Unify open question handling and align PRD/design workflows#40
Merged
Conversation
The design workflow treated open questions as a permanent decision log while the PRD workflow treated them as transient. This inconsistency led to stale appendix entries and verbose Section 8 blocks in design documents. Adopt the PRD's transient approach for both workflows: resolved questions are incorporated into the relevant document section and the entry removed. Design workflow changes: - Section 8 now uses Owner/Impact fields with transient lifecycle - Appendix removed (assumptions resolved interactively in new Step 5, review focus areas moved to PR description via publish skill) - Respond skill gains open question resolution mechanics - Publish skill dynamically populates "Requesting Review On" from document content with explicit fallback for empty state - Status field removed from metadata header (PR lifecycle is truth) - PRD relative link added to metadata header Cross-workflow alignment: - Locked decisions check lifted to top of Step 4 in both respond skills, covering open question resolutions and general edits - Acceptance criteria standard unified to "behavioral outcomes" - Hardcoded section numbering removed from guidance and skills Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded
You’ve run out of usage credits. Purchase more in the billing tab. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. ℹ️ Review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Enterprise Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
WalkthroughThe PR updates design document and PRD workflows to standardize Open Questions with mandatory Owner and Impact fields, implement a structured resolution process, and integrate these changes across draft, publish, and respond skill workflows. ChangesOpen Questions Structure and Workflow
Estimated code review effort🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~12 minutes 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. 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 |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@design/skills/draft.md`:
- Around line 129-134: The section is inconsistent about unresolved items:
update the text around Step 5 to require that any remaining "[Assumption: ...]"
markers must be resolved by converting each into either a concrete "Open
Question" entry that includes Owner and Impact fields or into a specific TBD
marker before removing assumption markers; specifically, change the lines
referencing "Items the user cannot resolve now" and the sentence "After this
step, the document should contain no `[Assumption: ...]` markers" to state this
required conversion path and give a short template example (Open Question:
[question] — Owner: [name/team]; Impact: [description]) so authors know how to
convert assumptions into Open Questions or explicit TBDs.
In `@design/templates/design.md`:
- Line 7: The PRD link in the template row "| PRD | [prd.md](prd.md)
|" is a concrete relative path that breaks CI link checks; replace the literal
"[prd.md](prd.md)" with a placeholder token (e.g., "[PRD]({PRD_LINK})" or
"[PRD](%PRD_LINK%)") so the template contains a non-resolving placeholder
instead of an actual relative link, and ensure any README/template generation
code expects and replaces the token with the real relative path when rendering
final docs.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Organization UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Enterprise
Run ID: c38c1a0a-4dae-40db-b287-0f477e6f4bd7
📒 Files selected for processing (9)
design/guidelines.mddesign/skills/draft.mddesign/skills/publish.mddesign/skills/respond.mddesign/templates/design.mddesign/templates/section-guidance.mdprd/guidelines.mdprd/skills/respond.mdprd/templates/section-guidance.md
- Clarify assumption conversion path in draft Step 5: unresolved
assumptions must be converted to Open Questions or TBDs before
removing the marker, not left as-is
- Replace concrete prd.md link in template with placeholder token
to avoid CI link-check failures (lychee excludes {placeholder} URLs)
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Test plan
/design drafton a new design — verify Section 8 uses Owner/Impact subsection format and no appendix is generated/design respondon a PR with open question comments — verify resolution incorporates into target section and removes the entry/design publish— verify "Requesting Review On" is populated dynamically from document content/prd respondon a PR with open question comments — verify locked decisions check catches conflicts with resolutions🤖 Generated with Claude Code