Problem
In Issue #13 (scripting runtime ADR, session 20260423-235003), the reviewer flagged 3 WARNINGs about plan-critic revision annotations appearing in final document section headers. Example pattern:
## Security Model (Revised: sandboxing clarified per critic feedback)
These parenthetical revision notes are plan-critic working artifacts. They belong in revision metadata or a document footer — not embedded in the section headers of the final published ADR.
Impact
- Reviewer flagged 3 WARNINGs in the PR review, adding noise
- Makes merged ADR documents look like work-in-progress rather than final decisions
- The annotations were cosmetic and non-blocking, but accumulated across multiple research ADRs they degrade doc quality
Suggested fix
Add to the implementer agent prompt (or its research-ADR document-writing instructions):
When producing the final document, do not embed plan-critic revision annotations, REVISE cycle notes, or revision history parentheticals in section headers. Section headers must be clean prose titles only. Revision history (if retained) belongs in a document footer or metadata block, not in headings.
This is a one-line prompt addition. The implementer already knows about plan-critic cycles — it just needs explicit instruction not to surface them in the output artifact.
Evidence
PR #14, Issue #13 (ISSUES.md #3), session 20260423-235003. Reviewer output: 3 WARNINGs classified as cosmetic, non-blocking.
Repo: provably-fair-backtesting/dice
Session: 20260423-235003
Plugin Version: unknown
Filed automatically by continuous-improvement-analyst
Problem
In Issue #13 (scripting runtime ADR, session 20260423-235003), the reviewer flagged 3 WARNINGs about plan-critic revision annotations appearing in final document section headers. Example pattern:
## Security Model (Revised: sandboxing clarified per critic feedback)These parenthetical revision notes are plan-critic working artifacts. They belong in revision metadata or a document footer — not embedded in the section headers of the final published ADR.
Impact
Suggested fix
Add to the implementer agent prompt (or its research-ADR document-writing instructions):
This is a one-line prompt addition. The implementer already knows about plan-critic cycles — it just needs explicit instruction not to surface them in the output artifact.
Evidence
PR #14, Issue #13 (ISSUES.md #3), session 20260423-235003. Reviewer output: 3 WARNINGs classified as cosmetic, non-blocking.
Repo: provably-fair-backtesting/dice
Session: 20260423-235003
Plugin Version: unknown
Filed automatically by continuous-improvement-analyst