Review

Given task file path .plans/<project>/review/NNN-task.md:

Review Agents

Launch 3 specialized agents in parallel (FULL review only):

•Security Gatekeeper (security-reviewer): OWASP Top 10, injection, auth, secrets
•Quality Guardian (quality-guardian): Error handling, edge cases, maintainability
•Test Auditor (test-coverage-analyzer): Coverage gaps, test quality, behavioral coverage

Each agent has full instructions in its agent file. They are accountable for their domain.

Review Triage

FIRST, read **implementation_metadata:** from task file and determine review tier.

FULL Review Triggers

Route to FULL review (all 3 agents) if ANY of these are true:

Severity-based:

•severity_indicators contains: auth, password, token, session, jwt, crypto, encrypt, secret, payment, billing, migration, permission, api_key

Complexity-based:

•complexity_indicators contains: state-machine, external-api, async-patterns, database-migration

History-based:

•was_stuck: true
•research_agents_used is not empty/none

Quantitative (supporting):

•files_changed >= 10
•lines_changed >= 500

LIGHTWEIGHT Review Triggers

Route to LIGHTWEIGHT review (quick scan, no agents) if ALL of these are true:

•No severity_indicators present
•No complexity_indicators present
•was_stuck: false
•research_agents_used: none
•files_changed < 10
•lines_changed < 500

Report triage decision:

code

Review tier: [LIGHTWEIGHT | FULL]
Reason: [why this tier was selected]

LIGHTWEIGHT Review Process

Quick validation without launching specialized agents. Faster but catches obvious issues.

•
Load Critical Patterns (if exists):
- •Check for .plans/<project>/critical-patterns.md
- •If exists, check implementation against ALL patterns
- •Any violation = CRITICAL finding → escalate to FULL review
•
Baseline checks:
- •Run git diff on Files listed
- •Run tests to verify passing
- •Check Validation checkboxes marked [x]
- •Score (0-100 each): Security, Quality, Performance, Tests
•
Quick scan for obvious issues:
- •Empty catch blocks: catch \(.*\) \{\s*\}
- •Hardcoded secrets: password\s*=\s*["'], api_key\s*=\s*["'], secret\s*=\s*["']
- •Console.log in production code (not in tests)
- •Missing error handling on critical paths (try without catch, Promise without .catch)
- •Magic numbers/strings without explanation in business logic
•
Escalation check:
- •If any HIGH or CRITICAL issues found → Escalate to FULL review
- •Report: ⚠️ Escalating to FULL review: [reason]
- •Then proceed to FULL Review Process below
•
LIGHTWEIGHT Approval/Rejection:
- •If no HIGH/CRITICAL issues → APPROVE
- •Update status and append notes (see LIGHTWEIGHT formats below)
- •Report: ✅ Review complete (LIGHTWEIGHT). Status: [STATUS]

LIGHTWEIGHT Approval Format

markdown

**review (LIGHTWEIGHT):**
Security: [N]/100 | Quality: [N]/100 | Performance: [N]/100 | Tests: [N]/100

Review tier: LIGHTWEIGHT
Reason: [No severity/complexity indicators, small scope]

Working Result verified: ✓ [description]
Validation: [N]/[N] passing
Full test suite: [M]/[M] passing
Diff: [N] lines

Quick scan: PASSED
- No empty catch blocks
- No hardcoded secrets
- No console.log in production code
- Error handling present

APPROVED → completed

LIGHTWEIGHT Rejection Format (Escalates to FULL)

If LIGHTWEIGHT finds issues, it escalates to FULL review rather than rejecting directly.

FULL Review Process

Launch all 3 specialized agents for comprehensive review. Use for security-sensitive, complex, or high-risk changes.

•
Load Critical Patterns (if exists):
- •Check for .plans/<project>/critical-patterns.md
- •If exists, verify implementation follows ALL patterns
- •Any violation = CRITICAL finding (blocks approval)
- •Include pattern violations in agent context for thorough review
•
Initial Review:
- •Run git diff on Files listed
- •Read test files
- •Run tests to verify passing
- •Check Validation checkboxes marked [x]
- •Score (0-100 each): Security, Quality, Performance, Tests
•
Specialized Review (Parallel Agents): Launch all 3 agents in parallel. Each must:
- •Make a clear APPROVE or REJECT decision for their domain
- •Sign their decision: "I, [Role], certify this code is [APPROVED/REJECTED] because..."
- •Provide specific findings with file:line references
- •Rate severity: CRITICAL (blocks) / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
- •Rate confidence: 0-100%
- •Suggest fixes for each finding
•
Consolidate Findings:
- •Combine initial review with agent findings
- •
  Filter by confidence/severity:
  - •CRITICAL: Security 90-100 confidence, Quality CRITICAL, Test gaps 9-10
  - •HIGH: Security 70-89, Quality HIGH, Test gaps 7-8
  - •MEDIUM: Security 50-69, Quality MEDIUM, Test gaps 5-6
- •Drop low-confidence issues (<50)
•
Overall Decision:
- •APPROVE requires: All 3 reviewers APPROVE (no CRITICAL findings)
- •REJECT if: Any reviewer REJECTS OR any CRITICAL findings exist
•
Update task status using Edit tool:
- •If approved: Find **Status:** [current status] → Replace **Status:** APPROVED
- •If rejected: Find **Status:** [current status] → Replace **Status:** REJECTED
•
Append notes (see formats below)
•
Track findings in project-level log (see below)
•
Report completion

Invoking Specialized Agents

After initial review, invoke all three agents in parallel using the Task tool.

Required output format (all agents):

•Decision: APPROVE or REJECT
•Signed: "I, [Role], certify this code is [APPROVED/REJECTED] because..."
•Findings: file:line, Severity/Criticality, Confidence, Description, Fix

code

Task(
  description: "Security review",
  prompt: "Task file: [path] | Files: [list] | Use standard output format.",
  subagent_type: "experimental:review:security-reviewer"
)

Task(
  description: "Quality review",
  prompt: "Task file: [path] | Files: [list] | Use standard output format.",
  subagent_type: "experimental:review:quality-guardian"
)

Task(
  description: "Test coverage review",
  prompt: "Task file: [path] | Test files: [list] | Impl files: [list] | Use standard output format.",
  subagent_type: "experimental:review:test-coverage-analyzer"
)

Call all three Task invocations in a single message to run them in parallel.

FULL Approval Format

markdown

**review:**
Security: 90/100 | Quality: 95/100 | Performance: 95/100 | Tests: 90/100

Working Result verified: ✓ [description]
Validation: 4/4 passing
Full test suite: [M]/[M] passing
Diff: [N] lines

**Reviewer Decisions:**
- Security Gatekeeper: APPROVED - "I, Security Gatekeeper, certify this code is APPROVED because [reason]"
- Quality Guardian: APPROVED - "I, Quality Guardian, certify this code is APPROVED because [reason]"
- Test Auditor: APPROVED - "I, Test Auditor, certify this code is APPROVED because [reason]"

**Findings (for tracking):**
- [Any HIGH/MEDIUM findings that don't block but should be tracked]

APPROVED → completed

FULL Rejection Format

markdown

**review:**
Security: 65/100 | Quality: 85/100 | Performance: 90/100 | Tests: 75/100

**Reviewer Decisions:**
- Security Gatekeeper: REJECTED - "I, Security Gatekeeper, certify this code is REJECTED because [reason]"
- Quality Guardian: APPROVED - "I, Quality Guardian, certify this code is APPROVED because [reason]"
- Test Auditor: REJECTED - "I, Test Auditor, certify this code is REJECTED because [reason]"

**CRITICAL Issues (must fix):**
1. [Security/Quality/Test] - [Description] - [file:line] - [Confidence/Severity]
2. [Security/Quality/Test] - [Description] - [file:line] - [Confidence/Severity]

**HIGH Issues (should fix):**
1. [Security/Quality/Test] - [Description] - [file:line] - [Confidence/Severity]

**Required actions:**
- [Action 1 - address CRITICAL findings]
- [Action 2 - address blocking issues]
- [Action 3 - consider HIGH findings]

REJECTED → implementation

Review Findings Log

After review, append to .plans/<project>/review-findings.md:

markdown

## [Task NNN] - [timestamp]

**Decision:** [APPROVED/REJECTED]

**Reviewer Decisions:**
- Security Gatekeeper: [APPROVED/REJECTED]
- Quality Guardian: [APPROVED/REJECTED]
- Test Auditor: [APPROVED/REJECTED]

**Findings:**
- [FIXED/DEFERRED]: [finding] - [resolution or reason for deferral]

This creates a permanent record of all review findings across the project.

Blocking Thresholds

Must REJECT if any:

•Any reviewer REJECTS
•Security score <80
•Any CRITICAL findings (Security 90-100 confidence, Quality CRITICAL, Test gaps 9-10)
•Tests failing
•Validation incomplete
•Working Result not achieved

Can APPROVE with HIGH findings if:

•All 3 reviewers APPROVE
•Security score ≥80
•No CRITICAL findings
•HIGH findings include justification why acceptable
•All tests passing
•Validation complete

Completion

When review is complete (status updated to APPROVED or REJECTED):

•LIGHTWEIGHT: Report ✅ Review complete (LIGHTWEIGHT). Status: [STATUS]
•FULL: Report ✅ Review complete (FULL). Status: [STATUS]