document-review（文件审查）

Document Review

Review requirements or plan documents through multi-persona analysis. Dispatches specialized reviewer agents in parallel, auto-fixes quality issues, and presents strategic questions for user decision.

Phase 1: Get and Analyze Document

If a document path is provided: Read it, then proceed.

If no document is specified: Ask which document to review, or find the most recent in docs/brainstorms/ or docs/plans/ using a file-search/glob tool (e.g., Glob in Claude Code).

Classify Document Type

After reading, classify the document:

• requirements -- from docs/brainstorms/, focuses on what to build and why
• plan -- from docs/plans/, focuses on how to build it with implementation details

Select Conditional Personas

Analyze the document content to determine which conditional personas to activate. Check for these signals:

product-lens -- activate when the document contains:

• User-facing features, user stories, or customer-focused language
• Market claims, competitive positioning, or business justification
• Scope decisions, prioritization language, or priority tiers with feature assignments
• Requirements with user/customer/business outcome focus

design-lens -- activate when the document contains:

• UI/UX references, frontend components, or visual design language
• User flows, wireframes, screen/page/view mentions
• Interaction descriptions (forms, buttons, navigation, modals)
• References to responsive behavior or accessibility

security-lens -- activate when the document contains:

• Auth/authorization mentions, login flows, session management
• API endpoints exposed to external clients
• Data handling, PII, payments, tokens, credentials, encryption
• Third-party integrations with trust boundary implications

scope-guardian -- activate when the document contains:

• Multiple priority tiers (P0/P1/P2, must-have/should-have/nice-to-have)
• Large requirement count (>8 distinct requirements or implementation units)
• Stretch goals, nice-to-haves, or "future work" sections
• Scope boundary language that seems misaligned with stated goals
• Goals that don't clearly connect to requirements

adversarial -- activate when the document contains:

• More than 5 distinct requirements or implementation units
• Explicit architectural or scope decisions with stated rationale
• High-stakes domains (auth, payments, data migrations, external integrations)
• Proposals of new abstractions, frameworks, or significant architectural patterns

Phase 2: Announce and Dispatch Personas

Announce the Review Team

Tell the user which personas will review and why. For conditional personas, include the justification:

Reviewing with:
- coherence-reviewer (always-on)
- feasibility-reviewer (always-on)
- scope-guardian-reviewer -- plan has 12 requirements across 3 priority levels
- security-lens-reviewer -- plan adds API endpoints with auth flow

Build Agent List

Always include:

• compound-engineering:document-review:coherence-reviewer
• compound-engineering:document-review:feasibility-reviewer

Add activated conditional personas:

• compound-engineering:document-review:product-lens-reviewer
• compound-engineering:document-review:design-lens-reviewer
• compound-engineering:document-review:security-lens-reviewer
• compound-engineering:document-review:scope-guardian-reviewer
• compound-engineering:document-review:adversarial-document-reviewer

Dispatch

Dispatch all agents in parallel using the platform's task/agent tool (e.g., Agent tool in Claude Code, spawn in Codex). Each agent receives the prompt built from the subagent template included below with these variables filled:

Pass each agent the full document -- do not split into sections.

Error handling: If an agent fails or times out, proceed with findings from agents that completed. Note the failed agent in the Coverage section. Do not block the entire review on a single agent failure.

Dispatch limit: Even at maximum (7 agents), use parallel dispatch. These are document reviewers with bounded scope reading a single document -- parallel is safe and fast.

Phase 3: Synthesize Findings

Process findings from all agents through this pipeline. Order matters -- each step depends on the previous.

3.1 Validate

Check each agent's returned JSON against the findings schema included below:

• Drop findings missing any required field defined in the schema
• Drop findings with invalid enum values
• Note the agent name for any malformed output in the Coverage section

3.2 Confidence Gate

Suppress findings below 0.50 confidence. Store them as residual concerns for potential promotion in step 3.4.

3.3 Deduplicate

Fingerprint each finding using normalize(section) + normalize(title). Normalization: lowercase, strip punctuation, collapse whitespace.

When fingerprints match across personas:

• If the findings recommend opposing actions (e.g., one says cut, the other says keep), do not merge -- preserve both for contradiction resolution in 3.5
• Otherwise merge: keep the highest severity, keep the highest confidence, union all evidence arrays, note all agreeing reviewers (e.g., "coherence, feasibility")

3.4 Promote Residual Concerns

Scan the residual concerns (findings suppressed in 3.2) for:

• Cross-persona corroboration: A residual concern from Persona A overlaps with an above-threshold finding from Persona B. Promote at P2 with confidence 0.55-0.65. Inherit finding_type from the corroborating above-threshold finding.
• Concrete blocking risks: A residual concern describes a specific, concrete risk that would block implementation. Promote at P2 with confidence 0.55. Set finding_type: omission (blocking risks surfaced as residual concerns are inherently about something the document failed to address).

3.5 Resolve Contradictions

When personas disagree on the same section:

• Create a combined finding presenting both perspectives
• Set autofix_class: present
• Set finding_type: error (contradictions are by definition about conflicting things the document says, not things it omits)
• Frame as a tradeoff, not a verdict

Specific conflict patterns:

• Coherence says "keep for consistency" + scope-guardian says "cut for simplicity" -> combined finding, let user decide
• Feasibility says "this is impossible" + product-lens says "this is essential" -> P1 finding framed as a tradeoff
• Multiple personas flag the same issue -> merge into single finding, note consensus, increase confidence

3.6 Route by Autofix Class

Demote any auto finding that lacks a suggested_fix to batch_confirm. Demote any batch_confirm finding that lacks a suggested_fix to present.

Completeness corrections eligible for auto: A finding qualifies when the correct fix is deterministically derivable from other content in the document. Examples: a count says "6 units" but the document lists 7, a summary omits an item that appears in the detailed list, a cross-reference points to a renamed section. If the fix requires judgment about *what* to add (not just *that* something is missing), it belongs in batch_confirm or present.

3.7 Sort

Sort findings for presentation: P0 -> P1 -> P2 -> P3, then by finding type (errors before omissions), then by confidence (descending), then by document order (section position).

Phase 4: Apply and Present

Apply Auto-fixes

Apply all auto findings to the document in a single pass:

• Edit the document inline using the platform's edit tool
• Track what was changed for the "Auto-fixes Applied" section
• Do not ask for approval -- these are unambiguously correct

Batch Confirm

If any batch_confirm findings exist, present them as a group for a single approval:

• List the proposed fixes in a numbered table
• Use the platform's blocking question tool (AskUserQuestion in Claude Code, request_user_input in Codex, ask_user in Gemini) to ask: "Apply these N fixes? (yes/no/select)". If no blocking question tool is available, present the table with numbered options and wait for the user's reply before proceeding.
• If approved, apply all in a single pass
• If "select", let the user pick which to apply
• If rejected, demote remaining to the present findings list

This turns N obvious-but-meaning-touching fixes into 1 interaction instead of N.

Present Remaining Findings

Present present findings using the review output template included below. Within each severity level, separate findings by type:

• Errors (design tensions, contradictions, incorrect statements) first -- these need resolution
• Omissions (missing steps, absent details, forgotten entries) second -- these need additions

Brief summary at the top: "Applied N auto-fixes. Batched M fixes for approval. K findings to consider (X errors, Y omissions)."

Include the Coverage table, auto-fixes applied, residual concerns, and deferred questions.

Protected Artifacts

During synthesis, discard any finding that recommends deleting or removing files in:

• docs/brainstorms/
• docs/plans/
• docs/solutions/

These are pipeline artifacts and must not be flagged for removal.

Phase 5: Next Action

Use the platform's blocking question tool when available (AskUserQuestion in Claude Code, request_user_input in Codex, ask_user in Gemini). Otherwise present numbered options and wait for the user's reply.

Offer:

1. Refine again -- another review pass
2. Review complete -- document is ready

After 2 refinement passes, recommend completion -- diminishing returns are likely. But if the user wants to continue, allow it.

Return "Review complete" as the terminal signal for callers.

What NOT to Do

• Do not rewrite the entire document
• Do not add new sections or requirements the user didn't discuss
• Do not over-engineer or add complexity
• Do not create separate review files or add metadata sections
• Do not modify any of the 2 caller skills (ce-brainstorm, ce-plan)

Iteration Guidance

On subsequent passes, re-dispatch personas and re-synthesize. The auto-fix mechanism and confidence gating prevent the same findings from recurring once fixed. If findings are repetitive across passes, recommend completion.

Included References

Subagent Template

@./references/subagent-template.md

Findings Schema

@./references/findings-schema.json

Review Output Template

@./references/review-output-template.md