Date: 2026-04-04 Author: Reviewer Verdict: ✅ APPROVE RF Phase A: RF Phase A RF Phase B: RF Phase B TS Phase A: TS Phase A TS Phase B: TS Phase B
| # | Check | Status | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | DoD met? (all TS acceptance criteria) | ✅ | Phase A: 5/5 criteria met (zero Cyrillic verified by script). Phase B: 4/4 criteria met (config, convention, init, registry) |
| 2 | Code quality (conventions, naming, type hints) | ✅ | All English headings follow D28 (Naming > Explanation). Config syntax correct YAML |
| 3 | Test coverage (tests written and passing) | ✅ | Python Cyrillic regex scan = PASS. Grep verifications for Phase B = all pass |
| 4 | Philosophy aligned (matches HL design philosophy) | ✅ | “Templates = code, code = English, content = user’s language” fully implemented |
| 5 | Tech debt (shortcuts documented?) | ✅ | Observations documented in both RFs — CHANGELOG.md RU entries, config.md RU prompts |
| 6 | Security (no secrets exposed, guards in place) | N/A | No security implications |
| 7 | Breaking changes (backward compat, migrations) | ✅ | Workflows reference §numbers not heading text (confirmed by RES H3). Filled artifacts in tasks/ not affected. No breaking changes |
| 8 | Style & standards (code style, conventions) | ✅ | Consistent field names across all 5 templates (Date, Author, Status) |
| 9 | Observations collected (executor reported findings) | ✅ | Phase A: 2 observations. Phase B: 2 observations. All substantive |
✅ APPROVE
Both phases deliver what was specified. Templates are clean English. content_language config is minimal and well-placed. The §3.1 rewrite from engineering-specific to domain-agnostic is a clear improvement.
Process note: This task had significant gate violations during research (6/6 gates skipped due to crash recovery). The content_language feature was nearly lost. Fact candidate #3 from Phase A RF documents this — it should become a real task (crash-resilient gates).
| # | Source | Severity | File | Description | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TD-56 | Phase A RF obs. #1 | Low | .tfw/CHANGELOG.md L17 |
Historical entry still has Визуализация результата in Russian — historical record, not active |
Accepted |
| TD-57 | Phase B RF obs. #1 | Med | .tfw/workflows/config.md L19,29 |
Edit mode prompts in Russian (“Что хотите изменить…”, “Применить?”) — inconsistent with English-first convention | ⬜ Backlog |
| TD-58 | Phase A RF obs. #2 | Low | tasks/* |
Existing filled artifacts use RU headings — expected, historical | Accepted |
content_language: en added (Phase B)| # | Category | Candidate | Source | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | process | Gate skipping during crash recovery caused feature loss and user trust erosion. TFW needs crash-resilient gates — mechanism to re-read workflow + determine current gate after session interruption | RF Phase A FC#3 + RF Phase B FC#1 | High |
| 2 | convention | content_language (project-level, in config) ≠ .user_preferences.md Language: (personal, gitignored). Two different purposes: project artifacts vs agent communication tone |
RF Phase B FC#2 | Medium |
| 3 | convention | §3.1 Result Visualization must remain domain-agnostic. User: “на уровне HL мыслить надо иначе, через ценности, процессы” — TFW serves education, business, research, not just engineering | Session feedback | High |
| *REVIEW — TFW-23: Templates English Standardization | 2026-04-04* |