guide: checkpoint the design every third review round, brainstorming alternatives

assets/CONTEXT.md

@@ -149,8 +149,9 @@ Where it says nothing, only a record on a PR whose author has write access count
 
 Checkpoint the design across review rounds.
 A review round is one `quest review` round, numbered within the branch's review session.
-Every fourth round, stop before fixing more findings and reconsider the approach.
-Report that judgment and what remains, recommending to continue, rethink the approach, merge as is, or drop the PR, and let the user decide.
+Every third round, stop before fixing more findings and reconsider the approach.
+Findings that keep coming usually mean the approach is wrong, not the last fix: brainstorm other designs that would avoid the whole class of findings, favoring simpler ones, and compare them with the current one.
+Report the alternatives and what remains, recommending to continue, rethink the approach, merge as is, or drop the PR, and let the user decide; a background agent leaves this under `## Waiting` rather than deciding it.
 Record each design change, including a rethink the user picks, in a PR comment that starts with `Design change:`, and start the next review with `quest review --new`, which restarts the count.
 
 Fix every finding relevant to the PR in the PR: review findings you do not refute, gaps the change exposes, and bugs in the code it touches.

src/runner/job.ts

@@ -502,7 +502,7 @@ export class Attempt {
 		}
 		return {
 			passed: false,
-			note: `The runner's review of ${short} by ${by} found ${round.findings.length} finding${round.findings.length === 1 ? "" : "s"}.${recorded || " kix recorded it as a failing `quest review` check."} Fix each one or refute it with evidence the reviewer cannot rebut (a path:line, a command's output, or a recorded maintainer decision), then call \`deliver\` again with \`responses\` saying what you did for each. Follow the guide's review rules, including its design checkpoint every fourth round.\n\n${formatFindings(round.findings)}`,
+			note: `The runner's review of ${short} by ${by} found ${round.findings.length} finding${round.findings.length === 1 ? "" : "s"}.${recorded || " kix recorded it as a failing `quest review` check."} Fix each one or refute it with evidence the reviewer cannot rebut (a path:line, a command's output, or a recorded maintainer decision), then call \`deliver\` again with \`responses\` saying what you did for each. Follow the guide's review rules, including its design checkpoint every third round.\n\n${formatFindings(round.findings)}`,
 		};
 	}
 

test/runner.test.ts

@@ -1053,7 +1053,7 @@ describe("prompts", () => {
 		expect(merge).toContain("Where the workflow says to run `quest wait`, call `wait`");
 		expect(merge).toContain("# The merge workflow");
 		// The skill's design checkpoint still reaches the maintainer.
-		expect(merge).toContain("Every fourth round");
+		expect(merge).toContain("Every third round");
 	});
 
 	test("carry earlier summaries and the latest answer", () => {