modernize-review

---

description: Confirm or correct the business rules that need a person's judgement; the plan and the build read your answers argument-hint: [flagged|p0|all] arguments: system scope

Ask a person to decide the business rules in analysis/$system/BUSINESS_RULES.md that depend on judgement, and record each answer so the plan and the build honor it. Agents mined the rules and a second agent checked every citation, but only someone who knows the business can say whether a rule is right: whether a truncation is intended or a defect, whether a threshold is still the policy. This command asks in a pop-up and never edits BUSINESS_RULES.md.

1 — Choose the rules

Read BUSINESS_RULES.md (each card has ### RULE-NNN, Priority, Confidence, and sometimes a suspected defect or an SME question) and, if it exists, analysis/$system/RULE_REVIEWS.json; rules already decided are skipped, and you say how many. $scope picks the rest:

• flagged (the default): P0 rules that have a suspected defect, an SME question or less than High confidence, plus any rule the brief's open questions name.
• p0: every P0 rule. all: every rule.

Say how many rules will be asked (about a minute per ten). If none is left, say so and give the next command.

2 — Ask

Use the AskUserQuestion tool, never chat text, up to four rules per call. One question per rule: its id as the header; the title, the plain-English statement, its Given/When/Then in one line, the cited lines (file:line) and the suspected defect or SME question if it has one as the question; and three options: Right (the rule is correct and wanted), Wrong, or not wanted (it misdescribes the code, or the code does this today but should not), Not sure (needs a discussion). The person can type a note instead of choosing: what is right, or the question that needs answering. Keep it, in their words. Stop when they say to. Verdicts the person already typed in the request (RULE-004 wrong: it truncates on purpose) are recorded as given, with no pop-up for those rules. Without the tool and without typed verdicts (a headless run) do not guess: leave every rule unreviewed and say so.

3 — Record

Merge the answers into analysis/$system/RULE_REVIEWS.json, the same file the live progress pane's review deck (/modernize-review-pane) writes:

{ "system": "<name>", "version": 1, "reviews": {
    "RULE-004": { "verdict": "confirmed", "at": "<ISO time>", "title": "<the rule's title>", "note": "<their words, optional>" } } }

verdict is confirmed (Right), wrong (Wrong, or not wanted) or discuss (Not sure). Change an earlier entry only when a new answer replaces it. Write analysis/$system/RULE_REVIEWS.md from it: a short paragraph, then a table Rule | Verdict | When | Title | Note, sorted by rule number. Refresh the report (python3 "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/build_report.py" $system, a convenience: if it fails or python3 is missing, say so in one line and carry on).

4 — What happens next

Tell the person, in three lines: rules marked wrong or needing discussion are not settled; brief lists them as open questions and never builds a Behavior Contract on them; transform and reimagine will not pin a wrong rule as the oracle and stop on a P0 rule still under discussion. Then the next command: /code-modernization:modernize-brief $system (run it again if the brief exists and any rule changed), or the brief's next build command when the plan is already approved.