chore(personas): Add severity framework to review personas - #926
Merged
Conversation
Review and RFD personas conflated severity with likelihood, so a `blocking:` label could mean either "this breaks on a normal input" or "this breaks if you construct an adversarial edge case." Triagers then had to re-derive which was meant before they could judge the verdict. Add a `review-severity.toml` knowledge file that names the test up front: can you name a plausible input a JP user produces that triggers the finding? If so, does the damage spread or hide, or stay contained and visible? Reviewers now tag comments `blocking:`, `nit:`, `theoretical:`, or `question:`, where `theoretical:` covers findings that follow from the code but have no named plausible input. RFD reviews use a **Theoretical:** prefix within their existing severity buckets instead. Triager personas (pr-triager, review-triager, rfd-triager) gain a `Decline` verdict alongside `Accept`/`Amend`/`Dismiss`/`Defer`, for feedback that is correct and in scope but not worth acting on. `Defer` is now explicit that it means "valid and worth doing later," not a polite way to shelve something the project has decided against. Each triager also gets a rule to spend investigation effort in proportion to the label, so a `nit:` or `theoretical:` item gets a one-line verdict instead of a research project. Applies to pr-reviewer, pr-triager, review-triager, rfd-reviewer, and rfd-triager personas. Signed-off-by: Jean Mertz <git@jeanmertz.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Review and RFD personas conflated severity with likelihood, so a
blocking:label could mean either "this breaks on a normal input" or "this breaks if you construct an adversarial edge case." Triagers then had to re-derive which was meant before they could judge the verdict.Add a
review-severity.tomlknowledge file that names the test up front: can you name a plausible input a JP user produces that triggers the finding? If so, does the damage spread or hide, or stay contained and visible? Reviewers now tag commentsblocking:,nit:,theoretical:, orquestion:, wheretheoretical:covers findings that follow from the code but have no named plausible input. RFD reviews use a Theoretical: prefix within their existing severity buckets instead.Triager personas (pr-triager, review-triager, rfd-triager) gain a
Declineverdict alongsideAccept/Amend/Dismiss/Defer, for feedback that is correct and in scope but not worth acting on.Deferis now explicit that it means "valid and worth doing later," not a polite way to shelve something the project has decided against. Each triager also gets a rule to spend investigation effort in proportion to the label, so anit:ortheoretical:item gets a one-line verdict instead of a research project.Applies to pr-reviewer, pr-triager, review-triager, rfd-reviewer, and rfd-triager personas.