kynetic-ai Review Gates
Project-specific review criteria for kspec. Supplements the core /kspec:review skill with severity classification, regression patterns, and quality checks specific to this codebase.
Kynetic Quality Gate Checks
The shared /kspec:review skill defers to "project-defined" quality gates. In this repository those gates are the ones enumerated in /work-gates Kynetic Quality Gate Commands. Reviewers must record passing evidence for each required gate as a kspec review check, or explicitly note a documented reason for skipping it:
| Gate | Command | kspec review check --name / --runner |
|---|---|---|
| Formatting | npm run format:check |
--name "format" --runner "npm run format:check" |
| Repo-wide lint | npm run lint -- --quiet |
--name "lint" --runner "npm run lint -- --quiet" |
| Focused changed-file lint | npx oxlint <changed-ts-or-test-files> |
Recorded inline in evidence on the lint check or as an optional --name "focused-lint" |
| Typecheck | npm run typecheck |
--name "typecheck" --runner "npm run typecheck" |
| Tests | npm test (or shards / npm test -- --fresh) |
--name "full test suite" --runner "npm test" |
| kspec reference validation | kspec validate --refs --warnings-ok |
--name "kspec validate refs" --runner "kspec" |
| kspec alignment validation | kspec validate --alignment --warnings-ok |
--name "kspec validate alignment" --runner "kspec" |
| kspec completeness validation | kspec validate --completeness --warnings-ok |
--name "kspec validate completeness" --runner "kspec" |
Failures of any required gate are review blockers. Request changes rather than approving when a gate is red or missing without a documented reason. Lint warnings inside the changed diff are review findings even when the repo-wide lint baseline passes — verify pre-existing status before downgrading.
For skill-touching changes, also record the optional check kspec skill status/kspec skill verify against the rendered outputs in .agents/skills/, .factory/skills/, and (when applicable) plugin/plugins/kspec/skills/ so render drift is captured in the review.
Reviewer Philosophy
You own the merge. When you approve, you are vouching that the code is correct, complete, and ready. If something bad gets through, the review failed — not just the implementation.
When in doubt, MUST-FIX. A false positive costs one fix cycle. A false negative costs trust and debugging time. Default to the higher severity.
Terminology: "blocker" in reviews means a MUST-FIX finding thread that prevents approval. It does NOT mean transitioning the task to blocked status. Reviewers issue request_changes verdicts (which transition tasks to needs_work). Do not kspec task block unless the agent genuinely cannot proceed or fix the issue — blocking is reserved for external dependencies requiring human intervention (see AGENTS.md blocking rules).
Reproduce, don't just read. Run npm test. Run the CLI commands. If the spec says "exit 0 on success," run it. If a test claims to cover an AC, verify it would fail if the feature broke.
Severity Classification
MUST-FIX (blocks merge)
- Missing own AC test annotation
- Missing trait AC test annotation
kspec validateerrors- Implementation doesn't match spec behavior
- Any pattern from
/work-gatesMUST-FIX list - Stubs claiming AC coverage
- Tests that don't prove their AC
- Build/config changes that suppress errors
- Test rewrites reducing coverage
- Regressions introduced by this branch (tests that pass on the base branch but fail on the task branch)
SHOULD-FIX (strong recommendation)
kspec validatewarnings (especially trait AC coverage)- Undocumented behavior not covered by spec
- Test doesn't prove its AC robustly (would pass even if feature broke)
- Likely correctness issue or missing boundary case
SUGGESTION (non-blocking)
- No E2E tests (prefer E2E but unit is acceptable)
- Style preferences with zero correctness implications
- Naming improvements
If unsure between SHOULD-FIX and SUGGESTION, it is SHOULD-FIX.
Severity Consistency
You MUST NOT downgrade a finding to a lower severity than what an identical finding received in a previous review on this repo. If unsure, default to MUST-FIX.
Anti-Rubber-Stamping Checklist
Before approving, verify you can answer YES to all:
- I read the diff before reading any description
- I ran the test suite (
npm test) — not just checked CI - I verified at least one worker claim independently
- I checked for issues across multiple categories (correctness, tests, edge cases, error handling)
- I searched for additional issues after finding the first one (or after finding none)
- My review took long enough to have actually read the changed code
- Every approval is backed by specific evidence, not assumption
Review Evidence Log
Every review must include a brief log. If zero findings, this proves the review was real:
Files read: <list>
Commands run: <list>
Claims verified: <which claim, how verified>
Categories searched: <which categories, any findings>
Role Boundary (Automated Reviewers)
When running as an automated reviewer agent:
- Do NOT fix code — post findings as review threads, transition to needs_work
- Do NOT push commits — the worker handles fixes
- DO resolve simple merge conflicts — textual conflicts from parallel additive edits are merge mechanics, not code fixes. Read both sides, include both, complete the merge. Only escalate semantic conflicts (see
/kspec:mergeconflict handling). - Verdicts auto-close the review — no manual close needed after approve/request_changes
- Each fix cycle gets a new review record — do not reopen prior reviews
- After merge, complete the task:
kspec task complete @ref --reason "Merged. Summary..."
Merge Criteria
Beyond core disposition gate (from /kspec:merge):
- No test regressions introduced by the reviewed branch (pre-existing failures are not blockers — see Test Failure Triage)
- No MUST-FIX or SHOULD-FIX items remaining
- Severity consistency maintained across reviews
- Evidence log present in review record
Test Failure Triage
When npm test fails during review, determine the cause before recording findings:
- Run tests at least twice to identify flaky tests vs deterministic failures.
- Check the base branch. Run
npm teston the integration target branch (before the task's changes). If the same tests fail there, they are pre-existing — not regressions introduced by this work. - Classify each failure:
| Failure type | Action |
|---|---|
| Introduced by this branch | Record as MUST-FIX blocker thread, submit request_changes verdict. The worker fixes it. |
| Pre-existing on base branch | Not a regression. Create a new task (kspec task add) with detailed description (what fails, why it fails, how to fix — no assumptions), set --automation eligible, then proceed with the review as if the test passed. |
| Flaky (intermittent) | Same as pre-existing: create a task to stabilize the test, proceed with review. Note flakiness in the task description. |
Never block a task for pre-existing or flaky test failures. The task under review didn't cause them. Merge the work if it's otherwise approved, and let the new task handle the test fix independently.
Categories to Cover
A review should search across multiple areas. Note what was checked even if nothing was found:
- Correctness — does the code do what the spec says?
- Edge cases — empty input, null, boundary values, concurrent access?
- Error handling — are error paths tested? Do errors propagate correctly?
- Security — input validation, authorization, data exposure
- Test quality — do tests prove the ACs or just touch code paths?
- Integration — does this change interact correctly with existing code?