REVIEW — TFW-32 / Phase B: Naming & Templates¶
Date: 2026-04-10 Author: AI (Reviewer) Verdict: ✅ APPROVE RF: RF Phase B TS: TS Phase B
1. Review Checklist¶
| # | Check | Status | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | DoD met? (all TS acceptance criteria) | ✅ | All 16 acceptance criteria verified against actual file content (see §1.1 below) |
| 2 | Code quality (conventions, naming, type hints) | ✅ | Template markdown follows existing conventions. Section numbering is consistent |
| 3 | Test coverage (tests written and passing) | ✅ | pytest docs/scripts/test_gen_docs.py: 55/55 passed |
| 4 | Philosophy aligned (matches HL design philosophy) | ✅ | Naming = Prompting principle (D28) applied throughout. Per-template WHERE modes differ, unified WHERE they don't |
| 5 | Tech debt (shortcuts documented?) | ✅ | No shortcuts taken. No observations reported (clean execution) |
| 6 | Security (no secrets exposed, guards in place) | N/A | Template-only changes, no security surface |
| 7 | Breaking changes (backward compat, migrations) | ✅ | Backward compatible: new sections are additive, renamed §11 won't affect existing HL files (those keep their original names) |
| 8 | Style & standards (code style, conventions) | ✅ | Consistent instruction pattern across all templates: Cognitive mode → Scope → Human-Only Test → Before writing |
| 9 | Observations collected (executor reported findings) | ✅ | "No observations" — acceptable for template-only changes with no code |
1.1 DoD Verification (line-by-line)¶
| # | Acceptance Criterion | Verified | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | HL §11 heading reads "Strategic Insights (Planning)" | ✅ | HL.md line 122 |
| 2 | HL §11 instructions include "Cognitive mode: Deep analytical synthesis" + §6 cross-ref | ✅ | HL.md lines 124-128 |
| 3 | HL §3.1 includes "Working Backwards" + "NOT a process diagram" | ✅ | HL.md lines 26-36 |
| 4 | HL has §3.2 "Value Flow" | ✅ | HL.md lines 38-48 |
| 5 | RF has §7 "Strategic Insights (Execution)" with Human-Only Test + fallback | ✅ | RF.md lines 73-90 |
| 6 | RF has §8 "Diagrams" | ✅ | RF.md lines 92-101 |
| 7 | RF §6 includes "Cognitive mode: Pure reporting" + out-of-scope | ✅ | RF.md lines 52-63 |
| 8 | RES has "Strategic Insights (Research)" with Human-Only Test | ✅ | RES.md lines 55-71 |
| 9 | RES has "Findings Map" | ✅ | RES.md lines 73-82 |
| 10 | RES Fact Candidates sharpened (cognitive mode + scope + before-writing) | ✅ | RES.md lines 38-48 |
| 11 | REVIEW §5 includes "Cognitive mode: Pure reporting" + reviewer scope | ✅ | REVIEW.md lines 56-67 |
| 12 | conventions.md "Visual Sections (per-template)" table — 5 rows | ✅ | conventions.md lines 77-88 |
| 13 | conventions.md "Knowledge Capture Sections" table | ✅ | conventions.md lines 90-95 |
| 14 | conventions.md FC definition includes "Cognitive mode" | ✅ | conventions.md line 75 |
| 15 | glossary.md Strategic Insight updated with qualifiers + contrast | ✅ | glossary.md lines 47-48 |
| 16 | glossary.md has Value Flow, Findings Map, Per-template Naming | ✅ | glossary.md lines 50-57 |
2. Verdict¶
✅ APPROVE
All 16 acceptance criteria met. Changes are consistent, additive, and follow the empirically validated naming decisions from RES3/RES4. The executor followed the TS exactly with no deviations. The instruction pattern (Cognitive mode → Scope → Human-Only Test → Before writing) is consistent across all four templates.
Notable quality: the executor correctly used heading-only naming for RES sections (no § numbers) while using numbered §7/§8 for RF — consistent with the different structural conventions of each template type.
3. Tech Debt Collected¶
No tech debt. RF reported no observations.
4. Traces Updated¶
- [ ] README Task Board — status updated
- [ ] HL status — Phase B marked complete in master HL
- [ ] PROJECT_CONFIG.yaml — initial_seq: no change needed
- [ ] Other project files — no stale info found
- [ ] tfw-docs: N/A (template and convention changes, no architectural decisions for KNOWLEDGE.md §1-§3)
- [ ] tfw-knowledge: N/A (no fact candidates requiring consolidation in this review cycle)
5. Fact Candidates¶
Cognitive mode: Pure reporting — record factual observations without interpretation or synthesis.
Scope: Reviewer-observed project patterns discovered during the review process.
Before writing: review the conversation history. The human's messages are the primary source.
| # | Category | Candidate | Source | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | convention | TFW template instruction blocks follow a 4-part structure: (1) Cognitive mode, (2) Scope, (3) Human-Only Test, (4) Before writing. This pattern emerged from Phase B and could be codified as a template-writing standard | RF Phase B FC1, verified in HL/RF/RES/REVIEW templates | High |
| 2 | convention | RES template uses heading-only section names (no § numbers) for new sections, while RF uses sequential § numbers. This reflects a design difference: RES = synthesis document (flexible), RF = phase report (structured). Not yet documented in conventions.md | RES.md vs RF.md template comparison during review | Medium |
REVIEW — TFW-32 / Phase B: Naming & Templates | 2026-04-10