Review the implementation: $ARGUMENTS
Purpose
You are executing Stage 5 (Review) of the development workflow. Implementation is complete and sub-agent summaries exist on disk. Your job is to dispatch review agents that verify claims, check for regressions, and assess quality. You do NOT fix issues — that's Stage 6's job.
Pre-Conditions
Before starting, verify:
.workflow/state.jsonexists andcurrentStageis"review"- Implementation summaries exist (check
stages.implementation.artifacts.summariesin state) - Read each summary to build the claims list
If pre-conditions are not met, report what's missing and halt.
Process
Step 1: Collect Claims
Read all sub-agent summaries from .workflow/summaries/*.md. Extract:
- Every claim from each summary's
### Claimssection - Every test command from
### Testssection - Every spec claim alignment statement from
### Spec/Evidence Alignment - Every risk from
### Riskssection
Step 2: Dispatch Review Agents
Dispatch specialized review agents in parallel. Each gets the full claims list and the relevant source files.
Required reviews (always run these):
Claim Verification — Use a
general-purposeagent to:- Run every test command listed in summaries
- Verify each claim by reading the implementation
- Flag claims that are unsupported or contradicted
Type Safety — Use the
compound-engineering:review:kieran-typescript-revieweragent (or dispatch via Agent tool with instructions to check types):- Run
npm run buildortsc --noEmit - Check for type errors, unsafe casts, any-typed escape hatches
- Run
Pattern Consistency — Use
compound-engineering:review:pattern-recognition-specialistagent:- Check that new code follows existing codebase patterns
- Flag naming inconsistencies, structural deviations
Conditional reviews (run when relevant):
Security — If changes touch auth, input handling, or external APIs:
- Use
compound-engineering:review:security-sentinelagent
- Use
Performance — If changes touch hot paths, data structures, or queries:
- Use
compound-engineering:review:performance-oracleagent
- Use
Simplicity — If changes add new abstractions or utilities:
- Use
compound-engineering:review:code-simplicity-revieweragent
- Use
Step 3: Collect Findings
Each review agent returns findings. Classify each finding:
| Severity | Meaning | Blocks? |
|---|---|---|
| blocking | Claim is false, test fails, or security issue | Yes |
| warning | Quality concern, pattern deviation, missing edge case | No (but should fix) |
| info | Style suggestion, minor improvement | No |
Step 4: Assess Spec/Evidence Alignment
Cross-reference the implementation's spec claim alignment statements against the review results:
- Do the review findings support or undermine the ADR hypotheses?
- Are there hypotheses with no evidence either way? Flag as inconclusive.
Step 5: Produce Review Report
Write the review report to .workflow/review-report.md:
# Review Report: <title>
**Workflow**: <id>
**Reviewed**: <ISO timestamp>
**Summaries reviewed**: N
## Verdict: PASS / FAIL
## Findings
### Blocking (must fix before merge)
1. [finding with file:line reference]
### Warnings (should fix)
1. [finding with file:line reference]
### Info
1. [observation]
## Claim Verification
| # | Claim | Status | Evidence |
|---|-------|--------|----------|
| 1 | "..." | VERIFIED / FAILED / UNVERIFIABLE | [detail] |
## Hypothesis Check
| Hypothesis | Implementation Says | Review Says | Aligned? |
|-----------|-------------------|-------------|----------|
| H1 "..." | SUPPORTS | SUPPORTS | Yes |
## Test Results
- Tests run: N
- Tests passed: N
- Tests failed: N
- Commands: [list]
Step 6: Record and Handoff
Update workflow state (
.workflow/state.json):- Set
stages.review.statusto"completed" - Set
stages.review.completedAtto current ISO timestamp - Set
stages.review.artifacts.findingsto the findings list - If verdict is PASS: set
currentStageto"compound"(skip revision) - If verdict is FAIL: set
currentStageto"revision" - Update
updatedAt
- Set
Present the handoff:
REVIEW COMPLETE ================ Verdict: PASS / FAIL Blocking findings: N Warnings: N Claims verified: N/N Next: Stage 6 - Revision (/workflow-revision) [if FAIL] Next: Stage 7 - Compound (/workflows-compound) [if PASS]
Operational Rules
- Review agents are read-only: They analyze and report. They do NOT fix code.
- All claims must be checked: Don't skip claims just because they seem obvious.
- Test commands must actually run: Don't trust the summary's "N passing" — verify it.
- Findings need evidence: Every finding must reference specific file:line locations.
Anti-Patterns
- Do NOT fix code during review — that's revision's job
- Do NOT skip claim verification — the entire point is trust-but-verify
- Do NOT mark a failing test as "info" severity — test failures are always blocking
- Do NOT auto-pass reviews — even if everything looks good, run the checks
- Do NOT review your own implementation — review agents must be separate from implementation agents