resolve-findings · diff
git:20260831.9985d29 to git:20260927.f85642c
14 added, 16 removed. Audit A to A.
---
name: resolve-findings
- description: "Choose an implementation path (direct or plan) for evaluated findings and dispatch it. Direct path applies fixes directly; plan path runs $turboplan. Use after $evaluate-findings has tagged findings and they need to be implemented, or when the user asks to \"resolve findings\", \"apply evaluated findings\", or \"dispatch findings to implementation\"."
+ description: "Implement evaluated findings: load code-style rules, apply the accepted fixes, then close out the change with full or quick QA. Use after $evaluate-findings has tagged findings and they need to be implemented, or when the user asks to \"resolve findings\", \"apply evaluated findings\", or \"dispatch findings to implementation\"."
---
# Resolve Findings
- Choose a path for evaluated findings and run it. Direct path applies fixes directly; plan path runs `$turboplan`.
+ Apply evaluated findings and close out the change.
## Task Tracking
At the start, use `update_plan` to track each step, restating any remaining steps of a parent workflow alongside them:
- 1. Choose path
- 2. Run the chosen path
-
- ## Step 1: Choose Path
+ 1. Run `$code-style` skill
+ 2. Run `$apply-findings` skill
+ 3. Close out the change
- Present a summary of accepted findings (Apply verdict): count by complexity (mechanical fixes vs. architectural or design changes). Then use `request_user_input` to let the user choose:
+ ## Step 1: Run `$code-style` Skill
- - **Plan** — Run `$turboplan` for drafting, refinement, approval, implementation, and finalize
- - **Direct** — Run `$apply-findings`, then close out the change
+ Run the `$code-style` skill to load existence, reuse, mirror, and symmetry rules before editing.
- Suggest Plan when findings include complex or architectural changes. Suggest Direct when all findings are mechanical fixes.
+ ## Step 2: Run `$apply-findings` Skill
- Add a **Get a second opinion** option whenever the findings would establish a pattern others will follow, change an interface, or commit to a data shape, and whenever neither path earns the suggestion with conviction. It runs the `$consult-claude` skill for which path the findings warrant on technical merit. Then resolve the path with that answer in hand, re-asking when the choice stays the user's.
+ Run the `$apply-findings` skill on the evaluated findings.
- ## Step 2: Run the Chosen Path
+ ## Step 3: Close Out the Change
- Read the reference file for the confirmed path and follow its phases:
+ If no changes were made, skip this step.
- - **Direct path** — [references/direct-path.md](references/direct-path.md)
- - **Plan path** — [references/plan-path.md](references/plan-path.md)
+ Use `request_user_input` to choose how to close out the change:
- State the chosen path before continuing with the reference file.
+ - **Full QA** — run the `$finalize` skill
+ - **Quick close** — run the `$quick-finalize` skill
Then call `update_plan` to mark this step completed and continue with the next step of the active workflow.