fix(templates): add feedback classification rule to spec-extraction-workflow#166
Merged
fix(templates): add feedback classification rule to spec-extraction-workflow#166
Conversation
…orkflow During a real spec-extraction session, user feedback stating 'there are no true unit tests' was misclassified as an editorial label fix instead of a systemic finding. The agent updated terminology but failed to create a formal audit finding until the user explicitly escalated. Add a Classification Rule to Phase 3 that requires the agent to categorize user feedback as editorial, correction, or finding — and default to finding when uncertain. This prevents under-promotion of domain-expert input. Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
Alan-Jowett
approved these changes
Apr 2, 2026
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
This PR updates the spec-extraction-workflow template to prevent under-escalation of user feedback during Phase 3 (Human Clarification Loop) by introducing an explicit feedback classification rule.
Changes:
- Adds a “Classification Rule” section in Phase 3 to categorize user feedback as Editorial, Correction, or Finding.
- Establishes a “default to finding when uncertain” policy to avoid silently downgrading domain-expert feedback.
- Editorial: replace 'apply silently' with acknowledgement requirement to align with iterative-refinement protocol's 'justify every change' guidance. Editorial changes are still not escalated but are now tracked in the walkthrough or revision history. - Finding: clarify Phase 3 vs Phase 4 responsibility. Phase 3 records candidate findings and updates draft specs (RISK-NNN or Open Questions). Formal F-NNN entries are deferred to Phase 4. Adds explicit severity scale (Critical/High/Medium/Low/Informational). Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.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
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.
Summary
Adds a Classification Rule to Phase 3 (Human Clarification Loop) of the \spec-extraction-workflow\ template.
Closes #165
Problem
During a real spec-extraction session, user feedback stating 'there are no true unit tests' was misclassified as an editorial label fix instead of a systemic finding. The LLM updated terminology but failed to create a formal audit finding until the user explicitly escalated during Phase 5.
Fix
Add a classification rule that requires the LLM to categorize every piece of user feedback as:
Default to finding when uncertain. It is better to over-promote user feedback and have the user downgrade it than to silently under-promote domain-expert input.
Changes
templates/spec-extraction-workflow.md: Added Classification Rule section to Phase 3, before the existing Critical Rule.