Spec Kitty.review

Startup Upgrade Check

Run this at most once per active agent session before the first Spec Kitty command workflow. If you already ran spec-kitty upgrade --agent-check --json in this session, reuse that result and skip this block. Do not run or announce an upgrade check again for later Spec Kitty commands in the same session. Otherwise, before continuing, run:

spec-kitty upgrade --agent-check --json

If JSON action is none, continue. If action is auto_upgrade, run upgrade_command before continuing. If it fails, tell the user and continue with the current Spec Kitty version. If action is guidance, show upgrade_note briefly, then continue. If action is prompt, ask the user with the host-native question UI when available:

Spec Kitty {latest_version} is available. You are on {installed_version}. Upgrade now?

Use these choices:

1. Upgrade now (recommended) - record upgrade_now, run upgrade_command, then continue.
2. Always keep me up to date - record always, run upgrade_command, then continue.
3. Not now - record not_now, then continue.
4. Never ask again - record never_ask, then continue.

Record the selected choice before continuing:

spec-kitty upgrade --agent-choice <upgrade_now|always|not_now|never_ask> --agent-latest <latest_version> --json

If no host-native question UI is available, present the same four choices in plain text and wait for the user. In non-interactive hosts, choose not_now and continue.

/spec-kitty.review - Review Work Package Implementation

Version: 0.12.0+

Purpose

Review the implementation of a work package against its prompt file, acceptance criteria, and owned-file boundaries. Verify correctness, test coverage, and compliance with any applicable guardrails (e.g., bulk edit occurrence maps).

Working Directory

IMPORTANT: This step works inside the execution workspace (worktree) allocated by spec-kitty agent action review WPxx --agent <name>. Prefer to stay within your owned_files boundaries; any out-of-map change must be small, justified, and carry a one-line rationale in the commit message.

In repos with multiple missions, always pass --mission <handle> to every spec-kitty command. The <handle> can be the mission's mission_id (ULID), mid8 (first 8 chars of the ULID), or mission_slug. The resolver disambiguates by mission_id and returns a structured MISSION_AMBIGUOUS_SELECTOR error on ambiguity — there is no silent fallback.

User Input

The content of the user's message that invoked this skill (everything after the skill invocation token, e.g. after /spec-kitty.<command> or $spec-kitty.<command>) is the User Input referenced elsewhere in these instructions.

You MUST consider this user input before proceeding (if not empty).

Governance Payload Contract

The prompt produced by spec-kitty agent action review is guaranteed to carry the following surfaces. Trust the prompt; do not consult external governance sources unless explicitly cited by a fetch command + when-doing rule in the prompt.

Guaranteed bodies (verbatim in the prompt when under the token budget; the resolver substitutes a spec-kitty charter context --include section:<slug> fetch + when-doing stanza only when the budget would otherwise be exceeded):

• Terminology Canon — from .kittify/charter/charter.md — governs the identifiers and term usage you assess in the diff.
• Code Review Checklist — from .kittify/charter/charter.md — your primary gate set when judging the WP.
• Regression Vigilance — from .kittify/charter/charter.md — the project's explicit drift guard; apply when the diff renames or introduces identifier-bearing terms.
• Any additional action-critical sections the mission declares are appended automatically.

Guaranteed citations (catalog IDs always present in the prompt when the WP frontmatter selects a reviewer agent_profile):

• Every DIRECTIVE_NNN declared in the loaded reviewer profile's directive-references list (for example, reviewer-renata cites DIRECTIVE_032 — Conceptual Alignment).
• Every tactic-id declared in the loaded reviewer profile's tactic-references list (for example, reviewer-renata cites the language-driven-design tactic).

When you assess a WP that renames identifiers or terms, the prompt cites DIRECTIVE_032 (Conceptual Alignment) by ID; consult its rule body inline or via the paired fetch command and apply.

Guaranteed authority pointers (path + when-doing conditional):

• docs/context/ — canonical terminology. Consult when the diff introduces or renames a domain term.
• docs/adr/3.x/ — architectural intent. Consult when the diff changes a structural boundary (package layout, public API surface, dependency edges).
• Any additional paths declared in the charter's authority_paths: block are emitted alongside these defaults.

Fetch commands (the prompt may substitute these for bodies that exceed the token budget; whenever a fetch command appears, the accompanying "When you , run this and apply" line specifies the trigger):

• spec-kitty charter context --include directive:DIRECTIVE_NNN
• spec-kitty charter context --include tactic:<id>
• spec-kitty charter context --include section:<slug>

Review Steps

1. Setup

Run:

spec-kitty agent context resolve --action review --mission <handle> --json

Then execute the returned check_prerequisites command and capture feature_dir. All paths must be absolute.

The output of spec-kitty agent action review ... is the authoritative work package prompt and review context. Do not separately call spec-kitty charter context or go hunting for alternate prompt files unless the command output tells you to. The Governance Payload Contract section above documents what the prompt is guaranteed to carry.

2. Load Work Package Prompt

Read the WP prompt file from feature_dir/tasks/WPxx-slug.md. Parse frontmatter for:

• owned_files -- the expected modification surface; out-of-map edits are acceptable when small and accompanied by a one-line rationale
• authoritative_surface -- primary directory for this WP
• execution_mode -- code_change or planning_artifact
• subtasks -- ordered list of subtask IDs
• dependencies -- WPs that must be done first

2a. Load Agent Profile

Before proceeding with the review, load the agent profile from the WP frontmatter using the /ad-hoc-profile-load skill (or spec-kitty agent profile list to browse available profiles). Apply the profile's reviewer guidance and self-review gates for the rest of this review session.

The WP frontmatter should already have agent_profile set to a reviewer profile (e.g., reviewer-renata) by the implementing agent before it moved the WP to for_review. If agent_profile is still set to an implementer profile, load the implementer profile anyway and note the oversight in your review comments.

3. Verify Implementation

For each subtask:

1. Confirm the subtask has been implemented as specified
2. Check that tests exist and pass (for code_change subtasks)
3. Verify any files modified outside owned_files are small, justified, and carry a one-line rationale (do not reject a well-justified, rationale-logged crossing)

4. Check Quality

• All tests pass
• Code follows project conventions (run linter if configured)
• No unintended side effects or regressions
• Changes are well-documented where appropriate
• Error-path reachability (deletion test): For each test that validates an error path, verify the test would fail if the implementation fix were deleted. A test that validates only the structure of an exception handler (e.g., that a try/except exists) without exercising the real dependency is insufficient. Apply the deletion test: temporarily delete the implementation change, run the test, confirm it fails. If it does not fail, the error path is untested — the test validates structure, not behaviour. Restore the fix before proceeding.

4a. Anti-pattern Checklist (WP-Level Cheap Version of Mission-Review)

For each item below, state PASS / FAIL / N/A in your verdict. A FAIL on any item blocks approval.

1. Dead code: every new public function, class, or module created by this WP has at least one live caller from production code, excluding tests. For each new module, run targeted import/call-site greps, for example grep -r -e "from <new_module> import" -e "import <new_module>" src/ --include="*.<ext>". Zero production hits means dead code.
2. Synthetic-fixture test: every test marked as covering an FR listed in this WP's frontmatter actually invokes the production code path that would produce the asserted shape. A test that constructs a literal dict matching the assertion is a synthetic fixture. Ask: if I delete the implementation code, does this test still pass? If yes, the FR is untested.
3. Silent empty return: search every new code path for except ...: return "", return None, return [], return {}, or pass. Each hit must have a documented reason; absent that, it is a silent failure candidate.
4. FR coverage: every FR in requirement_refs has at least one test assertion that references the behavior it names, not just a comment or frontmatter entry.
5. Frozen surface: no commit in this WP modifies a file the spec, contract, or WP prompt marks as frozen or untouchable. For each frozen file, git log --oneline <base>..HEAD -- <frozen-file> must be empty.
6. Locked decision: no new code path contradicts a MUST NOT clause in spec.md, plan.md, or contracts/. Grep the diff for forbidden patterns named by those clauses.
7. Shared-file ownership: any file modified by this WP that is also modified by another WP, visible in lanes.json, shared lane metadata, or the same mission merge, has an explicit coordination note in the move-task reason or review feedback.
8. Production fragility: any new raise in a production code path has a documented fail-loud rationale. A bare raise in a request handler, worker, or CLI path that can fire on a transient race is a fragility risk.

Bulk Edit Compliance (if applicable)

If this mission has change_mode: bulk_edit in meta.json:

1. Verify occurrence map exists: occurrence_map.yaml must be present in the feature directory
2. Reference during review: The occurrence map is the governing artifact for this bulk edit
3. Check category compliance:
   • Verify changes respect do_not_change categories — reject if these were modified
   • Verify manual_review categories have documented justification
   • Flag any changed files that fall outside classified categories
4. Check exceptions: Verify exception files/patterns were not modified
5. If occurrence map is missing: Reject the review — bulk edit missions require classification

The system enforces map existence automatically, but as a reviewer you should verify that the substance of the changes aligns with the classification, not just that the file exists.

Output

After completing review:

• Approve or reject each subtask with clear reasoning
• If rejecting, provide specific feedback on what needs to change
• Commit any review notes or annotations

On Approval

Move the WP forward:

spec-kitty agent status emit WPxx --to approved --actor <name> --mission <handle>

On Rejection

Before rejecting, update agent_profile in the WP frontmatter back to the implementer profile so the next implementation cycle starts with the right context:

1. Identify the implementer profile that worked on this WP (check the history field or status.events.jsonl to find the last in_progress actor). Alternatively, use the default: implementer-ivan (or python-pedro/java-jenny for language-specific work).

2. Update the WP frontmatter:

   agent_profile: "implementer-ivan"
   role: "implementer"
   

3. Commit the updated frontmatter together with your review notes before running:

   spec-kitty agent status emit WPxx --to in_progress --actor <name> --mission <handle>
   

The implementing agent will then load the correct profile via /ad-hoc-profile-load and resume work with the proper persona and self-review gates.

Next step: spec-kitty next --agent <name> will advance to the next phase.