Cds review triage

Review Triage

Purpose

Classify review feedback before implementation begins. Validate findings, decide what to address, dismiss, or defer, and route each finding to the right next action based on severity and size.

When To Use

• Review feedback exists from any source (plan-review, architecture-review, review-council, PR comments, manual review).
• The feedback needs validation before committing to implementation work.

When Not To Use

• No review has been run. Run the appropriate review skill first.
• The feedback is a single obvious fix. Just do it.

Core Principles

1. Validate before accepting. Review feedback is not automatically correct. Each finding must be evaluated for accuracy, relevance, and priority before creating work.
2. Classify and route, don't just label. Triage determines the next action, not just a category. Small fixes get done immediately. Medium issues become tickets. Large concerns become plans.
3. Traceability is mandatory. Every follow-up must reference the original work that produced it. No orphaned tickets.
4. Protect against churn. Do not accept findings that create significant implementation work without proportional value. Dismiss findings that are speculative, low-confidence, or address hypothetical problems.
5. Severity drives urgency, size drives routing. P1 findings are always addressed. P2 findings are addressed or tracked. P3 findings are addressed only if small, otherwise dismissed or deferred.

Severity Scale

• P1 (critical). Must be addressed. Correctness, security, or data integrity risk.
• P2 (important). Should be addressed. Maintainability, performance, or architecture concern.
• P3 (nice-to-have). Could be addressed. Improvement or cleanup that adds marginal value.

Routing Matrix

	Small	Medium	Large
P1	Fix immediately	Follow-up ticket, high priority	Follow-up plan
P2	Fix immediately	Follow-up ticket	Follow-up plan
P3	Fix immediately or dismiss	Follow-up ticket if valuable	Dismiss or defer

Workflow

1. Gather findings. Accept review output from any source — plan-review, architecture-review, review-council, PR comments, or manual review.
2. Present findings one at a time. Show the finding with its source, evidence, and recommended action.
3. Classify each finding. Assign severity (P1/P2/P3) and validate — is this finding accurate, relevant, and worth acting on?
4. Route each finding. Based on severity and size:
   • Fix now — apply the fix immediately.
   • Follow-up ticket — create a Linear issue with source reference.
   • Follow-up plan — create a plan stub in docs/plans/active/ with source frontmatter, routed through the planning skill.
   • Dismiss — state the reason and move on.
5. Summarize triage results. Communicate the triage summary in the prescribed format.

Follow-Up Plan Frontmatter

When triage creates a follow-up plan, include source traceability:

---
title: <plan title>
date: YYYY-MM-DD
status: proposed
source: <path to the original plan, PR, or review that produced this finding>
source_finding: <severity — brief description of the finding>
---

Triage Summary Format

## Triage Summary

| # | Finding | Severity | Why It Matters | Decision | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | <title> | P1 | <why it matters> | Fix now | Fixed |
| 2 | <title> | P2 | <why it matters> | Follow-up plan | Plan stub created: <path> |
| 3 | <title> | P3 | <why it matters> | Dismiss | <reason> |

Constraints On This Skill

• Findings are presented one at a time. Confirm classification and routing before moving to the next.
• Dismissed findings are communicated during the session, not persisted.
• Small fixes can be applied immediately during triage.
• Agent-agnostic. No tool-specific or platform-specific references.