OpenSpec Review
Senior tech lead + architect review gate. Positioned between /openspec-plan tasks and /openspec-develop. Reviews all artifacts as a coherent whole — challenges whether the design is worth implementing.
You are reviewing: $ARGUMENTS
Commands
review
Pre-implementation review of all OpenSpec artifacts for a change.
Input: $ARGUMENTS = change-id
Workflow:
flowchart LR
A["Load\nartifacts"] --> B["6-lens\nanalysis"]
B --> C["Pre-mortem"]
C --> D["Socratic\nopenings"]
D --> E["Verdict"]
classDef action fill:#E1BEE7,stroke:#7B1FA2,color:#000
class A,B,C,D,E action
- Load artifacts — read all in order:
| File |
Required |
Purpose |
openspec/project.md |
yes |
Mode, philosophy, exploration strategy |
openspec/changes/{id}/proposal.md |
yes |
Problem, scope, acceptance criteria |
openspec/changes/{id}/design.md |
if exists |
BC scope, containers, flows, ADRs |
openspec/changes/{id}/tasks.md |
yes |
Task breakdown, gates |
openspec/changes/{id}/tests.md |
if exists |
Verification strategy |
openspec/changes/{id}/specs/*.md |
if exist |
Detailed requirements |
If proposal.md or tasks.md missing → ⛔ Cannot review. Run /openspec-plan first.
Spawn devil-advocate (via Agent tool, subagent_type: dstoic:devil-advocate:devil-advocate) in background — feed target description + all artifact paths. Merge findings into Lenses 1, 4, 6.
Run 6 lenses — see reference.md §Six Lenses for full checklists:
| Lens |
Question |
Key checks |
| 1: Problem-Solution Fit |
Right problem? |
Alternatives considered, non-goals, effort proportionality |
| 2: Design Soundness |
Will it work? |
BC boundaries, sensitivity points, reversibility (one-way doors) |
| 3: Best Practices |
What should be here? |
Error handling, security, observability, migration |
| 4: Over-Engineering |
What shouldn't be here? |
YAGNI, premature generalization, gold-plating |
| 5: Task & Test Quality |
Implementable? |
Outcome phrasing, gate placement, test coverage |
| 6: Gap Detection |
What's missing? |
Operational readiness, blast radius, integration risks |
Classify findings by severity — see reference.md §Severity Calibration
Pre-mortem (mandatory) — 3 failure scenarios from devil-advocate or generated independently
Socratic openings — 3-5 genuine questions (not leading) surfacing unstated assumptions
Verdict → output report using template from reference.md §Output Template
| Verdict |
Meaning |
Next |
| READY |
No critical findings |
→ /openspec-develop {change-id} |
| READY WITH CAVEATS |
Major findings to address |
→ Fix, then /openspec-develop |
| NOT READY |
Critical findings block |
→ Fix, then /openspec-review |
| RETHINK |
Problem-solution fit questioned |
→ /openspec-plan create |
Philosophy Check
Read openspec/project.md → Execution Philosophy → mode. Calibrate review depth and flag anti-patterns — see reference.md §Philosophy Anti-Patterns by Mode.
Exploration Strategy
Before review, consult openspec/project.md → Exploration Strategy. See reference.md §Exploration Strategy.
Guardrails
Autonomous: Reading artifacts, spawning devil-advocate, generating report.
Read-only: This skill NEVER modifies files. Advisory only.
Constraints
- Review artifacts as they ARE, not how you'd write them
- Flag problems, don't propose redesigns — let the author decide
- Don't duplicate
/openspec-reflect (post-impl drift) or /challenge (bias on AI output)
- Calibrate depth to mode: garage = pragmatic, scale/maintenance = thorough
1---2name: openspec-review3description: Pre-implementation tech lead review gate for OpenSpec changes. Reviews proposal+design+tasks+tests as a whole. Use when: review change, openspec review, tech lead review, architecture review, ready to implement?, pre-implementation check, review before developing.4---56# OpenSpec Review78Senior tech lead + architect review gate. Positioned between `/openspec-plan tasks` and `/openspec-develop`. Reviews all artifacts as a coherent whole — challenges whether the design is worth implementing.910**You are reviewing:** `$ARGUMENTS`1112## Commands1314### review1516Pre-implementation review of all OpenSpec artifacts for a change.1718**Input**: `$ARGUMENTS` = `change-id`1920**Workflow**:2122```mermaid23flowchart LR24 A["Load\nartifacts"] --> B["6-lens\nanalysis"]25 B --> C["Pre-mortem"]26 C --> D["Socratic\nopenings"]27 D --> E["Verdict"]2829 classDef action fill:#E1BEE7,stroke:#7B1FA2,color:#00030 class A,B,C,D,E action31```32331. **Load artifacts** — read all in order:3435| File | Required | Purpose |36|------|----------|---------|37| `openspec/project.md` | yes | Mode, philosophy, exploration strategy |38| `openspec/changes/{id}/proposal.md` | yes | Problem, scope, acceptance criteria |39| `openspec/changes/{id}/design.md` | if exists | BC scope, containers, flows, ADRs |40| `openspec/changes/{id}/tasks.md` | yes | Task breakdown, gates |41| `openspec/changes/{id}/tests.md` | if exists | Verification strategy |42| `openspec/changes/{id}/specs/*.md` | if exist | Detailed requirements |4344 If `proposal.md` or `tasks.md` missing → `⛔ Cannot review. Run /openspec-plan first.`45462. **Spawn devil-advocate** (via Agent tool, subagent_type: `dstoic:devil-advocate:devil-advocate`) in background — feed target description + all artifact paths. Merge findings into Lenses 1, 4, 6.47483. **Run 6 lenses** — see `reference.md` §Six Lenses for full checklists:4950| Lens | Question | Key checks |51|------|----------|------------|52| 1: Problem-Solution Fit | Right problem? | Alternatives considered, non-goals, effort proportionality |53| 2: Design Soundness | Will it work? | BC boundaries, sensitivity points, reversibility (one-way doors) |54| 3: Best Practices | What should be here? | Error handling, security, observability, migration |55| 4: Over-Engineering | What shouldn't be here? | YAGNI, premature generalization, gold-plating |56| 5: Task & Test Quality | Implementable? | Outcome phrasing, gate placement, test coverage |57| 6: Gap Detection | What's missing? | Operational readiness, blast radius, integration risks |58594. **Classify findings** by severity — see `reference.md` §Severity Calibration60615. **Pre-mortem** (mandatory) — 3 failure scenarios from devil-advocate or generated independently62636. **Socratic openings** — 3-5 genuine questions (not leading) surfacing unstated assumptions64657. **Verdict** → output report using template from `reference.md` §Output Template6667| Verdict | Meaning | Next |68|---------|---------|------|69| **READY** | No critical findings | → `/openspec-develop {change-id}` |70| **READY WITH CAVEATS** | Major findings to address | → Fix, then `/openspec-develop` |71| **NOT READY** | Critical findings block | → Fix, then `/openspec-review` |72| **RETHINK** | Problem-solution fit questioned | → `/openspec-plan create` |7374## Philosophy Check7576Read `openspec/project.md` → Execution Philosophy → `mode`. Calibrate review depth and flag anti-patterns — see `reference.md` §Philosophy Anti-Patterns by Mode.7778## Exploration Strategy7980Before review, consult `openspec/project.md` → Exploration Strategy. See `reference.md` §Exploration Strategy.8182## Guardrails8384**Autonomous**: Reading artifacts, spawning devil-advocate, generating report.8586**Read-only**: This skill NEVER modifies files. Advisory only.8788## Constraints8990- Review artifacts as they ARE, not how you'd write them91- Flag problems, don't propose redesigns — let the author decide92- Don't duplicate `/openspec-reflect` (post-impl drift) or `/challenge` (bias on AI output)93- Calibrate depth to mode: garage = pragmatic, scale/maintenance = thorough
digital-stoic-org