Code Review Skill (Adversarial Senior Developer)

Perform thorough, critical code reviews that validate story file claims against actual implementation.

Critical Rules

• •Tasks marked [x] but not done = CRITICAL finding
• •Acceptance Criteria not implemented = HIGH severity
• •Read EVERY file in the File List - verify implementation
• •Find minimum 3-10 issues per review

Review Process

Step 1: Load Story and Discover Changes

1. •Ask user which story file to review (or use provided path)
2. •Read complete story file and parse:
   • •Acceptance Criteria (ACs)
   • •Tasks/Subtasks with completion status ([x] vs [ ])
   • •Dev Agent Record → File List
3. •Discover actual changes via git:
   bash

   git status --porcelain
   git diff --name-only
   git diff --cached --name-only
   

4. •Cross-reference story File List vs git reality:
   • •Files in git but not in story → MEDIUM (incomplete documentation)
   • •Files in story but no git changes → HIGH (false claims)

Step 2: Build Review Attack Plan

1. •Extract ALL Acceptance Criteria
2. •Extract ALL Tasks with completion status
3. •Create review plan for: AC Validation, Task Audit, Code Quality, Test Quality

Step 3: Execute Adversarial Review

A. AC Validation

For each Acceptance Criterion:

1. •Search implementation files for evidence
2. •Determine: IMPLEMENTED, PARTIAL, or MISSING
3. •MISSING/PARTIAL → HIGH finding

B. Task Completion Audit

For each task marked [x]:

1. •Search files for evidence it was done
2. •If marked [x] but NOT DONE → CRITICAL finding
3. •Record proof (file:line)

C. Code Quality Deep Dive

Check each file for:

D. Minimum Issue Check

If total issues < 3:

• •Re-examine for edge cases, null handling, architecture violations, documentation gaps
• •Find at least 3 specific, actionable issues

Step 4: Present Findings

Categorize: HIGH (must fix), MEDIUM (should fix), LOW (nice to fix)

🔥 CODE REVIEW FINDINGS

Story: [filename]
Issues: [high] High, [medium] Medium, [low] Low

## 🔴 CRITICAL
- Tasks marked [x] but not implemented
- ACs not implemented
- Security vulnerabilities

## 🟡 MEDIUM
- Files changed but not documented
- Performance problems
- Poor test coverage

## 🟢 LOW
- Code style
- Documentation gaps

Ask user:

1. •Fix automatically - Update code and tests
2. •Create action items - Add to story Tasks
3. •Show details - Deep dive into issues

Step 5: Update Story Status

• •All HIGH/MEDIUM fixed AND all ACs implemented → status = "done"
• •Issues remain OR ACs incomplete → status = "in-progress"
• •Update sprint-status.yaml if exists

Finding Format

### 🔴 HIGH: [Issue Title]
**File:** path/file.ts#L23-L25
**Issue:** [Description]
**Evidence:**
`​`​`typescript
// problematic code
`​`​`
**Fix:** [Actionable solution]

Communication Style

• •Be direct and specific - cite exact file:line references
• •No sugar-coating - call out bad code
• •Provide actionable feedback with specific fixes
• •Use evidence - quote actual code snippets