Skip to content

REVIEW — TFW-41 / Phase A: Templates and Conventions

Date: 2026-04-20 Reviewer: AI (separate review session) Mode: docs RF reviewed: RF__PhaseA__templates_and_conventions.md TS used: TS__PhaseA__templates_and_conventions.md Stage files: review/map.md, review/verify.md, review/judge.md

§1 Map Summary

Phase A is the foundation of TFW-41: it establishes the template and convention infrastructure that Phases B, C, D depend on. Three files modified: TS.md (full structural rewrite), HL.md (Phase Dependencies section added), conventions.md (4 anti-patterns appended to §14).

The RF is structurally complete: all 8 mandatory sections present. The key nuance to understand before judging is the section numbering shift — the executor inserted ## 3. Principles Check (from AC-5), which shifted Acceptance Criteria from the example position (§4) to actual position (§5). This is a pre-existing conflict in the TS itself, acknowledged in RF §2 Key Decisions before any reviewer noted it.

§2 Verify Summary

Verification scope: 3/3 files (100% — escalated from minimum 2).

File Verified Finding
.tfw/templates/TS.md ✅ 84 lines (matches RF claim). All AC criteria satisfied against actual content. No code in AC section. Principles Check table present with correct columns. [depends: AC-1] example present. DoF section present. Cross-Phase Modifications section present.
.tfw/templates/HL.md ✅ 198 lines (matches RF claim). ### Phase Dependencies subsection at correct location. Mermaid diagram template + dependency table both present. Multi-phase / omit instructions present.
.tfw/conventions.md ✅ 23 anti-patterns total (was 19 + 4 = 23, matches RF claim). 4 new patterns at lines 386-389, appended after existing 19. One-line prose format consistent with existing entries.

All DoF gates passed. No discrepancies found.

The section-number deviation (AC-1 example says ## 4, template has ## 5) was assessed: the TS AC-1 criterion list does not require the number to be 4 — it requires the heading to be "Acceptance Criteria", AC-N pattern, Gate line, WHAT/HOW instruction, no code. All satisfied. Executor pre-documented this in Key Decision #1.

§3 Judge Summary

Universal checklist (6/6 ✅): All AC items satisfied, no DoF triggered, all files present and matching, RF structure complete, observations present and structured, scope within budget.

Docs-mode checklist (2/2 ✅): Content quality — instructions are precise, domain-neutral, no unfilled placeholders. Source traceability — all RF claims link to TS ACs, execution observations, or direct file scans.

HL §7 Principles (5/5 applicable ✅, 1 N/A): Principles 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 enforced structurally in Phase A output. Principle 3 (Verify against fact) is Phase B scope (Pre-TS Gate) — legitimately N/A for Phase A.

Issue register: 2 informational items, both pre-documented by executor, no blocking issues.

§4 Verdict

✅ APPROVE

Rationale:

  1. All 8 AC items verified against actual file content. No gap between claimed and delivered.
  2. All 4 DoF hard-reject conditions checked and not triggered.
  3. The numbering deviation (AC → §5 instead of §4) is a well-reasoned structural decision, documented before review, and does not violate any verifiable TS criterion. The TS example code was illustrative; the criterion items are structural.
  4. Scope discipline: 0 new files, 3 of 3 stated modifications made, no out-of-scope changes.
  5. Template quality: The new TS.md template directly implements the TFW-41 vision — Requirements, not code. Domain-neutral. Gates over guidelines. An agent using this template will structurally produce better TSs.
  6. Conventions quality: 4 new anti-patterns are precise, one-line, non-redundant with existing 19.

Phase B may now proceed. The pre-condition "Phase A ✅" is satisfied.

§5 Tech Debt Collected

RF Observations triage:

# RF Obs Promoted? Severity Rationale
1 §4 Detailed Steps was root cause of HD-16/C copy-paste — now resolved, recorded for trace ❌ Not promoted — Historical trace item; no action needed. The issue is fixed by this phase.
2 Phase B should verify no workflow step references "§4 Detailed Steps" or "§5 Acceptance Criteria" by number ✅ Promoted Low If workflow steps contain hardcoded section numbers, they will mismatch the new template. Phase B owns this but the risk should be tracked.

Tech Debt entry:

TD-TFW41-A1 | Low | Workflow section-number references
After Phase A renumbered TS sections (Acceptance Criteria moved to §5, Technical Guidance to §6, etc.),
workflow files (handoff.md, plan.md, review.md) may reference old section numbers.
Phase B is assigned to verify and update workflows — this item tracks residual risk if Phase B misses specific references.
Source: RF TFW-41/PhaseA Observation #2.

§6 Knowledge Workflows

  • tfw-docs: Pending — Run after this REVIEW to update KNOWLEDGE.md §1-§3 with Phase A architectural decisions.
  • tfw-knowledge: Pending — RF §6 contains 2 Fact Candidates (both Medium/High confidence) for consolidation.

Both markers to be set to Applied after workflows complete → Task Board status → 📚 KNW → ✅ DONE (Phase A).

§7 Fact Candidates (Reviewer)

# Category Candidate Source Confidence
1 philosophy The structural conflict "AC-1 expected §4, but Principles Check insertion shifted to §5" reveals a meta-lesson: when writing TS for template-modification tasks, specify section headings, not section numbers, in AC items. Numbers are implementation details of the template itself. Review observation High
2 process Phase A delivers a complete template rewrite with zero external dependencies and zero build steps. The absence of a lint/test gate is the correct decision for markdown-only phases — verify.md confirmed DoF gates served as the functional equivalent. Future reviewers of markdown-only phases should default to docs mode and use structural AC checks as the verification mechanism. Review observation High

REVIEW — TFW-41 / Phase A: Templates and Conventions | 2026-04-20