📦 deps(thirdparty): update snapshots
This commit is contained in:
@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
|
||||
# Human Review Template
|
||||
|
||||
Use this template when a description candidate is ready for human review after automated gates have run.
|
||||
|
||||
## Review Header
|
||||
|
||||
- target:
|
||||
- review date:
|
||||
- reviewer:
|
||||
- current description:
|
||||
- candidate description:
|
||||
- promotion decision:
|
||||
|
||||
## What Changed
|
||||
|
||||
- what was the intended improvement?
|
||||
- what route boundary is now clearer?
|
||||
- what family or holdout behavior improved?
|
||||
|
||||
## Automated Evidence
|
||||
|
||||
- visible holdout result:
|
||||
- blind holdout result:
|
||||
- judge-backed blind result:
|
||||
- adversarial result:
|
||||
- route confusion result:
|
||||
- calibration / risk band:
|
||||
|
||||
## Boundary Questions
|
||||
|
||||
- does the candidate trigger only when a reusable skill package is actually needed?
|
||||
- does it avoid one-off explanation, translation, or summary-only requests?
|
||||
- does it avoid stealing sibling routes?
|
||||
- does it stay short enough for the target maturity tier?
|
||||
|
||||
## Authoring Discipline
|
||||
|
||||
- are unresolved assumptions named or clarified before deepening the package?
|
||||
- is the package no larger than the real recurring job requires?
|
||||
- do changed files trace directly to the requested improvement?
|
||||
- did the author avoid speculative features, decorative folders, and generic configuration?
|
||||
- does each new artifact have a verification reason?
|
||||
|
||||
## Decision
|
||||
|
||||
- approve promotion
|
||||
- keep current
|
||||
- block candidate
|
||||
|
||||
## Notes
|
||||
|
||||
- rationale:
|
||||
- follow-up actions:
|
||||
- next review trigger:
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user