| name | review-spec |
| description | Review a spec file from a QA perspective: weak assertions, missing coverage, implementation-focused tests. Use when the user runs /review-spec or asks for a review of their tests. |
/review-spec — Review a Spec from a QA Perspective
Type: Quality
Description: Reviews a spec file from a QA perspective, flagging weak assertions, missing coverage, and implementation-focused tests. Built for Persona 2 and 3.
Input Format
- A path to a spec file (or a pasted spec)
Output Format
A structured review:
- Strengths — what the spec does well
- Findings — each issue with severity (blocker / major / minor), location, and a concrete fix
- Missing coverage — scenarios not yet tested (negative / edge)
- Verdict — ship / revise
Step-by-Step Instructions
- Read the spec and its Page Object(s).
- Read the spec conventions in CLAUDE.md.
- Evaluate against QA quality criteria:
- Assertion strength: Are assertions meaningful, or just
toBeVisible() everywhere? Do they verify the actual outcome?
- Behavior vs implementation: Does it test what the user experiences, or internal/DOM details? (Common Persona 3 mistake.)
- Coverage: Are Happy Path, Negative, and Edge cases all present and non-trivial?
- Structure: AAA comments, plain-language names, fixture usage, no logic in
describe.
- Isolation: No order dependencies or shared mutable state.
- List findings with severity, exact location, and a concrete fix each.
- Call out missing scenarios explicitly and suggest
/new-spec or /tc-to-spec to fill them.
- Give a clear verdict.
Rules
- Be specific — cite line locations and propose concrete fixes.
- Favor behavior-focused assertions over implementation checks.
- Do not rewrite the whole file unless asked; this skill reviews. Offer
/refactor for big rewrites.
