Review Task

• "Review task {service}/phase{N}#{task}"
• "Validate task {number}"
• "Check task quality {number}"
• "Quality check for {task}"

Example Invocations

"Review task payment-service/phase1#2.1"
"Validate task 3.5"
"Check quality of phase2#4.2"
"Review the completed implementation"

Task Reference Formats

Full path: payment-service/phase1#3.1 Short format: 3.1 - If context is clear With description: payment-service/phase1#3.1 Payment Service Implementation

Workflow

1. Parse Task Reference

Extract service/feature name, phase number, and task number.

2. Read Phase File

Location: .agentic/tasks/active/{service-or-feature-name}/{phase}.md

Find task section by searching for #### {task-number}.

3. Extract Task Details

Checkbox Tasks: Lines starting with - [ ] or - [x] Acceptance Criteria: Section starting with **Acceptance Criteria:** Location: File paths in **Location:** annotations Commands: Build/test commands from task or config

4. Delegate to Manager Agent

Invoke the manager agent to run automated checks and validation. The agent will:

A. Build Verification

Read build command from:

1. Task's Commands: section
2. .claude/config.json under testing.commands.build
3. Default based on tech stack

Tech stack defaults:

• .NET: dotnet build
• Node.js: npm run build or npm run type-check
• Python: python -m py_compile or mypy .
• Go: go build ./...
• Java: mvn compile or gradle build

B. Test Execution

Run test command and capture:

• Number of tests passed/failed
• Coverage percentage
• Specific test failures

C. Type Checking

For TypeScript, Python with type hints:

# TypeScript
tsc --noEmit

# Python
mypy src/

D. Linting (Optional)

# JavaScript/TypeScript
npm run lint

# Python
flake8 src/

# .NET
dotnet format --verify-no-changes

E. Security Scanning (Optional)

# Node.js
npm audit

# Python
safety check

5. Validate Acceptance Criteria

For each criterion:

• ✅ Passed - Automated checks confirm it
• ⚠️ Failed - Checks indicate issues
• ⏸️ Manual - Requires human judgment

6. Generate Scored Review Report

IMPORTANT: Always write to: .agentic/tasks/active/{service-or-feature}/{phase}_status.md

Scoring System

6 Categories (0-20 points each, 100 total):

1. Completeness (0-20 points)

• All checkbox items completed
• All acceptance criteria met
• No missing functionality
• Edge cases handled

Scoring:

• 20: All checkboxes ✅, all criteria met
• 15-19: 1-2 minor items incomplete
• 10-14: 3-4 items incomplete
• 5-9: Major functionality missing
• 0-4: Mostly incomplete

2. Code Quality (0-20 points)

• Clean, readable code
• Proper error handling
• No code smells
• Follows conventions

Scoring:

• 20: Exemplary code quality
• 15-19: Minor style issues
• 10-14: Several code smells
• 5-9: Significant quality issues
• 0-4: Poor code quality

3. Architecture (0-20 points)

• Follows blueprint design
• Proper layer separation
• Correct patterns used
• Good abstractions

Scoring:

• 20: Perfect adherence to blueprint
• 15-19: Minor deviations
• 10-14: Some architectural issues
• 5-9: Significant deviations
• 0-4: Ignores blueprint

4. Security (0-20 points)

• Input validation present
• No security vulnerabilities
• Authentication/authorization correct
• No secrets in code

Scoring:

• 20: Comprehensive security
• 15-19: Minor security gaps
• 10-14: Some vulnerabilities
• 5-9: Significant security issues
• 0-4: Critical security flaws

5. Testing (0-20 points)

• Tests exist and pass
• Coverage meets target (default 80%)
• Edge cases tested
• Integration tests present

Scoring:

• 20: ≥90% coverage, comprehensive tests
• 15-19: 80-89% coverage, good tests
• 10-14: 60-79% coverage, basic tests
• 5-9: 40-59% coverage, minimal tests
• 0-4: <40% coverage or no tests

6. Documentation (0-20 points)

• Code comments where needed
• README/docs updated
• API documentation present
• Complex logic explained

Scoring:

• 20: Excellent documentation
• 15-19: Good documentation
• 10-14: Adequate documentation
• 5-9: Minimal documentation
• 0-4: No documentation

Letter Grades

Total Score → Letter Grade:

• S (Superior): 95-100 points - Exceptional work
• A (Excellent): 85-94 points - Exceeds expectations
• B (Good): 75-84 points - Meets all requirements
• C (Satisfactory): 65-74 points - Acceptable with issues
• D (Needs Work): 55-64 points - Significant rework needed
• F (Failing): 0-54 points - Does not meet requirements

Status File Structure

The manager generates a comprehensive status file:

# Phase {N} Implementation Status Report
## {Feature Name} - {Phase Title}

**Review Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD}
**Phase Status:** {✅ IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETE | ⚠️ NEEDS REWORK | ⏸️ IN PROGRESS}
**Overall Score:** {score}/100
**Letter Grade:** {S | A | B | C | D | F}
**Reviewer:** Manager (Automated Quality Assurance)

---

## Scoring Breakdown

| Category | Score | Grade | Status |
|----------|-------|-------|--------|
| Completeness | {X}/20 | {letter} | {✅/⚠️/⏸️} |
| Code Quality | {X}/20 | {letter} | {✅/⚠️/⏸️} |
| Architecture | {X}/20 | {letter} | {✅/⚠️/⏸️} |
| Security | {X}/20 | {letter} | {✅/⚠️/⏸️} |
| Testing | {X}/20 | {letter} | {✅/⚠️/⏸️} |
| Documentation | {X}/20 | {letter} | {✅/⚠️/⏸️} |
| **TOTAL** | **{X}/100** | **{letter}** | **{status}** |

---

## Detailed Assessment

### 1. Completeness ({X}/20) - {Grade}
{checkbox completion, acceptance criteria status, issues}

### 2. Code Quality ({X}/20) - {Grade}
{strengths, issues, linting results}

### 3. Architecture ({X}/20) - {Grade}
{blueprint adherence, structural issues}

### 4. Security ({X}/20) - {Grade}
{security checks, vulnerabilities}

### 5. Testing ({X}/20) - {Grade}
{test results, coverage analysis}

### 6. Documentation ({X}/20) - {Grade}
{documentation present, missing docs}

---

## Tech Debt Identified

### High Priority
- [ ] {critical issue to address}

### Medium Priority
- [ ] {important improvement}

### Low Priority
- [ ] {nice-to-have improvement}

---

## Recommendations

### Must Fix (Blocking Issues)
1. {critical issue}

### Should Fix (Important)
1. {important issue}

### Could Improve (Optional)
1. {enhancement}

---

## Conclusion

**Overall Assessment**: {summary paragraph}

**Next Steps**: {action items}

**Ready for Production**: {Yes | No | With Caveats}

Role & Responsibilities

The Manager (via manager agent):

• ✅ Validates existing work - Does NOT implement code
• ✅ Runs automated checks (build, tests, linters)
• ✅ Validates acceptance criteria
• ✅ Provides objective pass/fail based on reproducible results
• ✅ Gives actionable feedback with specific issues
• ✅ Updates task status (✅/⚠️/⏸️)
• ✅ Tracks tech debt systematically

The Manager does NOT:

• ❌ Implement or fix code (Builder's job)
• ❌ Make architectural decisions (Software Architect's job)
• ❌ Provide subjective opinions without evidence
• ❌ Skip automated checks for "looks good"

Quality Standards

Pass Threshold: 75 points (B grade) or higher Production Ready: 85 points (A grade) or higher Rework Required: Below 65 points (C grade)

Integration with Workflow

Validates work from:

• builder agent (via implement-task Skill)

Feeds back to:

• builder agent - Rework items if score < 75 (grade C or below)

Used in development cycle:

1. /blueprint - Architect creates architecture
2. /blueprint-tasks - Convert to tasks
3. /implement-task - Builder implements
4. /review-task - Manager validates ← YOU ARE HERE
5. [If review fails, rerun /implement-task with fixes]
6. /commit - Create commit
7. [Repeat for next task]
8. /create-pr - Create PR

Project Context

Reads .claude/config.json for:

• Testing framework and commands
• Build commands
• Linting tools
• Coverage goals (default 80%)

Error Handling

Phase File Not Found

❌ Phase File Not Found

Phase file not found at: .agentic/tasks/active/{service}/{phase}.md

Cannot review task without phase file.

Troubleshooting:
- Verify service/feature name is correct
- Check phase number is correct
- Ensure task has been implemented

Task Not Implemented

❌ Task Not Implemented

Task {task-number} appears incomplete (unchecked checkboxes).

Suggestion: Implement the task first with /implement-task {task-number}

Build/Test Failures

⚠️ Automated Checks Failed

**Build Status**: ❌ Failed
**Tests**: ⚠️ {X} tests failed

The review will continue but these failures will result in low scores.

Continuing with review...

Notes

• The Manager is objective - relies on automated checks, not opinions
• Provides numerical scores for transparency and consistency
• Tracks tech debt systematically for future improvements
• Uses letter grades for quick quality assessment
• Actionable feedback - specific issues with clear remediation
• Status files serve as quality audit trail
• Defers implementation to Builder
• Defers architecture to Software Architect
• Pass threshold is 75 points (B grade)
• Production-ready threshold is 85 points (A grade)
• Comprehensive scoring across 6 categories ensures balanced assessment