Add Task #105: Trinity Console Review Workflow System (Planned)

- Draft for brainstorming - Multiple open questions on approval flow, repos, notifications - Simpler v0 option included
2026-04-09 21:40:41 +00:00
parent dce651e09a
commit 792b8f86b5
1 changed files with 157 additions and 0 deletions
--- a/docs/tasks-index/task-105-review-workflow.md
+++ b/docs/tasks-index/task-105-review-workflow.md
@@ -0,0 +1,157 @@
+---
+task_number: 105
+title: Trinity Console Review Workflow System
+status: Planned
+priority: P3-Low
+is_blocker: false
+owner: Trinity
+tags:
+  - trinity-console
+  - workflow
+  - collaboration
+estimated_hours: 4
+---
+
+# Task #105: Trinity Console Review Workflow System
+
+## Problem
+
+Holly (and her Catalyst) creates documentation and code that needs Michael's review. Currently no internal system to flag items for review — relies on Discord pings or verbal communication.
+
+## Desired Flow
+
+1. Holly tells her Catalyst "Michael needs to review this"
+2. Catalyst commits with a `[REVIEW]` tag in the commit message
+3. Trinity Console dashboard shows a "Pending Reviews" section
+4. Michael sees it, clicks through to Gitea, reviews
+5. Michael approves and the tag clears
+
+---
+
+## Open Questions
+
+### 1. How does Michael "approve"?
+
+Options:
+- **A)** Commit with `[APPROVED]` referencing the original
+- **B)** Button in Trinity Console that creates the approval commit
+- **C)** Manual — just mentally note it, reviews are informational only
+- **D)** Gitea PR workflow (branch + merge = approved)
+
+### 2. Which repos to watch?
+
+- Just `firefrost-operations-manual`?
+- All repos (`firefrost-services`, `firefrost-website` too)?
+- Configurable per-repo?
+
+### 3. Should reviews block anything?
+
+- Pure informational (yellow "FYI" box)?
+- Blocking (can't deploy until approved)?
+- Depends on tag? (`[REVIEW]` = FYI, `[REVIEW-REQUIRED]` = blocking)
+
+### 4. Who can request reviews?
+
+- Anyone with commit access?
+- Just Catalysts/Chroniclers?
+- Tag includes reviewer name? `[REVIEW:Michael]`
+
+### 5. What metadata to capture?
+
+- Commit hash
+- Author
+- Date
+- Files changed
+- Link to Gitea diff
+
+### 6. Notification?
+
+- Just dashboard widget (passive)?
+- Discord webhook to `#trinity-review` (active)?
+- Both?
+
+---
+
+## Possible Implementation
+
+### Commit Convention
+
+```
+[REVIEW] Add mod deployment architecture doc
+
+Holly needs Michael to review the approach before proceeding.
+
+Signed-off-by: Catalyst #1
+```
+
+### Approval Convention
+
+```
+[APPROVED] Mod deployment architecture doc
+
+Looks good, proceed with implementation.
+
+Signed-off-by: Claude (Chronicler #74)
+```
+
+### Dashboard Widget
+
+```
+┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐
+│ 📋 Pending Reviews (2)                  │
+├─────────────────────────────────────────┤
+│ 🟡 [REVIEW] Mod deployment arch doc     │
+│    by Catalyst #1 • 2 hours ago         │
+│    [View in Gitea]                      │
+├─────────────────────────────────────────┤
+│ 🟡 [REVIEW] Discord automation skill    │
+│    by Catalyst #1 • 5 hours ago         │
+│    [View in Gitea]                      │
+└─────────────────────────────────────────┘
+```
+
+### Backend Logic
+
+```javascript
+// Pseudocode
+const pendingReviews = commits
+  .filter(c => c.message.includes('[REVIEW]'))
+  .filter(c => !commits.some(approval => 
+    approval.message.includes('[APPROVED]') && 
+    approval.message.includes(extractTitle(c.message))
+  ));
+```
+
+---
+
+## Alternative: Simpler v0
+
+Skip the approval tracking entirely:
+
+1. Catalyst commits with `[REVIEW]` tag
+2. Dashboard shows all `[REVIEW]` commits from last 7 days
+3. No approval system — just a "hey look at these" list
+4. Old reviews naturally age out
+
+Pros: Much simpler to build
+Cons: No confirmation that review happened
+
+---
+
+## Dependencies
+
+- Gitea API access (already have)
+- Trinity Console dashboard (already exists)
+
+---
+
+## Notes
+
+- This came up because Holly's Catalyst is working in parallel
+- Need a way to surface "please review" without Discord noise
+- Could expand to code reviews, not just docs
+- Consider: should Chroniclers also be able to request reviews from each other?
+
+---
+
+**Fire + Frost + Foundation = Where Love Builds Legacy** 🔥❄️