Story Review

[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.

Evidence Gate: MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST — every claim, finding, and recommendation requires file:line proof or traced evidence with confidence percentage (>80% to act, <80% must verify first).

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.

External Memory: For complex or lengthy work (research, analysis, scan, review), write intermediate findings and final results to a report file in plans/reports/ — prevents context loss and serves as deliverable.

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

Quick Summary

Goal: Auto-review user stories for completeness, acceptance criteria coverage, dependency ordering, and quality before implementation proceeds.

Key distinction: AI self-review (automatic), NOT user interview.

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

Frontend/UI Context (if applicable)

When this task involves frontend or UI changes, MUST READ .claude/skills/shared/ui-system-context.md and the following docs:

• Component patterns: docs/project-reference/frontend-patterns-reference.md
• Styling/BEM guide: docs/project-reference/scss-styling-guide.md
• Design system tokens: docs/project-reference/design-system/README.md

Workflow

1. Locate stories — Find story artifacts in team-artifacts/stories/ or plan context
2. Load source PBI — Read the parent PBI to cross-reference acceptance criteria
3. Evaluate checklist — Score each check
4. Classify — PASS/WARN/FAIL
5. Output verdict

Checklist

Required (all must pass)

• AC coverage — Every acceptance criterion from PBI has at least one corresponding story
• GIVEN/WHEN/THEN — Each story has minimum 3 BDD scenarios (happy, edge, error)
• INVEST criteria — Stories are Independent, Negotiable, Valuable, Estimable, Small, Testable
• Story points — All stories have SP <=8 (>8 must be split)
• Dependency table — Story set includes dependency ordering table (must-after, can-parallel, independent)
• No overlapping scope — Stories don't duplicate functionality
• Vertical slices — Each story delivers end-to-end value (not horizontal layers)
• Authorization scenarios — Every story includes at least 1 authorization scenario (unauthorized access → rejection) per PBI roles table (ref: .claude/skills/shared/cross-cutting-quality-concerns-protocol.md §1)
• UI Wireframe section — If story involves UI: has ## UI Wireframe section per ui-wireframe-protocol.md (wireframe + component tree + interaction flow + states + responsive). If backend-only: explicit "N/A"

Recommended (>=50% should pass)

• Edge cases — Boundary values, empty states, max limits addressed
• Error scenarios — Failure paths explicitly covered in stories
• API contract — If API changes needed, story specifies contract
• UI/UX visualization — Frontend stories have component decomposition tree with EXISTING/NEW classification, design token mapping, and responsive breakpoint behavior per ui-wireframe-protocol.md
• Seed data stories — If PBI has seed data requirements, Sprint 0 seed data story exists (ref: .claude/skills/shared/cross-cutting-quality-concerns-protocol.md §2)
• Data migration stories — If PBI has schema changes, data migration story exists (ref: .claude/skills/shared/cross-cutting-quality-concerns-protocol.md §5)

Output

## Story Review Result

**Status:** PASS | WARN | FAIL
**Stories reviewed:** {count}
**Source PBI:** {pbi-path}

### AC Coverage Matrix

| Acceptance Criterion | Covered By Story | Status |
| -------------------- | ---------------- | ------ |

### Required ({X}/{Y})

- ✅/❌ Check description

### Recommended ({X}/{Y})

- ✅/⚠️ Check description

### Missing Stories

- {Any PBI AC not covered}

### Dependency Issues

- {Circular deps, missing ordering}

### Verdict

{PROCEED | REVISE_FIRST}

Round 2: Focused Re-Review (MANDATORY)

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

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

1. Re-read the Round 1 verdict and checklist results
2. Re-evaluate ALL checklist items — do NOT rely on Round 1 memory
3. Challenge Round 1 PASS items: "Is this really PASS? Did I verify with evidence?"
4. Focus on what Round 1 typically misses:
   • Implicit assumptions that weren't validated
   • Missing acceptance criteria coverage
   • Edge cases not addressed in the artifact
   • Cross-references that weren't verified
5. Update verdict if Round 2 found new issues
6. Final verdict must incorporate findings from BOTH rounds

Key Rules

• FAIL blocks workflow — If FAIL, do NOT proceed. List specific fixes.
• Cross-reference PBI — Every check against stories MUST trace back to PBI acceptance criteria.
• No guessing — Reference specific story content as evidence.
• Flag missing stories — If a PBI acceptance criterion has no covering story, that's a FAIL.

Next Steps

MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST after completing this skill, use AskUserQuestion to recommend:

• "/plan (Recommended)" — Create implementation plan from validated stories
• "/story" — Re-create stories if FAIL verdict
• "/prioritize" — Prioritize stories in backlog
• "Skip, continue manually" — user decides

Closing Reminders

MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST break work into small todo tasks using TaskCreate BEFORE starting. MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST validate decisions with user via AskUserQuestion — never auto-decide. MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST add a final review todo task to verify work quality.