strategy-review

name	strategy-review
description	Adversarial review of a single refined strategy. Scores against rubric, then runs independent forked reviewers for detailed prose. Requires a strategy key argument.
user-invocable	true
allowed-tools	Read, Write, Edit, Glob, Grep, Bash, Skill, Agent

You are a strategy review orchestrator. Your job is to score and review a single strategy in artifacts/strat-tasks/, producing a review file with numeric scores and detailed prose.

Dry Run Mode

If --dry-run is in $ARGUMENTS, skip ALL external writes:

• Do NOT write or update any Jira issues
• Do NOT post review comments to Jira — save them to artifacts/strat-reviews/{id}-review-comment.md instead
• DO still read from Jira and local artifacts (reads are safe)
• DO still create local review files in artifacts/strat-reviews/

Local Mode

Check if strategy files exist in local/strat-tasks/. If they do, this is a local human review session pulled via /strategy-pull.

In local mode:

• Read strategy files from local/strat-tasks/ instead of artifacts/strat-tasks/
• Read review files from local/strat-reviews/ instead of artifacts/strat-reviews/
• Write review files to local/strat-reviews/
• Skip ALL Jira writes — no labels, no comments, no attachments posted to Jira
• Skip the Pipeline Label Gate (Step 1a) — the strategy was already processed by CI
• DO still run full scoring and prose reviews locally

Local mode is also active if any strategy file's frontmatter contains workflow: local.

If both local/strat-tasks/ and artifacts/strat-tasks/ have files, prefer local/strat-tasks/.

Step 1: Verify Artifacts Exist

This skill processes exactly one strategy per invocation. $ARGUMENTS must contain a strategy key (e.g., RHAISTRAT-1531 or STRAT-001). If no key is provided, stop with an error: "No strategy key provided. Usage: /strategy-review RHAISTRAT-NNNN"

Read the strategy file in artifacts/strat-tasks/. If it doesn't exist or hasn't been refined yet (no "Strategy" section), tell the user to run /strategy-refine first and stop.

Check if a prior review exists in artifacts/strat-reviews/. If one exists for this strategy, read it — this is a re-review after revisions.

Step 1a: Pipeline Label Gate

Read the strategy's frontmatter to get the jira_key. If jira_key is not null, fetch the STRAT's labels from Jira:

python3 ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/scripts/fetch_issue.py RHAISTRAT-NNNN --fields labels --markdown

If the STRAT has either strat-creator-rubric-pass or strat-creator-needs-attention in its labels, stop — it has already been processed by the pipeline:

• Do NOT review it
• Print [SKIP] RHAISTRAT-NNNN — already has <label>, skipping review

Step 2: Fetch Architecture Context

If --architecture-context <path> is in $ARGUMENTS, use the local path:

bash ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/scripts/fetch-architecture-context.sh <path>

Otherwise, fetch from remote:

bash ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/scripts/fetch-architecture-context.sh

Step 3: Bootstrap assess-strat

bash ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/scripts/bootstrap-assess-strat.sh

This clones the assess-strat plugin into .context/assess-strat/, copies skills and agent definitions, and exports the rubric to artifacts/strat-rubric.md.

Step 4: Score Strategy

Launch a strat-scorer agent to produce numeric scores for the strategy. The assess-strat plugin provides the rubric and agent definition.

Resolve the plugin root: the bootstrap script clones it to .context/assess-strat/. Use this path as {PLUGIN_ROOT}.

Create a clean run directory (removes stale result files from prior reviews in the same CI job):

rm -rf /tmp/strat-assess/review
mkdir -p /tmp/strat-assess/review

Spawn one agent (model: opus, run_in_background: true) with this prompt:

You are a strategy quality assessor. Your task:
1. Read `{PROMPT_PATH}` for the full scoring rubric.
2. Follow its instructions exactly, substituting {KEY} for the strategy key and {RUN_DIR} for the run directory. Read the strategy from {DATA_FILE} (not the path in the rubric's step 1).
3. If architecture context is available at `.context/architecture-context/`, use Glob and Grep to validate architecture claims against real component docs.
Strategy key: {KEY}
Data file: {DATA_FILE}
Run directory: {RUN_DIR}

Substitute all placeholders:

• {PROMPT_PATH} → absolute path of {PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/agent_prompt.md
• {DATA_FILE} → the strategy file path (e.g., artifacts/strat-tasks/RHAISTRAT-1469.md)
• {KEY} → the strategy key (e.g., RHAISTRAT-1469)
• {RUN_DIR} → /tmp/strat-assess/review

Wait for the scorer agent to complete.

Step 5: Parse Scores and Apply Verdicts (AUTOMATED — no LLM judgment)

After the scorer agent has completed, run the scoring scripts to deterministically compute the verdict and apply it to the review file:

# Parse .result.md files → scores.csv with deterministic verdicts
python3 .context/assess-strat/scripts/parse_results.py /tmp/strat-assess/review/

# Apply scores and verdicts to review file frontmatter
python3 ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/scripts/apply_scores.py /tmp/strat-assess/review/scores.csv \
    --review-dir artifacts/strat-reviews \
    --result-dir /tmp/strat-assess/review

# Print summary statistics
python3 .context/assess-strat/scripts/summarize_run.py /tmp/strat-assess/review/

Do NOT manually extract scores, compute verdicts, or set frontmatter. The scripts handle this deterministically. The verdict rules are:

APPROVE:  total >= 6  AND  no zeros       → needs_attention=false
REVISE:   total >= 3  AND  ≤1 zero        → needs_attention=true
REJECT:   total < 3   OR   2+ zeros       → needs_attention=true

Step 6: Run Prose Reviews

Use the Skill tool to invoke all four reviewer skills in parallel. Each runs in its own isolated context: fork — no reviewer sees another's output. Pass the strategy key to each:

Skill(skill="strategy-feasibility-review", args="RHAISTRAT-NNNN")
Skill(skill="strategy-testability-review", args="RHAISTRAT-NNNN")
Skill(skill="strategy-scope-review", args="RHAISTRAT-NNNN")
Skill(skill="strategy-architecture-review", args="RHAISTRAT-NNNN")

Do NOT use the Agent tool for reviews. Use the Skill tool — the reviewer skills are defined in .claude/skills/ and contain specific review instructions.

• strategy-feasibility-review: Can we build this with the proposed approach? Are effort estimates credible?
• strategy-testability-review: Are acceptance criteria testable? What edge cases are missing?
• strategy-scope-review: Is the strategy right-sized? Does the effort match the scope?
• strategy-architecture-review (if architecture context available): Are dependencies correctly identified? Are integration patterns correct?

Each reviewer auto-detects local mode (local/strat-tasks/ vs artifacts/strat-tasks/) and reads the appropriate directories.

Step 7: Write Prose to Review Files

Update the review file body in artifacts/strat-reviews/{id}-review.md with the prose from all four reviewers. The scores table was already written by apply_scores.py in Step 5 — add the prose sections after it.

The review file body should contain:

## Scores
[already written by apply_scores.py — do not overwrite]

## Feasibility Review: {STRAT_ID} — {title}
<assessment from feasibility reviewer>

## Testability Review: {STRAT_ID} — {title}
<assessment from testability reviewer>

## Scope Review: {STRAT_ID} — {title}
<assessment from scope reviewer>

## Architecture Review: {STRAT_ID} — {title}
<assessment from architecture reviewer, or "skipped — no context">

## Agreements
<where reviewers aligned>

## Disagreements
<where reviewers diverged — preserve both views>

After writing prose, update the reviewers.* frontmatter fields with each prose reviewer's individual verdict:

python3 ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/scripts/frontmatter.py set artifacts/strat-reviews/<id>-review.md \
    reviewers.feasibility=<prose_verdict> \
    reviewers.testability=<prose_verdict> \
    reviewers.scope=<prose_verdict> \
    reviewers.architecture=<prose_verdict>

Important: The recommendation field is NEVER changed by prose reviewers. It comes from the numeric scores only. Prose reviewers set their own reviewers.* verdicts for informational purposes — these do NOT affect the gate decision.

Preserve disagreements. If the feasibility reviewer says "this is fine" but the scope reviewer says "this is too big," report both views. Do not average or harmonize.

Step 7a: Post Review Summary to Jira

Compose a review summary comment and post it to the RHAISTRAT issue (or save to file in dry-run mode).

Read the review file frontmatter to get scores and recommendation:

python3 ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/scripts/frontmatter.py read artifacts/strat-reviews/{id}-review.md

Compose the comment in markdown using this format:

*[Strat Creator]* Strategy Review — {VERDICT} (Score: {total}/8)

| Criterion | Score | Status |
|-----------|-------|--------|
| Feasibility | {F}/2 | {✓ if 2, ⚠ if 1, ✗ if 0} |
| Testability | {T}/2 | {✓ if 2, ⚠ if 1, ✗ if 0} |
| Scope | {S}/2 | {✓ if 2, ⚠ if 1, ✗ if 0} |
| Architecture | {A}/2 | {✓ if 2, ⚠ if 1, ✗ if 0} |

{For each dimension scored < 2, one sentence summarizing the issue from the prose review.}

**Action:** {verdict-specific guidance}

Action text by verdict:

• APPROVE: "No action needed — strategy passed quality review."
• REVISE: "Edit the strategy to address flagged issues, then remove the needs-attention label. The pipeline will re-evaluate automatically."
• REJECT: "This strategy has fundamental problems. Consider revisiting the source RFE or re-running /strategy-refine with different constraints."

Posting:

Save the composed markdown to a temp file, then post:

python3 -c "
import sys; sys.path.insert(0, '${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/scripts')
from jira_utils import add_comment, markdown_to_adf
import os
comment_md = open(sys.argv[1]).read()
add_comment(os.environ['JIRA_SERVER'], os.environ['JIRA_USER'],
            os.environ['JIRA_TOKEN'], sys.argv[2], markdown_to_adf(comment_md))
" /tmp/strat-review-comment-{KEY}.md RHAISTRAT-NNNN

• Dry-run mode: Write the comment markdown to artifacts/strat-reviews/{id}-review-comment.md instead. Print [DRY RUN] Review comment saved to artifacts/strat-reviews/{id}-review-comment.md.
• Jira credentials unavailable: Save to file (same as dry-run) and notify the user.

Step 7b: Attach Full Review File to Jira

If NOT in dry-run mode and jira_key is not null, attach the full review file to the RHAISTRAT issue as a Jira attachment. This gives reviewers access to the complete prose reviews alongside the summary comment.

python3 -c "
import sys; sys.path.insert(0, 'scripts')
from jira_utils import add_attachment, require_env
s, u, t = require_env()
add_attachment(s, u, t, sys.argv[1], sys.argv[2])
" RHAISTRAT-NNNN artifacts/strat-reviews/{id}-review.md

Print [ATTACHMENT] Review file attached to RHAISTRAT-NNNN.

In dry-run mode, skip and print [DRY RUN] Skipping attachment for RHAISTRAT-NNNN.

Step 7c: Apply Verdict Labels

If NOT in dry-run mode and jira_key is not null, add the appropriate label based on the verdict:

python3 -c "
import sys; sys.path.insert(0, 'scripts')
from jira_utils import add_labels, require_env
s, u, t = require_env()
add_labels(s, u, t, sys.argv[1], sys.argv[2:])
" RHAISTRAT-NNNN <labels>

Labels by verdict:

• APPROVE: add strat-creator-rubric-pass
• REVISE: add strat-creator-needs-attention
• REJECT: add strat-creator-needs-attention

Print [LABEL] <label> added to RHAISTRAT-NNNN.

In dry-run mode, skip and print [DRY RUN] Skipping labels for RHAISTRAT-NNNN.

Step 8: Advise the User

Based on the result:

• Approved (needs_attention=false): Tell the user the strategy is ready for sign-off.
• Needs revision (needs_attention=true, verdict=REVISE): List specific issues by dimension. Tell the user to edit the strategy, remove needs-attention, and re-run /strategy-review.
• Fundamental problems (needs_attention=true, verdict=REJECT): Recommend revisiting the RFE or re-running /strategy-refine with different constraints.

$ARGUMENTS