Review Artifact

[IMPORTANT] Use TaskCreate to break ALL work into small tasks BEFORE starting — including tasks for each file read. This prevents context loss from long files. For simple tasks, AI MUST ask user whether to skip.

Prerequisites: MUST READ before executing:

• .claude/skills/shared/understand-code-first-protocol.md
• .claude/skills/shared/double-round-trip-review-protocol.md — Mandatory two-round review enforcement

OOP & DRY Enforcement: MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST — flag duplicated patterns that should be extracted to a base class, generic, or helper. Classes in the same group or suffix (ex *Entity, *Dto, *Service, etc...) MUST inherit a common base (even if empty now — enables future shared logic and child overrides). Verify project has code linting/analyzer configured for the stack.

Quick Summary

Goal: Review an artifact (PBI, design spec, story, test spec) for completeness and quality before handoff.

Workflow:

1. Identify — What artifact type is being reviewed
2. Checklist — Apply type-specific quality criteria
3. Verdict — READY or NEEDS WORK with specific items

Key Rules:

• Use type-specific checklists
• Every NEEDS WORK item must be actionable
• Never block on stylistic preferences — focus on completeness

Be skeptical. Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence percentages (Idea should be more than 80%).

Type-Specific Checklists

PBI Review

• Problem statement is clear
• Acceptance criteria are testable and measurable
• Scope is well-defined (what's in and out)
• Dependencies are identified
• Business value is articulated
• Priority is assigned

User Story Review

• Follows GIVEN/WHEN/THEN format
• Is independent (not dependent on other stories)
• Is estimable (team can size it)
• Is small enough for one sprint
• Has acceptance criteria

Design Spec Review

• All component states covered (default, hover, active, disabled, error, loading)
• Design tokens specified (colors, spacing, typography)
• Responsive behavior defined
• Accessibility requirements noted
• Interaction patterns documented

Test Spec Review

• Coverage adequate for acceptance criteria
• Edge cases included
• Test data requirements specified
• GIVEN/WHEN/THEN format used
• Negative test cases included

Readability Checklist (MUST evaluate)

Before approving, verify the code is easy to read, easy to maintain, easy to understand:

• Schema visibility — If a function computes a data structure (object, map, config), a comment should show the output shape so readers don't have to trace the code
• Non-obvious data flows — If data transforms through multiple steps (A → B → C), a brief comment should explain the pipeline
• Self-documenting signatures — Function params should explain their role; flag unused params
• Magic values — Unexplained numbers/strings should be named constants or have inline rationale
• Naming clarity — Variables/functions should reveal intent without reading the implementation

Output Format

## Artifact Review

**Artifact Type:** [PBI | Story | Design | Test Spec]
**Artifact:** [Reference/title]
**Date:** {date}
**Verdict:** READY | NEEDS WORK

### Checklist Results
- [pass] [Item] — [evidence]
- [fail] [Item] — [what's missing/wrong]

### Action Items (if NEEDS WORK)
1. [Specific actionable item]

Round 2: Focused Re-Review (MANDATORY)

Protocol: .claude/skills/shared/double-round-trip-review-protocol.md

After completing Round 1 evaluation, execute a second full review round:

1. Re-read the Round 1 verdict and findings
2. Re-evaluate ALL quality checklist items — do NOT rely on Round 1 memory
3. Challenge Round 1 READY items: "Is this truly ready? Did I verify with evidence?"
4. Focus on what Round 1 typically misses:
   • Implicit assumptions in the artifact
   • Missing coverage of edge cases or error scenarios
   • Cross-references that weren't verified
   • Completeness gaps only visible on second reading
5. Update verdict if Round 2 found new issues
6. Final verdict must incorporate findings from BOTH rounds

IMPORTANT Task Planning Notes (MUST FOLLOW)

• Always plan and break work into many small todo tasks using TaskCreate
• Always add a final review todo task to verify work quality and identify fixes/enhancements

Systematic Review Protocol (for 10+ artifacts)

When reviewing many artifacts at once, categorize by type, fire parallel code-reviewer sub-agents per category, then synchronize findings. See review-changes/SKILL.md § "Systematic Review Protocol" for the full 4-step protocol (Categorize → Parallel Sub-Agents → Synchronize → Holistic Assessment).