Summary
After a recent RLCR session, a methodology analysis was performed. The session demonstrated strong review quality and effective goal tracking, but revealed several opportunities to improve the RLCR methodology itself.
Improvement Suggestions
1. Add a "Contract Hardening" Acceptance Criterion
Reserve one acceptance criterion for edge-case contracts: type validation, exit-code coverage, error message formats, and mock fixture requirements. This prevents hardening work from being treated as unexpected scope expansion.
2. Integrate Cross-Component Review Earlier
Schedule a "cross-component scan" as a distinct sub-task in the first review round. This distributes review-phase findings across the session instead of concentrating them at the tail.
3. Enforce Consistent Round Summary Templates
Require all rounds, including review-phase cleanup rounds, to use the same sections: Contract Objective, Work Completed, Files Changed, Validation, Remaining Items, and BitLesson Delta. This makes progress comparison and retrospective analysis easier.
4. Prohibit Deferred Original-Plan Tasks
A deferred original-plan task recurred as a blocker in a later round. A rule that "original-plan tasks may not be deferred beyond the next round" would force immediate resolution or explicit replanning.
5. Add a "Feature Complete" Milestone Marker
Explicitly label the round where the original plan reaches COMPLETE status. All subsequent rounds are review-phase work and should be tracked separately. This prevents scope creep from being invisible.
6. Require Regression Fixtures for All Bug Fixes
No bug fix is complete without a regression test that fails before the fix and passes after. This was already practiced effectively and should be codified as a rule.
7. Review Command Specifications in Parallel
Command specs should be reviewed as soon as they are drafted, not after implementation is complete. A lightweight review of specs in mid-implementation rounds would catch quoting, exit-code, and documentation issues much earlier.
Context
These suggestions are derived from a sanitized methodology analysis of a recent RLCR session. The analysis focused purely on process patterns, not on any specific feature or implementation.
Summary
After a recent RLCR session, a methodology analysis was performed. The session demonstrated strong review quality and effective goal tracking, but revealed several opportunities to improve the RLCR methodology itself.
Improvement Suggestions
1. Add a "Contract Hardening" Acceptance Criterion
Reserve one acceptance criterion for edge-case contracts: type validation, exit-code coverage, error message formats, and mock fixture requirements. This prevents hardening work from being treated as unexpected scope expansion.
2. Integrate Cross-Component Review Earlier
Schedule a "cross-component scan" as a distinct sub-task in the first review round. This distributes review-phase findings across the session instead of concentrating them at the tail.
3. Enforce Consistent Round Summary Templates
Require all rounds, including review-phase cleanup rounds, to use the same sections: Contract Objective, Work Completed, Files Changed, Validation, Remaining Items, and BitLesson Delta. This makes progress comparison and retrospective analysis easier.
4. Prohibit Deferred Original-Plan Tasks
A deferred original-plan task recurred as a blocker in a later round. A rule that "original-plan tasks may not be deferred beyond the next round" would force immediate resolution or explicit replanning.
5. Add a "Feature Complete" Milestone Marker
Explicitly label the round where the original plan reaches COMPLETE status. All subsequent rounds are review-phase work and should be tracked separately. This prevents scope creep from being invisible.
6. Require Regression Fixtures for All Bug Fixes
No bug fix is complete without a regression test that fails before the fix and passes after. This was already practiced effectively and should be codified as a rule.
7. Review Command Specifications in Parallel
Command specs should be reviewed as soon as they are drafted, not after implementation is complete. A lightweight review of specs in mid-implementation rounds would catch quoting, exit-code, and documentation issues much earlier.
Context
These suggestions are derived from a sanitized methodology analysis of a recent RLCR session. The analysis focused purely on process patterns, not on any specific feature or implementation.