# Daa Review

> Use when reviewing existing test code for DAA compliance, identifying anti-patterns, or suggesting improvements to automation test architecture

- Skill: `gigayaya/daa-review` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 4 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add gigayaya/daa-review`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/gigayaya/daa-review/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: gigayaya (https://skillmd.com/u/gigayaya)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/gigayaya/daa-review

---


# DAA Code Reviewer

**REQUIRED BACKGROUND:** You MUST understand `daa:daa-core` before using this skill.

## Overview

Review automation test code against DAA principles. Classify each violation by severity and provide actionable fix suggestions.

## Review Process

```dot
digraph review {
    rankdir=TB;
    "Read the code" [shape=box];
    "Classify into layers" [shape=box];
    "Check Test Layer rules" [shape=box];
    "Check Action Layer rules" [shape=box];
    "Check Physical Layer rules" [shape=box];
    "Check cross-layer boundaries" [shape=box];
    "Assign severity" [shape=box];
    "Report findings" [shape=doublecircle];

    "Read the code" -> "Classify into layers";
    "Classify into layers" -> "Check Test Layer rules";
    "Check Test Layer rules" -> "Check Action Layer rules";
    "Check Action Layer rules" -> "Check Physical Layer rules";
    "Check Physical Layer rules" -> "Check cross-layer boundaries";
    "Check cross-layer boundaries" -> "Assign severity";
    "Assign severity" -> "Report findings";
}
```

## Quick Review Checklist (Top 10)

Run through these checks in order. Stop and flag immediately on any CRITICAL finding.

### Test Layer

1. **[CRITICAL]** Does any test method contain `if`, `for`, `while`, or `try/catch`?
2. **[CRITICAL]** Does any test method make direct API/UI/DB calls (bypassing Action Layer)?
3. **[WARNING]** Does any test method contain `assert` statements (should be in Action Layer)?

### Action Layer

4. **[CRITICAL]** Does any action method lack self-verification (no assertion after operation)?
5. **[CRITICAL]** Does any action method call the underlying library directly (bypassing Physical Layer)?
6. **[WARNING]** Are there Composite Actions that call Physical Layer directly instead of composing Atomics?
7. **[WARNING]** Do action names follow the `verb_object_and_verify_outcome` pattern?

### Physical Layer

8. **[CRITICAL]** Does the Physical Layer contain any assertions or business logic?
9. **[WARNING]** Does any Physical Layer method perform multiple operations instead of one?

### Cross-Layer

10. **[CRITICAL]** Does any layer skip the adjacent layer (e.g., Test → Physical directly)?

→ Full detailed checklist: `checklist.md`

## Severity Classification

| Level | Meaning | Action Required |
|-------|---------|-----------------|
| **CRITICAL** | Breaks DAA fundamentals — causes false positives or destroys test trust | Must fix before merge |
| **WARNING** | Hurts maintainability or violates DAA best practices | Should fix; acceptable to defer with justification |
| **SUGGESTION** | Improvement opportunity for readability or consistency | Nice to have; fix when convenient |

→ Full severity guide with examples: `severity-guide.md`

## Report Format

Every report MUST start with a **DAA Score** (1-10, where 10 = full compliance). Score is calculated by deducting from 10 based on findings severity.

→ Full scoring rubric, rules, and report template: `scoring.md`

## Common Patterns to Watch For

1. **"It works so it's fine"**: Code that passes tests but violates DAA is technical debt that will cause false positives later
2. **Gradual erosion**: One `if` in a test method → two → tests become procedural scripts
3. **"Just this once"**: Direct Physical Layer calls in tests "just for this special case" — there are no exceptions
4. **Assertion-free actions**: Methods named `click_save()` without `_and_verify_*` suffix — likely missing verification