speckit-review

name	speckit-review
description	Review completed implementation work and update task status.
compatibility	Requires spec-kit project structure with .specify/ directory
metadata	{"author":"github-spec-kit","source":"workflows:commands/review.md"}

The user input to you can be provided directly by the agent or as a command argument - you MUST consider it before proceeding with the prompt (if not empty).

User input:

$ARGUMENTS

Overview

Perform structured code review of completed implementation work, validate against specifications, and update task status in tasks.md.

Steps

1. Load Context

Run script to get feature paths and information:

cd "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)" && \
source .specify/scripts/bash/common.sh && \
get_feature_paths

This provides:

• FEATURE_DIR - Feature directory path
• FEATURE_SPEC - Specification file (spec.md)
• IMPL_PLAN - Implementation plan (plan.md)
• TASKS - Task list (tasks.md)

Load these files to understand:

• Feature requirements and acceptance criteria
• Implementation approach and design decisions
• Task breakdown and current status

2. Identify Review Target

If user provided task ID (e.g., "T001" in arguments):

• Review that specific task
• Focus review on changes related to that task

If no task ID provided:

• Review all pending tasks (marked with [ ] in tasks.md)
• Or review most recent code changes
• Ask user which tasks to review if unclear

3. Review Implementation

Conduct thorough review:

A. Load Code Changes

# Show recent changes
git diff main..HEAD

# Or show diff for specific files
git diff main..HEAD -- path/to/file

B. Verify Against Specification

• Check if implementation meets acceptance criteria in spec.md
• Verify design decisions from plan.md are followed
• Ensure behavior matches expected outcomes

C. Check Code Quality

• Look for bugs, edge cases, error handling
• Check code clarity and maintainability
• Verify proper testing coverage
• Check documentation completeness
• Flag placeholder/TODO/FIXME code within the implementation scope

D. Run Tests (if available)

# Run test suite based on project structure
npm test              # Node.js projects
pytest                # Python projects
cargo test            # Rust projects
go test ./...         # Go projects
./gradlew test        # Java/Kotlin projects

E. Validate Against Quality Gates

• Code follows project standards
• Tests exist and pass
• Edge cases handled
• Documentation adequate
• No obvious security issues
• No placeholder/TODO/FIXME code left in reviewed scope unless justified and tracked

4. Determine Review Outcome

Choose one of three outcomes:

Approved - Implementation Ready

Criteria:

• All acceptance criteria met
• All tests passing
• No blocking issues found
• Code quality acceptable
• Ready to merge

Approved with Minor Notes

Criteria:

• Core functionality works correctly
• Tests passing
• Minor improvements suggested (not blocking)
• Can be addressed in follow-up
• OK to merge with notes

Needs Changes - Issues Must Be Fixed

Criteria:

• Bugs or regressions found
• Tests failing or missing
• Acceptance criteria not met
• Security or critical issues
• Must fix before approval

5. Update Tasks (For Approved Work Only)

For approved work, mark completed tasks as done:

# Mark specific task as done
.specify/extensions/workflows/scripts/bash/mark-task-status.sh --task-id T001 --status done

# Mark multiple tasks
.specify/extensions/workflows/scripts/bash/mark-task-status.sh --task-id T002 --status done
.specify/extensions/workflows/scripts/bash/mark-task-status.sh --task-id T003 --status done

This updates tasks.md, changing:

• [ ] T001: Task description -> [X] T001: Task description

For "Needs Changes" outcome: Do NOT mark tasks as done. They remain pending until issues are fixed.

6. Generate Review Report

Create a comprehensive review report:

# Review Report

**Feature**: [Feature name from branch/spec]
**Reviewer**: [Your agent identifier]
**Date**: [Current date]
**Status**: [Approved / Approved with Notes / Needs Changes]

## Summary

[Brief overview of what was reviewed and outcome]

## Implementation Review

### What Was Reviewed
- [List tasks or changes reviewed]

### Implementation Quality
- **Code Quality**: [Assessment]
- **Test Coverage**: [Assessment]
- **Documentation**: [Assessment]
- **Standards Compliance**: [Assessment]

## Test Results

[Output from running tests, if applicable]

**Tests Executed**: [Number]
**Tests Passing**: [Number]
**Tests Failing**: [Number]

## Findings

### What Worked Well
- [Positive aspect 1]
- [Positive aspect 2]
- [Positive aspect 3]

### Issues / Concerns (if any)

#### [Issue Title]
- **Severity**: [Critical / High / Medium / Low]
- **Description**: [What the issue is]
- **Impact**: [Why it matters]
- **Recommendation**: [How to fix]

[Repeat for each issue]

## Tasks Status

### Completed (Marked as Done)
- [X] T001: [Task description]
- [X] T002: [Task description]

### Remaining Pending
- [ ] T004: [Task description]
- [ ] T005: [Task description]

## Recommendations

[Suggestions for improvement or follow-up work]

## Next Steps

**For Approved**:
1. Tasks marked as complete in tasks.md
2. Ready to merge feature branch
3. Consider creating PR for team review

**For Approved with Notes**:
1. Tasks marked as complete in tasks.md
2. Can merge with documented follow-up items
3. Create follow-up tasks for minor improvements

**For Needs Changes**:
1. Fix listed issues
2. Run tests to verify fixes
3. Request re-review with `/speckit.workflows.review`

7. Output Summary

Display concise summary to user:

[Status Icon] Review Complete

Feature: [feature name]
Status: [Approved / Approved with Notes / Needs Changes]
Tasks Reviewed: [T001, T002, T003]
Tests: [X passing, Y failing]
Issues: [N found]

[Next steps based on status]

Important Notes

1. Be Thorough: Don't rush the review - quality matters
2. Be Constructive: Frame feedback positively and helpfully
3. Be Specific: Cite exact locations for issues (file:line)
4. Test First: Always try to run tests before reviewing
5. Check Specs: Compare implementation to specification
6. Document Everything: Write findings for future reference
7. Only Mark Done: Only mark tasks complete when truly done

Edge Cases

No tasks.md exists:

• Review can still proceed
• Document findings but skip task updates
• Recommend creating tasks.md for tracking

No tests available:

• Review code manually without automated tests
• Note lack of tests as a finding
• Recommend adding tests

Multiple features in review:

• Review current feature based on branch/directory
• Use FEATURE_DIR to scope the review

Ambiguous review target:

• Ask user to clarify which tasks to review
• Or review all pending tasks by default

Context Information

Review context: $ARGUMENTS

Ensure all review feedback is actionable, specific, and constructive.