDE.md say about X" makes the subagent read it via tools — only
+      `-nt` blocks that, keep it)
+
+## Prompting rules
+
+- **Ask the behavior, not the label.** For trigger tests: "You are given this
+  user request: «...». Which of your skills would you use, and why?" — never
+  "does this route to skill X?" (that's leading).
+- **One question per run.** A run answers one question; batch by launching
+  parallel runs, not by cramming.
+- **Negative controls matter.** For trigger discrimination, always run phrases
+  that should NOT match (e.g. «прогриль» must not hit brainstorming). A skill
+  with 0 false positives on 3-4 negatives is trustworthy.
+- **Read every flagged match manually.** Template echoes and quoted
+  counter-examples masquerade as hits; automated counting alone overstates
+  both failure and success.
+
+## When to use which spawn
+
+| Need | Spawn |
+|---|---|
+| Trigger discrimination (skill activation) | clean `-nc -ns -nt` |
+| Skill/code review by non-implementer | clean `-nc -ns -nt`, plus the review scope in the prompt (what to check, NOT the expected verdict) |
+| Spec validation (loop-me criterion) | clean `-nc -ns -nt`, prompt = "given this spec, what would you need to ask before building it?" — any question ⇒ spec not done |
+| Context-aware review (reviewer needs project conventions) | WITHOUT `-nc` (let it read CLAUDE.md), but still `-ns -nt --no-session`, and prompt from a neutral third-person role ("a senior engineer reviewing this change") |
+
+## Pitfalls
+
+- **Asking "does X trigger skill Y?" primes the answer.** The subagent
+  cooperates and says yes. Ask what it would do, infer the routing.
+- **Naming files in the question lets a tool-enabled subagent read them** —
+  which is fine when you WANT context, but kills the clean spawn. `-nt` is
+  the guard.
+- **Session bleed:** without `--no-session` a prior run's context can leak.
+  Always ephemeral.
+- **Confirmation bias in the orchestrator:** if the subagent's verdict
+  contradicts your expectation, report it, don't re-run until it agrees.
+  Re-running with a re-worded prompt until you like the answer is priming by
+  another name.
+- **Version drift:** pin the pi version in the review report (`pi --version`)
+  — flag behavior can change between releases.
+
+## Output convention
+
+For each subagent run record in the review report:
+
+```
+- [id] spawn: pi -p -nc -ns -nt --no-session "…"
+- [id] prompt: <verbatim>
+- [id] verdict: <verbatim output>
+- [id] reading: <your manual interpretation, one line>
+```
+
+The report then aggregates: pos/neg counts, false positives with quotes,
+conclusion.
+
+## Relationship to other skills
+
+- `caveman-review` — output FORMAT (one-line L:line comments), this skill is
+  the spawn MECHANISM. Use together: spawn clean subagents, format findings
+  caveman-style.
+- `loop-me` — its independent check ("implementer asks no questions") IS a
+  review-kit spawn with the spec as input. This skill provides the command.
+- `diagnosing-bugs` — its sub-agent line ("dispatch a clean-context sub-agent
+  where your harness supports it") uses this spawn.
+
+## Cross-agent applicability
+
+Command is pi-specific by design (this is the pi port). The METHOD — clean
+non-implementer subagents, anti-priming checklist, negative controls — is
+agent-agnostic and transfers to any runtime that can spawn a fresh-context
+subprocess (claude `-p`, codex exec, hermes headless).
+
+## Out of scope
+
+- Does NOT define the review criteria themselves (skill-specific acceptance —
+  see the review task / skill under test).
+- Does NOT do the review — it spawns and governs the reviewers.
+- Does NOT cover claude-side spawn (that's the legacy method; the pi command
+  here supersedes it).