Workflow — Code Review
Step 6 of the Persimmon workflow. Two stages, in order.
Stage 1 — Spec compliance
- Open the spec at
docs/specs/ and the plan at docs/plans/.
- For each acceptance criterion, confirm the code actually meets it (not "looks like it").
- Flag scope drift: anything built that the spec didn't cover, or any goal/non-goal violated. Drift means either the spec is updated and re-approved, or the code is cut.
- Confirm the
## Business meaning outcome is genuinely delivered.
Stage 2 — Persimmon conventions
Run the quality review dimensions against the diff:
quality-review-type-safety — no any, Zod at boundaries, explicit return typesquality-review-data-layer — no N+1, bounded lists, indexes, transactionsquality-review-performance — RSC boundaries, bundle size, query plansquality-review-prompt-output — prompt hygiene, grounded/cited outputsecurity-review — headers, auth, secrets, injection, CVEs
Plus the master anti-patterns: SDK imported only in claude.ts, no inline prompts, force-dynamic present, no NEXT_PUBLIC_* secrets, presigned uploads.
Output
A review verdict: approve, or a specific list of required changes (each linked to the rule/skill it violates). Comment the rule for any rejection.
Relationship to other skills
Consumes the quality and security mothers. Precedes workflow-finish. For the dialogue discipline of giving/receiving review, superpowers:requesting-code-review / receiving-code-review are compatible.
1---2name: workflow-code-review3description: Workflow — Code Review4---56# Workflow — Code Review78Step 6 of the Persimmon workflow. Two stages, in order.910## Stage 1 — Spec compliance11121. Open the spec at `docs/specs/` and the plan at `docs/plans/`.132. For each acceptance criterion, confirm the code actually meets it (not "looks like it").143. Flag scope drift: anything built that the spec didn't cover, or any goal/non-goal violated. Drift means either the spec is updated and re-approved, or the code is cut.154. Confirm the `## Business meaning` outcome is genuinely delivered.1617## Stage 2 — Persimmon conventions1819Run the `quality` review dimensions against the diff:2021- `quality-review-type-safety` — no `any`, Zod at boundaries, explicit return types22- `quality-review-data-layer` — no N+1, bounded lists, indexes, transactions23- `quality-review-performance` — RSC boundaries, bundle size, query plans24- `quality-review-prompt-output` — prompt hygiene, grounded/cited output25- `security-review` — headers, auth, secrets, injection, CVEs2627Plus the master anti-patterns: SDK imported only in `claude.ts`, no inline prompts, `force-dynamic` present, no `NEXT_PUBLIC_*` secrets, presigned uploads.2829## Output3031A review verdict: approve, or a specific list of required changes (each linked to the rule/skill it violates). Comment the rule for any rejection.3233## Relationship to other skills3435Consumes the `quality` and `security` mothers. Precedes `workflow-finish`. For the dialogue discipline of giving/receiving review, `superpowers:requesting-code-review` / `receiving-code-review` are compatible.
Persimmon-Automation-Labs