review-findings

name	review-findings
description	Addresses and fixes findings from a QA code review. Reads the review report, fixes critical and warning issues, and prepares for re-verification.
context	fork
agent	forja-dev

Fix the findings from the QA review: $ARGUMENTS

If no specific review is mentioned, look for the most recent review in docs/reviews/.

Follow these steps:

SIGN IN:

• Run the SIGN IN checklist from your agent file
• Surface any concerns about the findings — complexity, risk, dependencies

Defect Severity Classification

Every finding in the review report must have a severity:

• Critical: Security vulnerability, data loss, system crash
• Major: Feature broken, workaround exists but painful
• Medium: Incorrect behavior, easy workaround
• Minor: Cosmetic, style, naming

Defect Status Lifecycle

Each finding tracks its status through the Centinela > Forja > Centinela loop:

Open (Centinela identifies in review)
  > Assigned (handoff to Forja via review-findings)
    > Implemented (Forja completes fix)
      > Verified (Centinela re-verifies)
        > Closed

When reading the review report, update each finding's status from Open to Assigned. When fixing is complete, update status to Implemented. Centinela re-verification updates to Verified then Closed.

Entry/Exit Criteria

Entry criteria (must be true before starting fixes):

• Implementation is complete and all existing tests pass
• Forja's Pre-Delivery checklist has been passed
• Review report exists at docs/reviews/{feature-name}-review.md

Exit criteria (must be true before handoff back to Centinela):

• All Critical and Major findings have status Implemented
• Remaining Minor findings are documented in TECH_DEBT.md with justification
• Fix order was respected: Critical > Major > Medium > Minor

Review Report Finding Format

Each finding in the review report must include:

Field	Description
ID	F-{NNN} sequential
Severity	Critical / Major / Medium / Minor
Status	Open / Assigned / Implemented / Verified / Closed
Category	Code Quality / Architecture / Spec Compliance
Description	What the issue is
Location	file:line reference
Recommendation	How to fix
Verified-By	Agent that verified the fix (populated during re-verification)

Reference: O'Regan (2019), Ch. 7, sections 7.3-7.5

⏸️ TIME OUT — Pre-Fix Preparation (READ-DO):

1. Read the review report in docs/reviews/
2. Understand each finding's root cause BEFORE writing any fix
3. Plan the fix order: Critical first, then Warnings
4. Identify if any fixes could conflict with each other

FIX (using Clean Code principles): 5. For each finding:

• Understand root cause (don't just fix the symptom)
• Apply appropriate refactoring technique: Extract Method, Rename, Move, Inline, Replace Conditional with Polymorphism
• Write or update tests to prevent recurrence (Arrange-Act-Assert)
• Verify the fix doesn't introduce new code smells

6. Scan for dead code after all fixes — apply Boy Scout Rule

⏸️ TIME OUT — Run Implementation Complete + Pre-Delivery Checklists (DO-CONFIRM): 7. Run the Implementation Complete checklist from your agent file 8. Run the Pre-Delivery checklist from your agent file Additionally verify:

• Every Critical finding addressed
• Every Warning addressed (or explicitly deferred with justification)
• No new code smells introduced by the fixes

SIGN OUT: 9. Write a Fix Report using the Fix Report checklist from your agent file 10. Run the SIGN OUT checklist from your agent file