SDD: task reviewer writes its full report to a review file (#1930)

skills/subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md

@@ -191,9 +191,10 @@ final whole-branch review. When you fill a reviewer template:
   later dispatches — a real session's dispatch hit 42k chars of which 99%
   was pasted history. A fresh subagent needs its task, the interfaces it
   touches, and the global constraints. Nothing else.
-- Dispatch fix subagents for Critical and Important findings. Record Minor
-  findings in the progress ledger as you go, and point the final
-  whole-branch review at that list so it can triage which must be fixed
+- Dispatch fix subagents for Critical and Important findings, passing the
+  review file path for the full detail. Record each task's Minor count and
+  review file path in the progress ledger as you go, and point the final
+  whole-branch review at those files so it can triage which must be fixed
   before merge. A roll-up nobody reads is a silent discard.
 - A finding labeled plan-mandated — or any finding that conflicts with
   what the plan's text requires — is the human's decision, like any plan
@@ -237,11 +238,18 @@ and is re-read on every later turn. Hand artifacts over as files:
   (brief `…/task-N-brief.md` → report `…/task-N-report.md`) and put it in
   the dispatch prompt. The implementer writes the full report there and
   returns only status, commits, a one-line test summary, and concerns.
-- **Reviewer inputs:** the task reviewer gets three paths — the same brief
-  file, the report file, and the review package — plus the global
-  constraints that bind the task.
-- Fix dispatches append their fix report (with test results) to the same
-  report file and return a short summary; re-reviews read the updated file.
+- **Reviewer inputs:** the task reviewer gets four paths — the same brief
+  file, the report file, the review package, and a review file to write
+  to (brief `…/task-N-brief.md` → review `…/task-N-review.md`) — plus
+  the global constraints that bind the task.
+- **Review file:** the reviewer writes its full report there and returns
+  only verdicts, ⚠️ items, one line per Critical/Important finding, a
+  Minor count, and the path. Don't read the review file — the final
+  message is your decision surface; the detail is for fix subagents.
+- Fix dispatches get the review file path for the full findings, append
+  their fix report (with test results) to the same report file, and
+  return a short summary; re-reviews read the updated report file and
+  append to the review file.
 
 ## Durable Progress
 
@@ -292,9 +300,9 @@ Implementer: "Got it. Implementing now..."
   - Self-review: Found I missed --force flag, added it
   - Committed
 
-[Run review-package, dispatch task reviewer with the printed path]
-Task reviewer: Spec ✅ - all requirements met, nothing extra.
-  Strengths: Good test coverage, clean. Issues: None. Task quality: Approved.
+[Run review-package, dispatch task reviewer with the printed path + review file]
+Task reviewer: Spec ✅. Quality: Approved. Minor: 0.
+  Full report: task-1-review.md
 
 [Mark Task 1 complete]
 
@@ -309,13 +317,13 @@ Implementer:
   - Self-review: All good
   - Committed
 
-[Run review-package, dispatch task reviewer with the printed path]
+[Run review-package, dispatch task reviewer with the printed path + review file]
 Task reviewer: Spec ❌:
   - Missing: Progress reporting (spec says "report every 100 items")
   - Extra: Added --json flag (not requested)
-  Issues (Important): Magic number (100)
+  Important: Magic number (100). Minor: 0. Full report: task-2-review.md
 
-[Dispatch fix subagent with all findings]
+[Dispatch fix subagent with the review file path]
 Fixer: Removed --json flag, added progress reporting, extracted PROGRESS_INTERVAL constant
 
 [Task reviewer reviews again]

skills/subagent-driven-development/task-reviewer-prompt.md

@@ -112,13 +112,27 @@ Subagent (general-purpose):
 
     Your report should point at evidence: file:line references for every
     finding and for any check you would otherwise answer with a bare
-    "yes." A tight report that cites lines gives the controller everything
-    it needs.
-
-    Your final message is the report itself: begin directly with the
-    spec-compliance verdict. Every line is a verdict, a finding with
-    file:line, or a check you ran — no preamble, no process narration,
-    no closing summary.
+    "yes." A tight report that cites lines gives the fix subagent
+    everything it needs.
+
+    ## Report Format
+
+    Write your full report to [REVIEW_FILE] using the Output Format
+    below: verdicts, strengths, every finding with file:line, and any
+    check you ran outside the diff. Fix subagents read this file — it is
+    the only place your detail survives.
+
+    Then report back with ONLY (under 15 lines — the detail lives in the
+    review file):
+    - **Spec:** ✅ | ❌ — if ❌, one line per missing/extra/misunderstood
+      item (file:line + summary)
+    - **⚠️ Cannot verify from diff:** [items the controller must resolve
+      itself — always in this message, never only in the file]
+    - **Quality:** Approved | Needs fixes
+    - One line per Critical/Important finding: file:line + what's wrong,
+      with any plan-mandated finding marked (the human adjudicates those)
+    - Minor findings: count only
+    - The review file path
 
     ## Calibration
 
@@ -136,7 +150,7 @@ Subagent (general-purpose):
     Acknowledge what was done well before listing issues — accurate praise
     helps the implementer trust the rest of the feedback.
 
-    ## Output Format
+    ## Output Format (the review file)
 
     ### Spec Compliance
 
@@ -180,9 +194,14 @@ Subagent (general-purpose):
 - `[DIFF_FILE]` — REQUIRED: the path the controller wrote the review
   package to (`scripts/review-package BASE HEAD` prints the unique path it
   wrote; the package never enters the controller's context)
+- `[REVIEW_FILE]` — REQUIRED: the file the reviewer writes its full report
+  to; name it after the brief (brief `…/task-N-brief.md` → review
+  `…/task-N-review.md`). Re-reviews append to the same file.
 
-**Reviewer returns:** Spec Compliance verdict (✅/❌/⚠️), Strengths, Issues
-(Critical/Important/Minor), Task quality verdict
+**Reviewer returns:** full report in `[REVIEW_FILE]`; final message under
+15 lines — Spec verdict (✅/❌/⚠️), Quality verdict, Critical/Important
+findings one line each, Minor count, review file path
 
-A fix dispatch can address spec gaps and quality findings together;
-re-review after fixes covers both verdicts.
+A fix dispatch can address spec gaps and quality findings together — give
+it the review file path for the full findings; re-review after fixes
+covers both verdicts.