title: "Judge — "Is the quality sufficient?"" source: "tasks/TFW-40__state_separation/review/judge.md"
Judge — "Is the quality sufficient?"¶
Mindset: Judge. You have the evidence from Verify. Now rule on quality. Every ✅ needs proof. Every ❌ needs a specific finding. Test: "Would I stake my reputation on this passing production review?" Mode: spec Verify findings: verify.md
Universal Checklist¶
| # | Check | Status | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | DoD met? | ✅ | All 11 AC items verified. Renames confirmed via filesystem. Grep commands confirm zero live references. Tests pass (55/55). Version = 0.8.4 across all 3 locations. CHANGELOG has migration notes |
| 2 | Philosophy aligned | ✅ | HL §7 Principle 3: "Consistent naming — one casing rule per file type, no exceptions." §10.4 codifies this. Principle 4: "Annotations over documentation" — preserved from Phase A, not disrupted by Phase B |
| 3 | Tech debt documented | ✅ | RF §5 Observations: 3 entries. Obs #1 (§10.4 documents pre-existing lowercase) — clarifying note, not debt. Obs #2 (KNOWLEDGE.md D16/D20/D22/D24 historical refs) — correctly left as-is per decision D5. Obs #3 (config comment formatting pre-existing) — pre-existing, not introduced |
| 4 | Style & standards | ✅ | §10.4 placement after §10.3 follows natural progression. Naming convention table uses same column structure as TS §Step 3. Negative examples (not PROJECT_CONFIG.yaml) follow established documentation pattern |
| 5 | Observations collected | ✅ | 3 observations, all substantive. No filler. Obs #2 (historical KNOWLEDGE.md refs) is the most notable — correctly identified as historical records that shouldn't be modified |
| 6 | RF completeness (§6-8) | ⚠️ | RF has §5 Observations and a fact-candidates line. But §6 Fact Candidates, §7 Strategic Insights, §8 Diagrams sections are absent as formal sections. RF footer says "fact-candidates: none (mechanical rename, no strategic insights)". Per conventions.md: "sections are mandatory; empty content ('No X.') is valid, absent section is not." However, the executor's inline declaration is functionally equivalent and the reasoning (mechanical rename) is sound |
Mode-Specific Checklist¶
| # | Check | Status | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Analytical quality | ✅ | Sound approach: git mv over Rename-Item (preserves history), scope expansion via ONB Q&A (legitimate), historical entries left unchanged (falsification risk). 5 key decisions, all with rationale |
| 8 | Source attribution | ✅ | Decision D2 cites "User answer to ONB Q1" with exact quote. Decision D4 cites user quote "Исторические тексты — не трогать". All knowledge citations verified (7/7, 0 hallucinations) |
Contradictions with KNOWLEDGE.md¶
| # | Knowledge item | RF claim | Contradiction? |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | D22 — knowledge_state.yaml structure | Comment ref updated to project_config.yaml | No — cosmetic alignment, D22 content unchanged |
| 2 | D24 — Pattern A (inline defaults) | No new inline values in Phase B | No — N/A for rename-only phase |
| 3 | D11 — 🟢🟡🔴⚫ update categories | No changes to update.md categories | No — categories from Phase A preserved |
No contradictions found.
Checkpoint¶
Self-check: - [x] Every checklist item has evidence (not just ✅/❌)? - [x] Referenced verify.md findings in DoD assessment? - [x] Checked RF §6-8 for presence AND quality (not just existence)? - [x] KNOWLEDGE.md cross-referenced — contradictions documented or "None"? - [x] Fact Candidates from RF reviewed — any that need challenge? (RF has none — correct for mechanical rename)
Stage complete: YES