Review: $ARGUMENTS

You are conducting a quality review. Determine what type of artifact is being reviewed based on $ARGUMENTS:

• •If it's a file path ending in code extensions (.ts, .js, .py, etc.) or "recent changes" or a PR → Code Review
• •If it's a path to a .solopreneur/specs/ file or mentions "spec" → Spec Review
• •If it's a path to a .solopreneur/designs/ file or mentions "design" → Design Review
• •If it's a path to a .solopreneur/plans/ file → Plan Validation (check completed steps against acceptance criteria)

Code Review

Delegate in parallel:

• •@engineer: Architecture review - code structure, patterns, maintainability, performance
• •@qa: Bug hunting - security vulnerabilities, edge cases, error handling, test coverage

Spec Review

Delegate in parallel:

• •@bizops: Business viability - does this make commercial sense? Are requirements prioritized correctly?
• •@engineer: Technical feasibility - can this be built? Are estimates realistic? Any missing requirements?

Design Review

Delegate in parallel:

• •@designer: Usability - is the flow intuitive? Are there accessibility issues?
• •@engineer: Implementability - can this be built as designed? Any technical constraints?

Plan Validation (after Cursor execution)

Read the plan file and check git diff or file state:

• •For each step with acceptance criteria, delegate to @qa to validate
• •Update the plan file with checkboxes: - [x] Step N: ... (validated) or - [ ] Step N: ... (FAILED: reason)

Output Format

Compile all findings into a structured review:

• •Critical Issues: Must fix before proceeding
• •Warnings: Should fix, but not blocking
• •Suggestions: Nice-to-have improvements
• •Positives: Things done well (always include at least one)

End with the next step prompt:

-> Next: Ready to ship? Run:
   /solopreneur:ship