genie-orca-review

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English

🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

genie-orca:review

Runtime syntax: invoke the plugin copy through the active runtime's owner-qualified skill selector; use a bare selector only when intentionally selecting a user-tier copy (a separately installed personal copy; Genie no longer seeds this tier). Cross-skill prose below uses bare names as portable semantic routes; the orchestrator resolves the selector for the active runtime.

A reviewer is a read-only worker dispatched by the coordinator, never the engineer of the same group, preferably a different model family (brain default: Codex reviews Claude-Sonnet work; Fable/Opus for the two gate reviews).

运行时语法： 通过当前运行时的所有者限定技能选择器调用插件副本；仅当有意选择用户层级副本（单独安装的个人副本；Genie不再默认提供该层级副本）时，才使用裸选择器。以下跨技能说明使用裸名称作为可移植语义路径；编排器会为当前运行时解析选择器。

审查者是由协调器调度的只读工作者，绝不能是同一群组的工程师，最好使用不同的模型系列（默认配置：Codex审查Claude-Sonnet的工作；Fable/Opus用于两次gate审查）。

Contract

契约

Input: the group spec (
```
WISH.md
```
section), ground truth (
```
SCOUT.md
```
),
```
git diff <wish-branch>..HEAD
```
, the validation command.
The reviewer re-runs validation and quotes the summary line. A review that did not run the gate is not a review.
Body starts with
```
VERDICT: SHIP | FIX-FIRST | BLOCKED
```
, then numbered findings
```
[critical|major|minor]
```
with
```
file:line
```
and a concrete fix. FIX-FIRST only on critical/major.
One
```
worker_done
```
,
```
--outcome succeeded
```
= review delivered (the verdict is in the body). The reviewer's
```
worker_done
```
never authorizes coordinator edits; fixes are re-dispatched.
Name the environments in the adversarial question: the dev box with the product installed, the compiled binary from cwd
```
/
```
with no env, a DSN/detached service, the vault literally named like the product. On brain, the same precedence bug survived four gates because each ran in one environment.
Ask the adversarial question explicitly in the brief ("how does this still fail in the compiled binary / under DSN / on a box with brain installed?"). On brain, 3 of 5 groups went FIX-FIRST from exactly that prompt.

输入：群组规范（
```
WISH.md
```
章节）、基准事实（
```
SCOUT.md
```
）、
```
git diff <wish-branch>..HEAD
```
、验证命令。
审查者必须重新运行验证并引用摘要行。未运行gate的审查无效。
正文以
```
VERDICT: SHIP | FIX-FIRST | BLOCKED
```
开头，随后是编号的问题项，标记为
```
[critical|major|minor]
```
，包含
```
file:line
```
和具体修复方案。仅当问题为critical或major时，结论才为FIX-FIRST。
发送一条
```
worker_done
```
消息，
```
--outcome succeeded
```
表示审查已完成（结论在正文中）。审查者的
```
worker_done
```
消息绝不授权协调器进行编辑；修复任务会被重新调度。
在对抗性问题中明确指定环境：安装了产品的开发机、当前目录
```
/
```
下无环境变量的编译二进制文件、DSN/独立服务、与产品同名的vault。在Brain项目中，同一优先级bug通过了四次gate审查，因为每次都只在一个环境中运行。
在简介中明确提出对抗性问题（“为什么在编译二进制文件/DSN环境/安装了Brain的机器上仍然失败？”）。在Brain项目中，5个群组中有3个正是因为这个提示得出了FIX-FIRST的结论。

Tiers

层级

When	Reviewers	Merge rule
per group	1 capable model (≠ engineer)	verdict as-is
wish-approval, PR	3 in parallel (claude / codex / third), same read-only worktree	severity-max; any BLOCKED → BLOCKED; SHIP only if all SHIP; one merged Linear comment
council	lenses (questioner / architecture / simplifier / perf …) on a decision	synthesis + unresolved tensions, persisted next to the wish
retro	the run's `RETRO.md` from `skills/genie-orca-work/scripts/retro-collect.ts`	findings → skill edits, not prose

场景	审查者	合并规则
每个群组	1个合格模型（≠ 工程师）	结论直接生效
愿望清单审批、PR	3个模型并行（claude / codex / 第三个），使用相同的只读工作树	取最高严重程度；任意一个BLOCKED则整体为BLOCKED；仅当所有模型均给出SHIP时才为SHIP；合并为一条Linear评论
Council	针对决策的多视角审查者（提问者/架构师/简化师/性能专家…）	综合结论 + 未解决的分歧，与愿望清单一同保存
Retro	来自 `skills/genie-orca-work/scripts/retro-collect.ts` 的运行时 `RETRO.md`	问题项 → 技能编辑，而非文字描述

Fix loop

修复循环

Coordinator re-dispatches a fast worker into the same worktree with the findings quoted verbatim and "apply exactly this, nothing else". Cap 2 loops per group; the coordinator may verify a trivial delta itself instead of a second review. After the cap → human gate.

协调器将快速工作者重新调度到同一工作树，直接引用问题项并要求“严格按照此方案修复，不得修改其他内容”。每个群组最多允许2次循环；协调器可自行验证微小变更，无需二次审查。超过循环上限后 → 人工gate审查。

What the integrated gate catches that group review does not

集成gate审查能发现群组审查遗漏的问题

Run the full suite on the integrated branch before declaring SHIP — on brain, G4's artifact fallback passed its group gate and its review, and only the integrated gate (a box with

~/.brain

installed) exposed the cwd hijack. Per-group validation is necessary, not sufficient.

在宣布SHIP前，需在集成分支上运行完整测试套件——在Brain项目中，G4的工件回退通过了群组gate审查和AI审查，但只有集成gate审查（安装了

~/.brain

的机器）暴露了当前目录劫持问题。每个群组的验证是必要的，但并不充分。