design-review

Design Review — Iterative Clean-Context Review Loop

Repo profile — read .claude/repo-profile.md first. This skill is repo-agnostic; arc is the reference implementation. Where it references repo identity or paths, read the profile (repo_slug etc.). Arc's own provenance for any lessons is not inlined here (fuller case narratives, where they exist, are under .claude/case-law/).

Automate design document review using clean-context subagents. Each round gets a fresh perspective — no inherited bias from the current conversation.

Usage

/agentloop:design-review <path> [--target <score>] [--max-rounds <n>]

• <path> — Path to a design document file, or a directory containing design.md + tasks.md
• --target <score> — Target completeness score (default: 95)
• --max-rounds <n> — Maximum review iterations (default: 5)

Examples

/agentloop:design-review planning/provider-architecture-rethink/
/agentloop:design-review intent/my-feature/INTENT.md --target 90
/agentloop:design-review planning/my-plan/ --target 95 --max-rounds 3

Issue-driven plans (no planning/ file — issue is the source of truth)

When the plan originated in a GitHub issue (the human confirmed it in the comments), do NOT commit a planning/ doc — those tracker docs rot and become the next audit's deletion. The issue is the source of truth; the file is throwaway:

1. Render an ephemeral working copy of the confirmed plan (a design.md / tasks.md) into a scratch / gitignored dir (e.g. the session scratchpad) from the issue. Run /agentloop:design-review <scratch-dir> on it. The rounds are disposable iterations on a disposable file.
2. When it hits the target score, post the final optimized plan back to the issue as a comment — that comment is the durable artifact.
3. Add a brief round summary: how many rounds, and the key improvement each round made. Then discard the scratch file. Nothing lands in planning/.

Autonomous escalation — ask via an issue comment, never block in-session. In the issue-native flow nobody is babysitting the session, so an escalation that would normally call AskUserQuestion and wait must instead be posted as a comment on the source issue and the run paused there. If the review loop hits an unrecoverable point — a genuine design fork, an AskUserQuestion-worthy ambiguity, a needed architecture change, or an AFS-principle conflict (see the ESCALATION list under "Step 5: Fix Issues") — do not sit waiting for an inline answer. Post a clear, self-contained question comment on the issue (state the options, your recommendation, and what's blocked), then stop that work item. The human answers asynchronously on the issue; the next sweep picks it up. Only fall back to inline AskUserQuestion when a human is demonstrably present and interacting in this session.

Carve-out: this issue-native path is only for transient feature / implementation plans. Durable specs that already live as files — docs/architecture/*, protocol specs, behaviour-contract intent/*/INTENT.md, conformance targets — are reviewed in place as a normal /agentloop:design-review <path> run; don't issue-ify those.

(issue-sweep's feature/design work-type drives this handoff automatically.)

How It Works

Document Type Detection

Before reviewing, classify the document to apply the right review strategy:

Type	Signal	Test Coverage Hard Gate?	Needs tasks.md?
Implementation Plan	Has phases/tasks with concrete code changes, file paths, API specs	YES	YES — should have or generate
Design / Architecture	Describes problem, alternatives, decisions, trade-offs; may have "待做" sections	No — test coverage as recommendation	YES if has "待做/Phase N" sections with concrete implementation work
INTENT.md	Has API spec, behavior definitions, boundary conditions	No — completeness check instead	Depends on scope
Post-mortem / Record	Past tense, commit refs, "已完成" markers, performance data	No — fact accuracy check	NO

Key signals for "should have tasks.md":

• Document describes future implementation work (phases, steps, "待做")
• Document has concrete code changes that haven't been done yet
• Document has enough detail to decompose into actionable tasks

Key signals for "should NOT have tasks.md":

• All work is already completed (commit refs, "已完成", past tense throughout)
• Document is purely analytical (EDoS analysis, architecture comparison)
• Document is a decision record or post-mortem

The Review Loop

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  Step 0: Classify document type                       │
│  → Determines review strategy + tasks.md requirement  │
│                                                       │
│  Step 0.5: Check tasks.md existence                   │
│  → If should have but missing → ask user to generate  │
│                                                       │
│  Round N                                              │
│                                                       │
│  1. Launch CLEAN-CONTEXT subagent (Agent tool)        │
│     - No parent conversation history                  │
│     - Only sees the files it reads                    │
│     - Read-only: cannot modify files                  │
│                                                       │
│  2. Subagent performs review:                          │
│     a. Read design/task documents                     │
│     b. Verify claims against actual code              │
│     c. Dry-run implementation simulation              │
│     d. Check internal consistency                     │
│     e. Identify test coverage gaps                    │
│     f. Score: 0-100% completeness                     │
│                                                       │
│  3. If score >= target → APPROVED, stop               │
│     If score < target → fix issues, next round        │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Review Dimensions by Document Type

Implementation Plan (has tasks.md)

Dimension	What's checked	Hard Gate?
Test Coverage	Every phase has tests for: happy path, bad input, security, data loss, data damage, data leak. Missing any category = must-fix.	YES — < 90% = auto NOT APPROVED
E2E Verification	Every phase must have ### E2E Verification (mandatory) section with concrete AFS MCP tool calls using named sessions (?session=e2e-{phase}). Missing = must-fix.	YES — missing E2E section = auto NOT APPROVED
Factual grounding（现状 claims vs code）	每个关于现状的断言（接口/文件存在/签名、存储后端、文件布局、现有行为）是否 path:line 坐实?代码是唯一权威——与引用的 planning/docs 冲突时以代码为准并标出该文档过时。	YES — 未坐实 / 与代码矛盾的现状断言 = CRITICAL
Quantitative / performance claims（数字）	每个数字（延迟/吞吐/大小/数量/上限）是否实测（附命令+输出）或显式标注为未验证估计（含依据）?有实测经验的（含 human 在 issue 里给的）以实测为准。	YES — 凭空/未标注的数字当事实 = must-fix
Internal Consistency	Do sections reference each other correctly? Naming, numbering, no contradictions?	No
Dry Run	Can an implementer follow the plan step-by-step? Are dependencies satisfied at each phase?	No
Dependency Chain	Are phase dependencies explicit? Are there hidden circular dependencies?	No
API Specification	Are new interfaces, methods, protocol messages fully defined?	No
Migration Path	Is backward compatibility addressed? Is there a clear transition strategy?	No

Test Coverage is a central hard gate for implementation plans (alongside E2E Verification + 事实/数字 grounding). Its primary purpose is to ensure that tasks.md contains sufficient test specifications for /agentloop:build-phases to produce well-tested code.

Design / Architecture (no tasks.md)

Dimension	What's checked	Hard Gate?
Factual grounding（现状 claims vs code）	每个关于现状的断言（架构、存储后端、API、文件布局、现有行为）是否 path:line 坐实?代码是唯一权威——与引用的 planning/docs 冲突时以代码为准并标出该文档过时。	YES — 未坐实 / 与代码矛盾的现状断言 = CRITICAL
Quantitative / performance claims（数字）	每个数字（延迟/吞吐/大小/数量/上限）是否实测（附命令+输出）或显式标注为未验证估计（含依据）?有实测经验的（含 human 在 issue 里给的）以实测为准。	YES — 凭空/未标注的数字当事实 = must-fix
AFS Principle Compliance	AFS-Only I/O, abstraction reuse, provider boundaries	YES — violation = CRITICAL
Internal Consistency	Cross-references, naming, no contradictions	No
Feasibility	Can the proposed design actually be implemented? Are there hidden blockers?	No
Test Coverage	Are test requirements identified for future implementation?	No (recommendation only)

Post-mortem / Record

Dimension	What's checked	Hard Gate?
Factual Accuracy	File paths, commit hashes, method signatures, behavioral claims vs actual code	YES — factual errors = must-fix
Completeness	Are all changes documented? Are known issues / remaining work tracked?	No
AFS Principle Compliance	Does the completed work follow AFS principles?	No (informational)

Subagent Output Format

Each round's subagent returns:

1. Gap List — Document claims vs code reality, with confidence %
2. Dry Run Issues — Problems found simulating implementation, by phase
3. Test Omissions — Missing test scenarios, by severity (implementation plans only)
4. Overall Score — Implementation information completeness (0-100%)
5. APPROVED / NOT APPROVED

Implementation Instructions

When this skill is invoked:

Step 1: Parse Arguments and Discover Files

args = parse arguments from user input
path = args.path (required)
target = args.target or 95
maxRounds = args.maxRounds or 5

Resolve the path. If it's a directory, look for design.md, tasks.md, plan.md, INTENT.md, README.md, or similar planning files inside it. Collect all doc files to review.

Step 2: Classify Document Type

Read the main design document and classify it based on content signals:

Classification rules (check in order):

1. Post-mortem / Record if ALL of:

   • Majority of content uses past tense or has "已完成" markers
   • Contains commit references or "Commit: xxx" entries
   • No "待做" sections describe concrete unfinished implementation work

2. Implementation Plan if ANY of:

   • Has a tasks.md file alongside
   • Has numbered phases with concrete code changes (file paths, function names, test specs)
   • Contains task-level detail: "Add X to Y", "Modify Z to support W"

3. Design / Architecture if:

   • Describes problem space, alternatives, trade-offs, decisions
   • May have "待做" or "Phase N" sections but at design level (not task level)
   • Focus is on "what and why", not "how step by step"

4. INTENT.md if:

   • File is named INTENT.md
   • Has API specifications, behavior definitions, boundary conditions

Output the classification to the user before proceeding:

文档类型: {type}
Review 策略: {strategy summary}
Test coverage hard gate: {yes/no}

Step 3: Check for tasks.md and Offer Generation

Determine if this document should have a tasks.md:

A document should have tasks.md if it contains future implementation work that can be decomposed into actionable phases — specifically:

• "待做" / "Phase N 待做" sections with concrete changes
• Described but unimplemented features with enough design detail
• Identified issues (test gaps, architecture debt) with proposed fixes

If should have tasks.md but it doesn't exist:

Unattended / fleet mode (issue-native, no human present — the repo hook hard-denies AskUserQuestion): do NOT ask. Default to option 1 — generate tasks.md from the design (test-coverage hard gate ON), then review — and continue. Only fall back to the interactive prompt below when a human is demonstrably present in the session.

Ask the user using AskUserQuestion (interactive only):

这个设计文档包含可执行的实施工作（{brief description of what}），但没有对应的 tasks.md。

是否需要我从设计文档中提取并生成 tasks.md？这会：
- 将待做工作分解为有序的 phases
- 每个 phase 包含具体 tasks + 测试 spec（6 类覆盖）
- 生成的 tasks.md 可直接用于 /agentloop:build-phases

选项：
1. 是，生成 tasks.md 后再做 review
2. 不需要，按当前文档直接 review（不启用 test coverage hard gate）
3. 跳过 review，只生成 tasks.md

If user chooses option 1 (generate then review):

• Generate tasks.md in the same directory as the design document
• Extraction rules:
  • Each "待做" item or unfinished phase → one or more tasks
  • Group tasks into phases by dependency order
  • Each phase must include test specs covering 6 categories (happy path, bad input, security, data loss, data damage, data leak)
  • Reference the design document for context, don't duplicate design rationale
  • Mark tasks that need user design decisions with ⚠️ NEEDS DECISION
• After generation, proceed to review loop with both design doc + tasks.md
• Review uses Implementation Plan strategy (test coverage hard gate ON)

If user chooses option 2 (review without tasks):

• Proceed with Design/Architecture or Post-mortem review strategy
• Test coverage is recommendation only, not hard gate

If user chooses option 3 (generate only):

• Generate tasks.md, output summary of what was generated, stop

If document should NOT have tasks.md (e.g., pure post-mortem):

• Skip this step entirely, proceed to review

Step 4: Run Review Loop

For each round (1 to maxRounds):

4a. Launch a clean-context subagent using the Agent tool.

The subagent prompt varies by document type. Include the classification in the prompt so the subagent knows which strategy to apply.

For Implementation Plans (has tasks.md, hard gate ON):

你是一个独立的架构审查者，对这个项目没有任何先验知识。这是第 {round} 轮 review{previousScore}。目标 ≥{target}%。
文档类型：实施计划（Implementation Plan）。Test coverage hard gate 启用。

1. 读取以下设计文档：
{list of doc file paths}

2. **事实 + 数字 grounding 审计（HARD GATE）** — 文档里关于**现状**的每条断言都要坐实，别凭记忆或旧 planning 草稿：
   - **定性事实**：用 Grep/Read 把每条现状断言坐实到 `path:line` —— 接口/类型存在性、文件路径、方法签名、**存储后端、文件布局、现有行为**是否真的如文档所述。**代码是唯一权威**：引用的 planning/docs 与代码冲突时**以代码为准**，并标出"该文档已过时"。
   - **定量数字**：每个数字（延迟/吞吐/大小/数量/上限/成本）必须**实测**（附确切命令 + 输出）或**显式标注为未验证估计**（含依据），否则删掉。**凭空给出却当作分析/事实呈现的数字（尤其延迟/性能）= must-fix**；与 human 在 issue 里给的实测经验冲突时以实测为准。
   - **任一未坐实 / 与代码矛盾的现状断言，或任一凭空数字 = CRITICAL → NOT APPROVED**（错的地基会让后续 phase 全盘皆错）。

3. **测试覆盖审计（HARD GATE）** — 对每个 phase/task，检查测试 spec 是否覆盖以下 6 类：
   - ✅ Happy path（正常流程）
   - ✅ Bad input（非法输入、边界条件）
   - ✅ Security（path traversal, injection, prototype pollution, resource exhaustion）
   - ✅ Data loss prevention（crash 期间不丢数据、并发写不覆盖）
   - ✅ Data damage prevention（roundtrip 一致性、binary 安全、unicode 安全）
   - ✅ Data leak prevention（namespace 隔离、权限边界、清理后无残留）

   对每个 phase 标注：6/6, 5/6, ... 缺哪一类就列出来。
   **如果任何 phase 缺少 2 类以上 → 测试覆盖不足 → 自动 NOT APPROVED（不管总分多高）。**

   3b. **E2E Verification 审计（HARD GATE）** — 对每个 phase，检查是否有 `### E2E Verification (mandatory)` section：
   - 必须包含具体的 AFS MCP tool call 路径（`afs_read /dev/ui/web/sessions/e2e-xxx/...`）
   - 必须使用 named session（`?session=e2e-{name}`）实现确定性访问，不依赖 session discovery
   - 必须描述预期返回结构（JSON 字段、类型），不能只写"验证成功"
   - 必须包含至少一个 negative case（无效 session、错误 path）
   - 对于 UI/AUP 变更，必须使用 AFS inspect 能力（design-audit, overflow-scan, dom 等）
   **缺少 E2E Verification section → 自动 NOT APPROVED。**
   **E2E section 只写"通过测试"没有具体 tool call → 同样 NOT APPROVED。**

4. **AFS 原则合规检查** — 检查设计是否违反以下核心原则：
   - **AFS-Only I/O**：任何 I/O 是否都通过 AFS API？有没有绕过 AFS 直接访问底层资源的设计？
   - **抽象复用**：有没有设计要新建的东西其实已有现成的 provider/utility？有没有重复发明轮子？
   - **Provider 边界**：provider 之外的代码是否都通过 AFS 接口？
   违反任何一条 = 必须标注为 CRITICAL issue。

5. 做 Dry Run — 按文档的实施阶段顺序，在脑中模拟实现过程。检查：
   - 每个 phase 开始时前置依赖是否满足
   - 代码改动点是否都被识别
   - 有没有文档描述但代码中不存在的概念

6. 输出格式（严格遵守）：
   a. **测试覆盖审计表**（每 phase 的 6 类覆盖情况，HARD GATE）
   a2. **E2E Verification 审计表**（每 phase 是否有 E2E section + 具体 tool call，HARD GATE）
   b. 文档 vs 代码 Gap 列表（带信心百分比）
   c. Dry Run 发现的问题列表（按 phase）
   d. 测试遗漏列表（按严重程度）
   e. 总体评估：实现信息完整度百分比（0-100%）
   f. 如果 ≥{target}% 且测试覆盖 + E2E + 事实/数字 grounding HARD GATE 均通过（无未坐实/与代码矛盾的现状断言、无凭空数字）：输出 "APPROVED"；否则输出 "NOT APPROVED"

请非常彻底和严格。不要做任何修改，只做 review 和分析。

For Design / Architecture (no tasks.md, hard gate OFF):

你是一个独立的架构审查者，对这个项目没有任何先验知识。这是第 {round} 轮 review{previousScore}。目标 ≥{target}%。
文档类型：设计/架构文档。Test coverage hard gate 不启用（测试覆盖作为建议）。

1. 读取以下设计文档：
{list of doc file paths}

2. **事实 + 数字 grounding 审计（HARD GATE）** — 文档里关于**现状**的每条断言都要坐实，别凭记忆或旧 planning 草稿：
   - **定性事实**：用 Grep/Read 把每条现状断言坐实到 `path:line` —— 接口/类型存在性、文件路径、方法签名、**存储后端、文件布局、现有行为**是否真的如文档所述。**代码是唯一权威**：引用的 planning/docs 与代码冲突时**以代码为准**，并标出"该文档已过时"。
   - **定量数字**：每个数字（延迟/吞吐/大小/数量/上限/成本）必须**实测**（附确切命令 + 输出）或**显式标注为未验证估计**（含依据），否则删掉。**凭空给出却当作分析/事实呈现的数字（尤其延迟/性能）= must-fix**；与 human 在 issue 里给的实测经验冲突时以实测为准。
   - **任一未坐实 / 与代码矛盾的现状断言，或任一凭空数字 = CRITICAL → NOT APPROVED**（错的地基会让后续 phase 全盘皆错）。

3. **AFS 原则合规检查（HARD GATE）** — 检查设计是否违反以下核心原则：
   - **AFS-Only I/O**：任何 I/O 是否都通过 AFS API？有没有绕过 AFS 直接访问底层资源的设计？
   - **抽象复用**：有没有设计要新建的东西其实已有现成的 provider/utility？有没有重复发明轮子？
   - **Provider 边界**：provider 之外的代码是否都通过 AFS 接口？
   违反任何一条 = 必须标注为 CRITICAL issue。

4. 内部一致性检查：
   - 各 section 之间交叉引用是否正确
   - 命名、编号是否一致
   - 有没有自相矛盾的描述

5. 可行性检查 — 设计能否被实现？
   - 所依赖的接口/能力是否存在或可创建
   - 有没有隐藏的阻塞依赖
   - 性能假设是否合理

6. 如果文档包含已完成的工作（commit refs、"已完成"标记），验证事实准确性：
   - commit hash 是否存在且描述匹配
   - 声称修改的文件是否确实被修改
   - 性能数据是否有可信来源

7. 测试覆盖建议（非 hard gate）：
   - 已完成工作的已有测试和缺失测试
   - 待做工作的测试需求
   - 区分"已有"和"缺失"，缺失项是否被 tracked

8. 输出格式（严格遵守）：
   a. 文档 vs 代码 Gap 列表（带信心百分比）
   b. AFS 原则合规结果
   c. 内部一致性问题
   d. 可行性问题
   e. 测试覆盖建议（已有 vs 缺失 vs tracked）
   f. 总体评估：文档质量百分比（0-100%）
   g. 如果 ≥{target}% 且无 CRITICAL issue（含未坐实/与代码矛盾的现状断言、凭空数字、AFS 原则违规）：输出 "APPROVED"；否则输出 "NOT APPROVED"

请非常彻底和严格。不要做任何修改，只做 review 和分析。

For Post-mortem / Record:

你是一个独立的架构审查者，对这个项目没有任何先验知识。这是第 {round} 轮 review{previousScore}。目标 ≥{target}%。
文档类型：Post-mortem / 已完成工作记录。审查重点是事实准确性和完整性。

1. 读取以下文档：
{list of doc file paths}

2. **事实准确性验证（HARD GATE）** — 使用 Grep 和 Read 工具验证：
   - 每个 commit hash 是否存在且 message 匹配（用 git log 验证）
   - 每个文件路径是否正确
   - 每个方法签名/接口声明是否与实际代码匹配
   - 每个行为描述是否与代码实际行为一致
   - 性能数据的来源是否可信

3. 完整性检查：
   - 所有改动是否都被记录
   - 已知问题/遗留项是否被 tracked
   - 相关文件引用是否完整

4. AFS 原则合规（信息性，非 hard gate）：
   - 记录中的已完成工作是否遵守 AFS 原则
   - 如有违反，标注为建议而非阻塞

5. 输出格式（严格遵守）：
   a. 事实准确性审计表（每条声明 vs 实际，信心百分比）
   b. 完整性 Gap 列表
   c. AFS 合规性备注
   d. 总体评估：文档准确度百分比（0-100%）
   e. 如果 ≥{target}% 且无事实错误：输出 "APPROVED"；否则输出 "NOT APPROVED"

请非常彻底和严格。不要做任何修改，只做 review 和分析。

Where {previousScore} is empty for round 1, or — 上一轮 {score}% for subsequent rounds.

4b. Parse the subagent's response:

• Extract the overall score (look for the percentage number)
• Extract the issue list

4c. Decision:

• If score >= target or response contains "APPROVED" → stop, report success
• If round == maxRounds → stop, report current score and remaining issues
• Otherwise → fix the identified issues, then continue to next round

Step 5: Fix Issues (between rounds)

Read the subagent's feedback carefully. For each issue:

• Document vs Code gaps: Fix inaccurate claims, update stale references
• Internal consistency: Fix numbering, naming, cross-references
• Dry Run issues: Add missing dependency declarations, clarify implementation details
• Test omissions (implementation plans only): Add missing test scenarios to the appropriate phase in tasks.md
• Do NOT change architecture decisions — only fix documentation accuracy and completeness
• AFS-Only I/O violations: If reviewer finds a design that bypasses AFS → this is a design error, must fix
• Abstraction reuse violations: If reviewer finds a design that reimplements existing AFS capability → must fix

ESCALATION — 停下来问用户的情况：

在 fix 过程中，如果遇到：

• 真正的设计不确定 — reviewer 指出一个问题，你不确定正确的设计方向 → 停下来问用户
• 两种设计都合理 — reviewer 的建议和原设计都有道理，不知道选哪个 → 停下来问用户
• 需要大改架构 — fix 不是小修，而是要重写某个 section 的设计 → 停下来问用户
• AFS 原则冲突 — 某个设计似乎必须绕过 AFS 才能实现 → 一定要问用户，几乎肯定有更好的方式

不要自己做设计决策。 Design review 只修文档一致性和测试覆盖，不改架构方向。架构方向的改变必须由用户确认。

怎么"问用户"取决于模式：在交互 session（用户在场）用 AskUserQuestion。 在 issue-native 模式（无人 babysitting） —— 即计划来自 GitHub issue 的那条路径 —— 不要 inline 阻塞等答复，而是把问题作为 issue 评论发出（列清选项、你的推荐、被卡住的是什么）， 然后停在该工作项。人类异步在 issue 上回答，下一轮 sweep 接力。见本文件顶部 "Autonomous escalation" 段。

After fixing, commit the changes (so the next round's subagent sees the updated files).

Step 6: Report

After the loop ends, output a summary:

## Design Review Complete

**Document:** {path}
**Type:** {document type}
**Rounds:** {roundsUsed} / {maxRounds}
**Score progression:** {round1}% → {round2}% → ... → {final}%
**Status:** APPROVED ✓ / NOT APPROVED (best: {score}%)

{if approved}
Remaining minor issues (non-blocking):
- {list any issues noted in the final approved review}
{/if}

Key Principles

1. Each subagent is completely fresh — it does not inherit any context from previous rounds or the parent conversation. This ensures unbiased review.

2. The reviewer never modifies files — separation of concerns. The reviewer finds problems, you (the main agent) fix them.

3. Score is based on implementability — "Could a developer with no project background complete the implementation using only these documents?"

4. Document type determines review strategy — don't apply implementation plan criteria to a post-mortem, and don't skip test coverage checks on a real implementation plan.

5. Tasks.md generation is opt-in — if a design should have tasks but doesn't, ask the user. Never auto-generate without confirmation.

6. Security and data integrity are non-negotiable — for implementation plans, every phase involving I/O must have tests for path traversal, prototype pollution, injection, resource exhaustion, namespace isolation, data roundtrip, binary safety, unicode safety, concurrency, and failure atomicity.

7. Zero regression is enforced — the review checks that each phase maintains backward compatibility with existing tests and functionality.

8. 方案设计必须 grounded：客观、精确、实事求是。 任何关于现状的断言（架构、存储后端、API、文件布局、现有行为）都要 path:line 坐实——代码是唯一权威，与引用的 planning/docs 冲突时以代码为准并指出文档过时（典型幻觉：把存储后端说成 "KV" 而代码其实是 R2+D1，整套后续 phase 就建在错地基上）。任何数字（延迟/吞吐/大小/数量/上限）要么实测（附命令+输出）、要么显式标注为未验证估计、否则删掉——凭空数字当事实是最高发的幻觉（如随手写 "0ms/1-2ms"，实测却是 200ms+）。事实 grounding + 数字纪律对设计文档是 HARD GATE，不是软维度——一份地基错的设计不该拿到 APPROVED。

★ sweep-trace 埋点（round-awareness 判据 / L2 可观测层）

每条本 skill 发往 issue 的 设计评审 comment 末尾必须附一行 sweep-trace HTML 注释（人不可见、grep 可查）：

<!-- sweep-trace: {"ver":1,"issue":N,"gate":"design","val":"<val>","run":"<ISO8601>","runner":"<runner>","skills":"<hash>"} -->

这不只是可观测——它是 issue-sweep 轮次感知的判据。 sweep 靠机器标记（sweep-trace / Generated by [Claude Code] footer / Bot 作者）区分「agent 裁决（跳过）」与「人类输入（响应）」，不靠 > 🤖 头——因为人和 agent 用同一个 agent-identity.sh 生成头、格式逐字节相同（实盘 arc#1722：人手贴的指令被当成 agent 裁决跳过 19h）。本 skill 的评论若不带 trace，会被 issue-sweep 误判成「未处理的人类输入」→ 每轮重复处理/重复评论（arc#1722 的反向作用正是这个缺口）。identity 头和 runner:…·skills@… 行不算机器标记（人也会有）。