feat: add organized-feedback skill with docs and validation

2026-04-09 15:28:26 +08:00
parent ba0edce38c
commit c0717e9a24
8 changed files with 674 additions and 4 deletions
@@ -67,6 +67,8 @@ This repository includes a reusable skill for other LLMs to operate this CLI cor

 - Path: `skills/gitea-pr-review-cli/SKILL.md`
 - Scope: standardized usage of `fetch` / `render-md` / `version`, `v1` version contract, and troubleshooting
+- Path: `skills/organized-feedback/SKILL.md`
+- Scope: organize `gitea-pr-review` PR comments into structured feedback with coverage auditing and unknown-item handling

 ## Markdown Output Shape (Example)

@@ -67,6 +67,8 @@ gitea-pr-review version

 - 路径：`skills/gitea-pr-review-cli/SKILL.md`
 - 用途：标准化 `fetch` / `render-md` / `version` 的调用方式、`v1` 版本约束和常见错误排查
+- 路径：`skills/organized-feedback/SKILL.md`
+- 用途：将 `gitea-pr-review` 生成的 PR 评论整理为结构化反馈，并执行覆盖审计与未知项处理

 ## Markdown 输出结构（示例）

@@ -0,0 +1,375 @@
+# Organized Feedback Skill Implementation Plan
+
+> **For agentic workers:** REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Use superpowers:subagent-driven-development (recommended) or superpowers:executing-plans to implement this plan task-by-task. Steps use checkbox (`- [ ]`) syntax for tracking.
+
+**Goal:** Add a reusable skill that organizes noisy PR review comments into structured feedback with mandatory coverage auditing in interaction and file output to a user-specified path.
+
+**Architecture:** Implement this feature as a pure prompt skill under `skills/` with explicit workflow gates: input validation, classify/group, coverage audit loop, unknown reflection loop, and output write gate. Keep runtime behavior in instructions (no binary changes), and provide fixtures plus a validation script so contributors can quickly verify the skill contract after edits.
+
+**Tech Stack:** Markdown skill spec, Bash validation script, existing repository docs
+
+---
+
+## File Structure
+
+- Create: `skills/organized-feedback/SKILL.md`
+- Create: `skills/organized-feedback/examples/input-pr-review.md`
+- Create: `skills/organized-feedback/examples/output-organized-feedback.md`
+- Create: `scripts/validate_organized_feedback_skill.sh`
+- Modify: `README.md`
+- Modify: `README.en.md`
+
+### Task 1: Create the skill contract file with hard gates
+
+**Files:**
+- Create: `skills/organized-feedback/SKILL.md`
+- Test: `scripts/validate_organized_feedback_skill.sh`
+
+- [ ] **Step 1: Write the failing validator script first (checks missing skill file)**
+
+```bash
+#!/usr/bin/env bash
+set -euo pipefail
+
+SKILL_FILE="skills/organized-feedback/SKILL.md"
+
+if [[ ! -f "$SKILL_FILE" ]]; then
+  echo "FAIL: missing $SKILL_FILE"
+  exit 1
+fi
+
+echo "PASS: skill file exists"
+```
+
+- [ ] **Step 2: Run validator to verify it fails before skill creation**
+
+Run: `bash scripts/validate_organized_feedback_skill.sh`  
+Expected: `FAIL: missing skills/organized-feedback/SKILL.md`
+
+- [ ] **Step 3: Create `SKILL.md` metadata and workflow skeleton**
+
+```markdown
+---
+name: organized-feedback
+description: Organize unstructured PR review comments into classified feedback with mandatory coverage checks and unknown-item reflection.
+---
+
+# Organized Feedback Skill
+
+## Overview
+Use this skill to convert `gitea-pr-review` markdown into `Organized Feedback` markdown.
+
+## Hard Gates
+- Do not write final output until user provides output path.
+- Coverage audit must run in interaction; every source comment/reply must be covered.
+- Coverage audit content must not be written to final document.
+- If unknown count is greater than 3, pause and request user permission before writing file.
+```
+
+- [ ] **Step 4: Extend validator with required hard-gate checks and run it**
+
+```bash
+#!/usr/bin/env bash
+set -euo pipefail
+
+SKILL_FILE="skills/organized-feedback/SKILL.md"
+
+[[ -f "$SKILL_FILE" ]] || { echo "FAIL: missing $SKILL_FILE"; exit 1; }
+
+required_patterns=(
+  "Do not write final output until user provides output path"
+  "Coverage audit must run in interaction"
+  "Coverage audit content must not be written to final document"
+  "If unknown count is greater than 3, pause and request user permission"
+)
+
+for p in "${required_patterns[@]}"; do
+  if ! rg -Fq "$p" "$SKILL_FILE"; then
+    echo "FAIL: missing required rule -> $p"
+    exit 1
+  fi
+done
+
+echo "PASS: organized-feedback hard gates validated"
+```
+
+Run: `bash scripts/validate_organized_feedback_skill.sh`  
+Expected: `PASS: organized-feedback hard gates validated`
+
+- [ ] **Step 5: Commit Task 1**
+
+```bash
+git add skills/organized-feedback/SKILL.md scripts/validate_organized_feedback_skill.sh
+git commit -m "feat(skill): scaffold organized-feedback skill with hard gates"
+```
+
+### Task 2: Implement classification, grouping, and audit workflow in skill instructions
+
+**Files:**
+- Modify: `skills/organized-feedback/SKILL.md`
+- Test: `scripts/validate_organized_feedback_skill.sh`
+
+- [ ] **Step 1: Add failing checks for taxonomy and audit loop requirements**
+
+```bash
+# append to scripts/validate_organized_feedback_skill.sh
+required_patterns+=(
+  "question"
+  "supplement"
+  "request-for-change"
+  "unknown"
+  "Change-Scope"
+  "Necessity"
+  "Missing-Source-Refs"
+  "unknown（>=1），必须执行一次反思复判"
+)
+```
+
+- [ ] **Step 2: Run validator to verify it fails on missing workflow details**
+
+Run: `bash scripts/validate_organized_feedback_skill.sh`  
+Expected: FAIL mentioning at least one missing taxonomy/audit pattern.
+
+- [ ] **Step 3: Fill `SKILL.md` with full workflow and output format contract**
+
+```markdown
+## Inputs
+Required:
+- PR review markdown (with Review/Comment/Reply)
+- output path for organized feedback markdown
+
+## Classification Taxonomy
+- Type: `question | supplement | request-for-change | unknown`
+- For `request-for-change` only:
+  - `Change-Scope`: `local | implement | api-change | requirement-change`
+  - `Necessity`: `nice-to-have | should-fix | must-fix`
+
+## Processing Flow
+1. Parse all source comments/replies into stable refs like `R1.C2`, `R1.C2.P1`.
+2. Create organized items (split/merge is allowed).
+3. Run coverage audit in interaction:
+   - show `All-Source-Refs`
+   - show `Covered-Source-Refs`
+   - show `Missing-Source-Refs`
+4. If missing refs exist, add items and re-audit until missing set is empty.
+5. If unknown（>=1），必须执行一次反思复判.
+6. If unknown count > 3, pause and request user permission before writing output file.
+
+## Final File Format
+Write only:
+- `## Organized Feedback`
+- optional `## Unknown Items`
+
+Do not write coverage audit sections into the output file.
+```
+
+- [ ] **Step 4: Re-run validator and ensure full pass**
+
+Run: `bash scripts/validate_organized_feedback_skill.sh`  
+Expected: `PASS: organized-feedback hard gates validated`
+
+- [ ] **Step 5: Commit Task 2**
+
+```bash
+git add skills/organized-feedback/SKILL.md scripts/validate_organized_feedback_skill.sh
+git commit -m "feat(skill): add classification and coverage audit workflow"
+```
+
+### Task 3: Add realistic examples for maintainers and prompt tuning
+
+**Files:**
+- Create: `skills/organized-feedback/examples/input-pr-review.md`
+- Create: `skills/organized-feedback/examples/output-organized-feedback.md`
+- Test: `scripts/validate_organized_feedback_skill.sh`
+
+- [ ] **Step 1: Add failing validator checks for examples existence**
+
+```bash
+example_files=(
+  "skills/organized-feedback/examples/input-pr-review.md"
+  "skills/organized-feedback/examples/output-organized-feedback.md"
+)
+
+for f in "${example_files[@]}"; do
+  [[ -f "$f" ]] || { echo "FAIL: missing example file -> $f"; exit 1; }
+done
+```
+
+- [ ] **Step 2: Run validator to confirm failure before adding examples**
+
+Run: `bash scripts/validate_organized_feedback_skill.sh`  
+Expected: `FAIL: missing example file -> ...`
+
+- [ ] **Step 3: Add a compact but complete input example**
+
+```markdown
+# org/repo `#42` Improve transaction handling
+
+## Review 42.1 (COMMENT)
+> reviewer-a
+
+### Comment 42.1.1
+service/order.rs:87
+reviewer-a:
+```md
+这里为什么要在循环里每次开启事务？
+```
+
+### Reply 42.1.1.1
+service/order.rs:87
+author:
+```md
+为了保证每个子任务互不影响。
+```
+
+## Review 42.2 (REQUEST_CHANGES)
+> reviewer-b
+
+### Comment 42.2.1
+api/order.ts:15
+reviewer-b:
+```md
+建议把 `createOrder(input)` 改成 `createOrder(ctx, input)`，否则审计信息拿不到。
+```
+```
+
+- [ ] **Step 4: Add output example that excludes coverage audit and includes optional unknown section**
+
+```markdown
+## Organized Feedback
+
+### Item 1
+- Type: question
+- Summary: reviewer-a 询问为何循环内重复开启事务。
+- Rationale: 该意见请求解释现有设计意图，不是直接改动请求。
+- Source-Refs: R1.C1
+- Raw-Excerpts: "这里为什么要在循环里每次开启事务？"
+
+### Item 2
+- Type: request-for-change
+- Change-Scope: api-change
+- Necessity: should-fix
+- Summary: reviewer-b 建议 API 增加 `ctx` 参数以支持审计信息透传。
+- Rationale: 该意见明确要求接口签名调整，影响调用方。
+- Source-Refs: R2.C1
+- Raw-Excerpts: "建议把 createOrder(input) 改成 createOrder(ctx, input)"
+
+## Unknown Items
+
+### Unknown 1
+- Source-Refs: R1.C1.P1
+- Reason: 回复仅陈述现状，缺少审阅者意图，不足以单独归类。
+- Needed-Info: 需要确认该回复是否用于反驳、接受或补充审阅意见。
+```
+
+- [ ] **Step 5: Run validator and commit Task 3**
+
+Run: `bash scripts/validate_organized_feedback_skill.sh`  
+Expected: `PASS: organized-feedback hard gates validated`
+
+```bash
+git add skills/organized-feedback/examples scripts/validate_organized_feedback_skill.sh
+git commit -m "docs(skill): add organized-feedback input and output examples"
+```
+
+### Task 4: Document skill discoverability in README files
+
+**Files:**
+- Modify: `README.md`
+- Modify: `README.en.md`
+
+- [ ] **Step 1: Add Chinese README entry under skill section**
+
+```markdown
+## 给 LLM 的 Skill
+
+仓库内已提供两个可复用 skill：
+
+- `skills/gitea-pr-review-cli/SKILL.md`：标准化 PR 抓取与渲染流程
+- `skills/organized-feedback/SKILL.md`：将 review/comment/reply 整理为 `Organized Feedback`，并执行覆盖审计与 unknown 反思机制
+```
+
+- [ ] **Step 2: Add matching English README entry**
+
+```markdown
+## Skills for LLM Agents
+
+This repository provides reusable skills:
+
+- `skills/gitea-pr-review-cli/SKILL.md`: standardized CLI usage for fetch/render/version flows
+- `skills/organized-feedback/SKILL.md`: organizes review/comment/reply text into `Organized Feedback` with coverage auditing and unknown-item reflection
+```
+
+- [ ] **Step 3: Verify docs include new skill references**
+
+Run: `rg -n "organized-feedback" README.md README.en.md`  
+Expected: both files contain exactly one bullet for the new skill.
+
+- [ ] **Step 4: Commit Task 4**
+
+```bash
+git add README.md README.en.md
+git commit -m "docs: document organized-feedback skill in readmes"
+```
+
+### Task 5: Final verification and delivery
+
+**Files:**
+- Modify: `skills/organized-feedback/SKILL.md`
+- Modify: `scripts/validate_organized_feedback_skill.sh`
+- Modify: `README.md`
+- Modify: `README.en.md`
+
+- [ ] **Step 1: Run full validation commands**
+
+Run:
+```bash
+bash scripts/validate_organized_feedback_skill.sh
+rg -n "Coverage Audit" skills/organized-feedback/examples/output-organized-feedback.md || true
+```
+
+Expected:
+- validator prints pass
+- second command prints no matches (final output example must not contain coverage audit block)
+
+- [ ] **Step 2: Manual acceptance walkthrough**
+
+Run this checklist during a dry-run prompt session:
+1. Start skill without output path -> confirm it asks for path and pauses.
+2. Provide path and source markdown -> confirm it prints coverage audit in interaction.
+3. Provide sample producing unknown count 1 -> confirm reflection pass runs.
+4. Provide sample producing unknown count 4 -> confirm it asks user permission before writing.
+
+Expected: all four checks succeed.
+
+- [ ] **Step 3: Final commit and summary**
+
+```bash
+git add skills/organized-feedback scripts/validate_organized_feedback_skill.sh README.md README.en.md
+git commit -m "feat(skill): add organized-feedback workflow with audit and guardrails"
+```
+
+Run: `git show --name-only --oneline -n 1`  
+Expected: only skill/docs/validator files included.
+
+## Self-Review
+
+### Spec coverage
+- Input path gate: covered in Task 1 + Task 5 walkthrough.
+- Classification taxonomy: covered in Task 2.
+- Split/merge freedom + source refs: covered in Task 2.
+- Coverage audit interaction-only: covered in Task 2 + Task 5.
+- Unknown reflection and >3 permission gate: covered in Task 2 + Task 5.
+- Output format (`Organized Feedback` + optional `Unknown Items`): covered in Task 2 and Task 3 example.
+
+### Placeholder scan
+- No `TBD`/`TODO` placeholders in tasks.
+- Every command step contains explicit command and expected result.
+
+### Type consistency
+- Taxonomy keys are consistent across tasks:
+  - `Type`
+  - `Change-Scope`
+  - `Necessity`
+  - `Source-Refs`
+  - `Unknown Items`
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-# 意见整理 Skill 设计（v1）
+# 意见整理 Skill 设计

 ## 1. 背景与目标

@@ -10,9 +10,6 @@
 - 强制执行覆盖审计，保证不遗漏任何原始 `Comment/Reply`。
 - 最终输出写入用户指定路径。

-约束：
- 当前文档版本规则固定为 `v1`，不做版本 bump。
-
 ## 2. 范围

 本 Skill 仅负责：
@@ -0,0 +1,142 @@
+#!/usr/bin/env bash
+set -euo pipefail
+
+SCRIPT_DIR="$(cd "$(dirname "${BASH_SOURCE[0]}")" && pwd)"
+REPO_ROOT="$(cd "$SCRIPT_DIR/.." && pwd)"
+SKILL_FILE="$REPO_ROOT/skills/organized-feedback/SKILL.md"
+INPUT_EXAMPLE="$REPO_ROOT/skills/organized-feedback/examples/input-pr-review.md"
+OUTPUT_EXAMPLE="$REPO_ROOT/skills/organized-feedback/examples/output-organized-feedback.md"
+
+if ! command -v rg >/dev/null 2>&1; then
+  echo "FAIL: rg is required but was not found in PATH"
+  exit 1
+fi
+
+if [[ ! -f "$SKILL_FILE" ]]; then
+  echo "FAIL: missing $SKILL_FILE"
+  exit 1
+fi
+
+for example_file in "$INPUT_EXAMPLE" "$OUTPUT_EXAMPLE"; do
+  if [[ ! -f "$example_file" ]]; then
+    echo "FAIL: missing $example_file"
+    exit 1
+  fi
+done
+
+anchored_patterns=(
+  '^## Inputs$'
+  '^## Hard Gates$'
+  '^## Classification Taxonomy$'
+  '^## RFC Subfields$'
+  '^## Processing Flow$'
+  '^## Interaction-Only Coverage Audit$'
+  '^## Unknown Handling$'
+  '^## Final File Format$'
+  '^## Output Discipline$'
+  '^- `Change-Scope`: how broad the requested change is\.$'
+  '^  - `local`$'
+  '^  - `implement`$'
+  '^  - `api-change`$'
+  '^  - `requirement-change`$'
+  '^- `Necessity`: how strongly the change is required\.$'
+  '^  - `nice-to-have`$'
+  '^  - `should-fix`$'
+  '^  - `must-fix`$'
+  '^- `All-Source-Refs`: every source reference found in the interaction$'
+  '^- `Covered-Source-Refs`: refs that are represented in the organized output$'
+  '^- `Missing-Source-Refs`: refs that are present in the interaction but not yet covered$'
+  '^Source reference format rule:$'
+  '^- Use `R` \+ PR numbering path from the source markdown\.$'
+  '^- Example mapping: `Comment 42\.1\.1` -> `R42\.1\.1`, `Reply 42\.1\.1\.1` -> `R42\.1\.1\.1`\.$'
+)
+
+for pattern in "${anchored_patterns[@]}"; do
+  if ! rg -n -q --pcre2 "$pattern" "$SKILL_FILE"; then
+    echo "FAIL: missing required rule -> $pattern"
+    exit 1
+  fi
+done
+
+for pattern in "All refs" "Covered refs" "Missing refs"; do
+  if rg -Fq "$pattern" "$SKILL_FILE"; then
+    echo "FAIL: legacy alias found -> $pattern"
+    exit 1
+  fi
+done
+
+for pattern in "output path" "interaction" "coverage audit" "unknown count" "reflection pass" "Unknown Items"; do
+  if ! rg -Fq -- "$pattern" "$SKILL_FILE"; then
+    echo "FAIL: missing required rule -> $pattern"
+    exit 1
+  fi
+done
+
+if ! rg -Fq -- "unknown（>=1）" "$SKILL_FILE" || ! rg -Fq -- "反思复判" "$SKILL_FILE"; then
+  echo "FAIL: missing unknown reflection rule semantics (unknown>=1 + 反思复判)"
+  exit 1
+fi
+
+if rg -Fq "Coverage Audit" "$OUTPUT_EXAMPLE"; then
+  echo "FAIL: coverage audit must not appear in $OUTPUT_EXAMPLE"
+  exit 1
+fi
+
+if ! rg -n -q --pcre2 '^## Organized Feedback$' "$OUTPUT_EXAMPLE"; then
+  echo "FAIL: missing ## Organized Feedback in $OUTPUT_EXAMPLE"
+  exit 1
+fi
+
+if ! rg -Fq "Source-Refs:" "$OUTPUT_EXAMPLE"; then
+  echo "FAIL: missing Source-Refs: line in $OUTPUT_EXAMPLE"
+  exit 1
+fi
+
+if ! rg -n -q --pcre2 '^- Source-Refs: R[0-9]+(\.[0-9]+)+(, R[0-9]+(\.[0-9]+)+)*$' "$OUTPUT_EXAMPLE"; then
+  echo "FAIL: Source-Refs lines must use R-prefixed numeric reference format"
+  exit 1
+fi
+
+awk '
+  BEGIN {
+    in_section = 0
+    item_count = 0
+    item_has_source_refs = 0
+    saw_item = 0
+  }
+  /^## Organized Feedback$/ {
+    in_section = 1
+    next
+  }
+  in_section && /^## / {
+    if (saw_item && !item_has_source_refs) {
+      bad = 1
+    }
+    exit
+  }
+  in_section {
+    if ($0 ~ /^### Item [0-9]+$/) {
+      if (saw_item && !item_has_source_refs) {
+        bad = 1
+      }
+      saw_item = 1
+      item_has_source_refs = 0
+      item_count++
+      next
+    }
+    if ($0 ~ /^- Source-Refs:/ && saw_item) {
+      item_has_source_refs = 1
+    }
+  }
+  END {
+    if (in_section && saw_item && !item_has_source_refs) {
+      bad = 1
+    }
+    exit bad
+  }
+' "$OUTPUT_EXAMPLE" || {
+  echo "FAIL: each ### Item in Organized Feedback must include a Source-Refs line"
+  exit 1
+}
+
+echo "PASS: organized-feedback hard gates validated"
@@ -0,0 +1,83 @@
+---
+name: organized-feedback
+description: Organize PR review comments into structured feedback with coverage auditing and unknown-item handling. Use when converting gitea-pr-review Markdown into a user-specified output document.
+---
+
+# Organized Feedback
+
+## Overview
+Use this skill to turn a single PR review document into organized feedback.
+
+## Inputs
+- PR markdown
+- output path
+
+## Hard Gates
+- Do not write final output until user provides output path.
+- Coverage audit must run in interaction.
+- Coverage audit content must not be written to final document.
+- If unknown count is greater than 3, pause and request user permission.
+
+## Classification Taxonomy
+- `question`: a review item that asks for clarification, confirmation, or intent.
+- `supplement`: a review item that adds missing context, examples, or supporting detail without changing the requested behavior.
+- `request-for-change`: a review item that asks for a code, behavior, or design change.
+- `unknown`: a review item that cannot be classified confidently after one reflection pass.
+
+## RFC Subfields
+When a review item is classified as `request-for-change`, annotate it with:
+- `Change-Scope`: how broad the requested change is.
+  - `local`
+  - `implement`
+  - `api-change`
+  - `requirement-change`
+- `Necessity`: how strongly the change is required.
+  - `nice-to-have`
+  - `should-fix`
+  - `must-fix`
+
+## Processing Flow
+1. Read the PR markdown and identify each review comment or feedback unit.
+2. Classify each unit as `question`, `supplement`, `request-for-change`, or `unknown`.
+3. If a unit clearly contains multiple intents, split it into separate items before grouping.
+4. If multiple units express the same intent, merge them into one grouped item.
+5. For each `request-for-change`, assign `Change-Scope` and `Necessity`.
+6. Run an interaction-only coverage audit using `All-Source-Refs`, `Covered-Source-Refs`, and `Missing-Source-Refs`.
+7. Re-audit until `Missing-Source-Refs` is empty.
+8. Apply the unknown reflection rule once before finalizing any `unknown` item.
+9. If the count of `unknown` items is greater than 3, stop and request user permission before proceeding.
+
+## Interaction-Only Coverage Audit
+The coverage audit must be performed only against the interaction content, not the final document.
+
+Track these lists explicitly:
+- `All-Source-Refs`: every source reference found in the interaction
+- `Covered-Source-Refs`: refs that are represented in the organized output
+- `Missing-Source-Refs`: refs that are present in the interaction but not yet covered
+
+Source reference format rule:
+- Use `R` + PR numbering path from the source markdown.
+- Example mapping: `Comment 42.1.1` -> `R42.1.1`, `Reply 42.1.1.1` -> `R42.1.1.1`.
+
+Audit rules:
+- Compare only against interaction content.
+- Re-audit after every grouping pass until `Missing-Source-Refs` is empty.
+- Do not treat the final document as an audit source.
+
+## Unknown Handling
+- unknown（>=1），必须执行一次反思复判
+- Use one reflection pass to decide whether an item can be reclassified into `question`, `supplement`, or `request-for-change`.
+- If it remains `unknown`, keep it in the `Unknown Items` section.
+- If the number of `unknown` items is greater than 3, request user permission before continuing.
+
+## Final File Format
+Write only the organized output content:
+- `Organized Feedback`
+- optional `Unknown Items`
+
+Do not write the coverage audit into the final output file.
+
+## Output Discipline
+- Preserve the user-specified output path.
+- Keep the final file limited to the agreed format.
+- Do not add extra audit notes, scratch work, or intermediate classification logs to the final file.
@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+# org/repo `#42` Improve transaction handling
+
+## Review 42.1 (COMMENT)
+> reviewer-a
+
+### Comment 42.1.1
+service/order.rs:87
+reviewer-a:
+```md
+为什么要在循环里每次开启事务？
+```
+
+### Reply 42.1.1.1
+service/order.rs:87
+author:
+```md
+为了保证每个子任务互不影响。
+```
+
+## Review 42.2 (REQUEST_CHANGES)
+> reviewer-b
+
+### Comment 42.2.1
+api/order.ts:15
+reviewer-b:
+```md
+建议把 `createOrder(input)` 改成 `createOrder(ctx, input)`，否则审计信息拿不到。
+```
+
+## Review 42.3 (COMMENT)
+> reviewer-c
+
+### Comment 42.3.1
+service/order.rs:120
+reviewer-c:
+```md
+这里的缓存失效策略是不是太激进了？
+```
+
+### Reply 42.3.1.1
+service/order.rs:120
+author:
+```md
+按之前的约定处理。
+```
@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+## Organized Feedback
+
+### Item 1
+- Type: question
+- Summary: reviewer-a 询问为什么在循环里重复开启事务。
+- Rationale: 该意见在确认设计意图，不是直接要求代码修改。
+- Source-Refs: R42.1.1
+- Raw-Excerpts: "为什么要在循环里每次开启事务？"
+
+### Item 2
+- Type: request-for-change
+- Change-Scope: api-change
+- Necessity: should-fix
+- Summary: reviewer-b 建议把 `createOrder(input)` 改成 `createOrder(ctx, input)` 以便传递审计信息。
+- Rationale: 该意见明确要求修改 API 签名，影响调用方。
+- Source-Refs: R42.2.1
+- Raw-Excerpts: "建议把 `createOrder(input)` 改成 `createOrder(ctx, input)`，否则审计信息拿不到。"
+
+## Unknown Items
+
+### Unknown 1
+- Source-Refs: R42.3.1, R42.3.1.1
+- Reason: 回复只是“按之前的约定处理”，缺少足够上下文来判断是接受建议、补充说明还是保持现状。
+- Needed-Info: 需要确认这条回复是否在响应审阅意见，还是仅说明已有实现策略。