blueclover22 Review Report Guide
After reviewing implementation results, write the report following this guide.
Report template: ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/review-report/assets/review-report.template.md (in English; render the report in the user's language, keeping the structure).
When to Use
- When an implementation stage (mak:coder or direct) is complete and results need review
- When checking that the implementation matches the design doc
- When a combined quality judgement including the project's verification results is needed
Review Procedure
- Read the design doc — find the relevant design doc (per the
mak:design-doc-templatesave-path rule, default.claude/mak/plan/) and note its §Scope of Changes and §Verification Plan - Read convention docs — the project's convention documents (e.g.
docs/*.md, README) and the relevant sections ofCLAUDE.md - Compare the implementation — read the files in the design doc's scope and confirm they match the design intent
- Check verification results — prefer those reported via
mak:verify-checklist; if absent or doubtful, run the project's declared verification commands directly and attach results - Check coding principles — look for violations of the kit's coding principles (Simplicity / Precise Changes — the Warning checklist below). If the project defines its own Coding Rules, check those as well
- Write the report — classify issues by severity and output
Issue Classification
| Grade | Criteria | Action |
|---|---|---|
| 🔴 Critical | Build failure, type error, test failure, security vulnerability, implementation that contradicts the approved design's behavior or breaks a data contract | Must fix, then re-review |
| 🟡 Warning | Code-quality issues, naming inconsistency, unnecessary changes, incomplete features | Fix recommended; prioritize and decide |
| 🟢 Pass | Implemented as designed; verification passed | Nothing notable |
| 📝 Note | Potential issues found outside this review's scope; future improvement ideas | Do not fix; record as separate issues |
Warning Checklist
Classify the following as 🟡 Warning when found:
- Unrequested features / excessive abstraction / speculative flexibility or configuration (Simplicity)
- Error handling or validation for impossible scenarios (Simplicity)
- Unrequested "improvement" of adjacent code/comments/formatting (Precise Changes)
- Unrequested refactoring of working code (Precise Changes)
- Changed lines not directly connected to the user's request (Precise Changes)
- Uncleaned unused imports/variables/functions introduced by the change (Precise Changes)
Pre-existing unused code (outside this review's scope) goes to 📝 Note and is not fixed.
Report Format
${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/review-report/assets/review-report.template.md is the single source of truth for the report format. Fill in each section of the template as-is. State at the top of the output: "This report follows the mak:review-report skill format."
Cautions
- The reviewer reports only and never modifies code directly
- Record findings outside this review's scope only under 📝 Note; do not unilaterally decide to expand scope. If Critical or Warning issues exist, report to the main thread that re-delegation to
mak:coderis needed — do not re-delegate directly - If the verification results could not be confirmed directly, state "could not run directly — based on coder's report"
- Distinguish "no issues" from "could not verify"
- After a slice/stage completion review, hand off to
mak:doc-auditto check whether other documents referencing this change still hold
If there are no issues, close concisely with "✅ All checks passed".
References
- Template:
${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/review-report/assets/review-report.template.md