--- name: phase-review-33834d2c3609 description: Dispatch a structured cross-phase review of a phase artefact. MANDATORY for design-spec and test-spec; the gate validator checks for the resulting review record before passing. Recommended for requirements-spec. disable-model-invocation: false argument-hint: " " --- # Cross-Phase Review Dispatch a structured review of a phase artefact against its cited prior artefacts. ## Arguments - `` — one of `requirements`, `design`, `test` - `` — short slug for the feature ## Why this is mandatory for design and test `phase-gate` checks structure: do citations resolve to declared IDs? `phase-review` checks meaning: do the citations actually capture the requirement / design intent? Programme Article 14 requires the review record for design-spec and test-spec — the gate validator looks for `docs/specs//reviews/-review-*.md` before passing. ## Steps ```bash PHASE="$1" FEATURE_ID="$2" if [ -z "$PHASE" ] || [ -z "$FEATURE_ID" ]; then echo "Usage: phase-review " >&2 exit 1 fi case "$PHASE" in requirements|design|test) ;; *) echo "phase must be one of: requirements, design, test" >&2 exit 1 ;; esac FEATURE_DIR="docs/specs/$FEATURE_ID" SPEC_PATH="$FEATURE_DIR/$PHASE-spec.md" if [ ! -f "$SPEC_PATH" ]; then echo "$SPEC_PATH does not exist; run phase-init $PHASE $FEATURE_ID first" >&2 exit 1 fi REVIEWS_DIR="$FEATURE_DIR/reviews" mkdir -p "$REVIEWS_DIR" # Determine reviewer agent based on phase case "$PHASE" in requirements) REVIEWER_AGENT="sdlc-team-common:solution-architect" REVIEWER_LABEL="solution-architect" ;; design) REVIEWER_AGENT="sdlc-team-common:solution-architect" REVIEWER_LABEL="solution-architect" ;; test) REVIEWER_AGENT="sdlc-team-fullstack:backend-architect" REVIEWER_LABEL="backend-architect" ;; esac REVIEW_PATH="$REVIEWS_DIR/$PHASE-review-$REVIEWER_LABEL.md" ``` ## Graceful fallback when the configured agent is not available If the `$REVIEWER_AGENT` listed above is not loaded in the current environment (e.g., the `sdlc-team-common` or `sdlc-team-fullstack` plugin was not installed), the dispatch will return an error like "subagent_type not found" or "agent not loaded". In that case, fall back to the **`superpowers:requesting-code-review`** pattern: dispatch the `general-purpose` subagent with the same review prompt below, and prefix the review record's `## Reviewer` section with a `Fallback:` line so auditors can see which agent actually performed the review. Concretely: 1. First attempt the configured agent (`$REVIEWER_AGENT`). 2. If that returns an "agent not found" / "subagent_type not loaded" error, retry with `subagent_type=general-purpose` and prepend this line to the review prompt: `**Fallback dispatch:** the configured reviewer ($REVIEWER_AGENT) was not loaded; you are acting as a fallback reviewer. Note this in the review record's Reviewer section.` 3. The resulting review record is still valid — Article 14's gate checks for the FILE, not for which agent produced it. The audit trail captures the fallback explicitly via the `Fallback:` line. Do NOT silently skip the review just because the configured agent is absent. Either dispatch the configured agent OR explicitly fall back; never produce no review record. --- Now use the `Agent` tool to dispatch `$REVIEWER_AGENT` (substituting the value from the bash variable) with this prompt: ``` You are reviewing a $PHASE-spec for feature $FEATURE_ID. Read the artefact at: $SPEC_PATH Required prior artefacts to read: - For design phase: docs/specs/$FEATURE_ID/requirements-spec.md (the requirements being satisfied) - For test phase: both docs/specs/$FEATURE_ID/requirements-spec.md AND docs/specs/$FEATURE_ID/design-spec.md Your review must answer: 1. **Coverage**: are all REQ-IDs from the prior phase(s) addressed by this artefact's elements? 2. **Soundness**: do the satisfies references make semantic sense — does each cited DES/TEST actually address what the cited REQ/DES says? 3. **Completeness**: are there obvious requirements / design elements missing that should have been declared? 4. **Out-of-scope cleanliness**: does the artefact stay within scope, or does it sneak in elements that don't trace back? Return your review as a markdown file with these sections: - ## Reviewer - ## Coverage assessment - ## Soundness assessment - ## Completeness assessment - ## Out-of-scope concerns - ## Verdict: APPROVE / NEEDS-REWORK / NOT-APPROVED Save the review to: $REVIEW_PATH (use the Write tool) ``` After the agent dispatch completes, verify the review file was created: ```bash if [ -f "$REVIEW_PATH" ]; then echo "Review record created at $REVIEW_PATH" git add "$REVIEW_PATH" echo "Stage the review record with the next commit." else echo "ERROR: $REVIEW_PATH was not created" >&2 exit 1 fi ``` ## Done Report: - Phase artefact reviewed - Reviewer agent used (`solution-architect` for design; `backend-architect` for test) - Review record path - Verdict from the review (APPROVE / NEEDS-REWORK / NOT-APPROVED) If verdict is NEEDS-REWORK or NOT-APPROVED, the user must address the review's findings before commit/push. ## Model selection This skill is **structured comparison and reasoning** — comparing artefacts against prior phases, surfacing semantic gaps. Prefer a model with strong reasoning over one optimised for throughput. Reviewer agents (`solution-architect`, `backend-architect`) are dispatched via the Agent tool; they should run on a high-quality model. --- Source attribution: SteveGJones Original project: https://github.com/SteveGJones/ai-first-sdlc-practices/blob/631a626ff044f069e445d40777a0951e491a8132/plugins/sdlc-programme/skills/phase-review/SKILL.md License: MIT License information: https://opensource.org/license/mit Original upstream instructions; downloaded from Dave AI. ## Upstream license notice MIT License Copyright (c) 2024 Steve Jones Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. # Dave AI resource metadata Creator / publisher: SteveGJones Original project: https://github.com/SteveGJones/ai-first-sdlc-practices/blob/631a626ff044f069e445d40777a0951e491a8132/plugins/sdlc-programme/skills/phase-review/SKILL.md Attribution basis: Source repository record Fields of work: Development & Engineering, Operations, Product Management, Project & Program Management Roles: Business Process Analyst, Product Manager, Project Manager, QA / Test Engineer, Technical Product Manager Specialties: API Tools: Tool not specified Country applicability: Country not specified Classification basis: Source catalog labels Instruction SHA-256: 67ed49e678c1c45048d2fc83be27a50a28e513220cc713b62367ed73c5aaadc4