Open
Conversation
corinagum
reviewed
Apr 15, 2026
| ## Constraints | ||
|
|
||
| - Do NOT modify code directly. Provide specific, actionable feedback with file paths and line numbers. | ||
| - If changes are needed, hand back to the implementer with clear instructions. |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There should be a line verifying feedback against convention in the file/repo. Is it leaving feedback that would create an inconsistency with an existing pattern? If so at the very least, it should be noted that the change would make the code inconsistent.
As an example, copilot leaving feedback that the new method isn't using the return types noted in the JSdoc, but every other method in the file similarly returns only res.data, not the specific return type.
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is a good idea, do you want to update this PR? or can we merge it and review/improve later?
heyitsaamir
approved these changes
Apr 15, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This pull request introduces a comprehensive multi-agent workflow for the Microsoft Teams .NET SDK project. It adds detailed role descriptions, responsibilities, constraints, and output formats for each agent in the pipeline—PM Spec Writer, Architect, Implementer, Code Reviewer, and Tester. It also documents the overall pipeline process, agent routing rules, and the shared decision log protocol. These changes formalize and standardize the project's contribution and review process.
Agent definitions and responsibilities:
.claude/agents/pm-spec.mdto define the PM Spec Agent's role in translating user requests into actionable specifications, including required spec structure and hand-off protocol..claude/agents/architect.mdto define the Architect Agent's responsibilities for technical design, API surface planning, and architectural decision logging..claude/agents/implementer.mdto specify how the Implementer Agent writes code based on designs, including coding conventions, build commands, and constraints..claude/agents/code-reviewer.mdto describe the Code Reviewer Agent's review criteria, output format, and rules for feedback and decision logging..claude/agents/tester.mdto outline the Tester Agent's approach to writing and running tests, naming conventions, and reporting.Pipeline process and documentation:
CLAUDE.mdto document the overall project structure, the multi-agent pipeline flow, agent routing rules, hand-off protocol, and the purpose of the shareddecisions.mdlog.decisions.mdto provide a standardized format for logging decisions and trade-offs by all agents, ensuring chronological and append-only entries.