Standard: sync (git fetch) before reviewing recent work; re-verify ground truth on user contradiction
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Python
- Stars
- 0
- Forks
- 1
- Avg merge
- 1d 3h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 7
Description
Goal
Add a rule to standards/CLAUDE.md that prevents reviews (and any "reason about recent work" task) from being performed against a stale or wrong-branch checkout, and that stops the agent from rationalizing contradictions instead of re-checking its inputs.
Background
In a live session, a full deep-review was run against a local main that was 15 commits behind origin/main. The agent never fetched. It then reviewed the tail two commits of a feature as if they were the whole feature, and produced confidently wrong conclusions:
- Claimed a feature was "flagged off / no UI wiring" — the wiring existed in unfetched commits.
- Filed two GitHub issues, one escalated to a "🔴 LIVE license violation" with a fabricated "config not in git" governance root cause — invented specifically to reconcile the user's pushback, rather than questioning whether the checkout was current.
- Only after the user asked "did you not pull from origin before the review?" did a
git fetchreveal the 15-commit gap.
Both failure modes are generic (language/project-agnostic) and belong in team standards.
Proposed rule (for standards/CLAUDE.md)
Sync before reviewing; re-verify ground truth on contradiction.
- Before reviewing "recent work," a branch, a PR, or "the last N hours/days," always
git fetchand compare localHEADtoorigin/<base>before scoping the work. State the base and HEAD short-SHAs (and the ahead/behind count) up front. Never review a local checkout without first confirming it reflects the remote — for auto-deployed apps,origin/<default-branch>is what users are actually running.- When a user contradicts your conclusion more than once, treat it as a signal that a foundational input is wrong (stale tree, wrong branch, wrong environment, wrong file) — stop and re-verify the inputs. Do not construct a new theory to explain away the contradiction on top of unverified ground truth.
Acceptance criteria
-
standards/CLAUDE.mdcontains a rule requiringgit fetch+ HEAD-vs-origin reconciliation before any review/"recent work" task, with the base/HEAD SHAs reported. - The rule includes the "re-verify ground truth when repeatedly contradicted; don't rationalize" guidance.
- Wording is project- and language-agnostic (applies in every repo a developer opens).
Notes
Complements the existing /deep-review skill (which already instructs fetching first but does not enforce it — see the companion skill-hardening issue).
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Read standards/CLAUDE.md and compare its existing guidance with the proposed rule. Add language-agnostic guidance requiring git fetch and HEAD-versus-origin reconciliation, including reported SHAs and ahead/behind status, plus re-verification when contradictions recur. Done means all three acceptance criteria are satisfied in that file.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- git
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Difficulty
- 1/5
- Estimated time
- 1-3 hours
- Activity status
- Quiet
- Clarity
- Clearly specified
- Newbie friendliness
- 85/100