ss-sdd-receiving-review-findings

Spec review findings are processed by evaluating severity levels, verifying cited sections against project context, and deciding to fix, defer, push back with reasoning, or escalate. CRITICAL and HIGH findings must be verified and resolved before advancing stages.

Handling CRITICAL spec review findings requires reading the full cited sections, checking consistency with ADRs and constitution, and blocking stage advancement until verified and resolved. Unresolved CRITICAL or HIGH findings are escalated to human judgment when hitting the 2-iteration cap.

Verifying spec review findings involves reading the full cited sections and checking consistency with project context, ADRs, and constitution before making any edits. This verification-first approach ensures only justified fixes are applied while rejecting performative or context-missing feedback.

You can push back on spec review findings when the reviewer misses deliberate decisions or context. Push-backs must include reasoning and are recorded for auditability, ensuring that deliberate design choices are preserved without unnecessary edits.

Unresolved spec review findings should be escalated to human judgment when the hard 2-iteration cap is hit with CRITICAL or HIGH issues still unresolved. The coordinator re-dispatches the reviewer only when material CRITICAL or HIGH changes are made.

Spec review blocks unresolved CRITICAL and HIGH findings from stage advancement to enforce safety guardrails and ensure verification-before-editing. This prevents forbidden state.json handling and maintains tracked state integrity via atomic write guidance.