perf(dev-auto): make review-layer fan-out atomic#2565
Conversation
The review step said only to "execute all remaining layers in parallel wherever their execution methods allow", which permits an orchestrator to spawn one reviewer, react to its output, then spawn the next. Observed in a run where four reviewers launched ~2m14s apart end to end — pure wall-clock waste with no quality benefit. Require every reviewer spawn to be issued contiguously before reading, waiting on, or reacting to any reviewer output; collection and triage only begin once all reviewers are launched. No change to reasoning structure or review discipline. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉 ℹ️ Recent review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThis change updates documentation in step-04-review.md to add an explicit ordering constraint: all reviewer subagents must be spawned in parallel before reading or reacting to any reviewer output, replacing the prior instruction that lacked this constraint. ChangesReview Step Instruction Update
Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~2 minutes Possibly related PRs
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
🤖 Augment PR SummarySummary: Tightens the bmad-dev-auto Step 4 review instructions to enforce an atomic fan-out when launching reviewer subagents. 🤖 Was this summary useful? React with 👍 or 👎 |
What
Tighten the dev-auto review step so reviewer subagents launch as one atomic fan-out.
step-04-review.mdpreviously said only to "execute all remaining layers in parallel wherever their execution methods allow" — wording that permits an orchestrator to spawn one reviewer, react to its output, then spawn the next.Why
Observed in a real run: four reviewers (adversarial, edge-case, verification-gap, intent-alignment) launched ~2m14s apart end to end because the parent reacted to earlier output before spawning the rest. Pure wall-clock waste with no quality benefit.
Change
One added sentence:
No change to reasoning structure or review discipline — only the launch ordering.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code