intake: upstream #1612 (intake/lote-C-pr-1612)#73
intake: upstream #1612 (intake/lote-C-pr-1612)#73nsalvacao wants to merge 1 commit intobaseline/main-sync-2026-02-17from
Conversation
Introduces a new command that enables targeted spec amendments after implementation is complete. When edge cases, missing scenarios, or behavioral corrections are discovered post-implementation, this command cascades the change through spec → tests → code → traceability without requiring a full re-run of the specify/plan/tasks/implement pipeline. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Summary of ChangesHello @nsalvacao, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request integrates a new Highlights
Changelog
Activity
Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here. You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension. Footnotes
|
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request introduces a new /speckit.amend command, which provides a well-defined workflow for making post-implementation changes. The process is thorough, incorporating best practices like spec-as-source-of-truth and a test-first approach. The different phases, from context loading to reporting, are logical and cover the amendment lifecycle comprehensively. My review focuses on clarifying a few edge cases and alternative paths to make the process even more robust. I've added a couple of comments to address underspecified parts of the workflow.
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| d. Present the impact map to the user and ask: "Proceed with these changes? (yes/no)" | ||
| - If "no", halt and suggest adjustments |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The recovery path when the user rejects the proposed impact map is a bit vague. The instruction to "halt and suggest adjustments" could be more specific to ensure a helpful user interaction. Consider guiding the agent to explicitly ask the user to either provide the correct list of affected files or to refine the amendment description for a more accurate impact analysis.
|
|
||
| 9. Run the new test to confirm it **fails** (RED state): | ||
| - Execute only the new test using the project's test runner | ||
| - If the test **passes** (the behavior already works): Report that the amendment is already handled in code but was missing from the spec. Mark as "spec-only amendment" and skip Phase 5. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In the case of a "spec-only amendment" where the implementation already exists and Phase 5 is skipped, the instructions for Phase 6 (Traceability Update) are incomplete. It's not specified what should be written for the Code: <implementation file path> entry in tasks.md (line 166).
To ensure complete and unambiguous traceability, the process should define this. For example, it could instruct the agent to record Code: No change required or to list the file(s) that were identified as already containing the correct implementation.
|
Superseded by #148, which carries the same This PR is now closed to keep intake flow coherent. |
2 participants
Intake PR (Review Phase)
intake/lote-C-pr-1612baseline/main-sync-2026-02-17Policy