wicked-garden-agentic-review-methodology

name	wicked-garden-agentic-review-methodology
description	Use when reviewing an agentic codebase for issues, risks, and maturity gaps — covers the four-phase review process (Detect → Analyze → Prioritize → Report) and the five-level maturity model (Prototype → Functional → Reliable → Production → Optimized) for assessing production readiness. NOT for architecture design (use agentic-patterns) or live agentic review with a subagent (use agentic:review command).
portability	portable
phase_relevance	["design","review"]
archetype_relevance	["*"]

Agentic Review Methodology

Systematic approach to reviewing agentic systems and codebases for issues, risks, and improvement opportunities.

Four-Phase Review Process

Phase 1: Detect (Discovery)

Goal: Identify all potential issues

Activities:

1. Code analysis (static analysis, anti-patterns)
2. Configuration review (prompts, secrets, limits)
3. Runtime analysis (logs, traces, metrics)
4. Documentation review

Tools:

• Static analyzers (pylint, mypy, eslint)
• Custom grep patterns for agentic anti-patterns
• Log aggregation tools

Deliverable: Raw issue inventory

Phase 2: Analyze (Assessment)

Goal: Understand each issue's impact and root cause

For Each Issue:

1. Classify type (see refs/issue-taxonomy-reliability-safety.md and refs/issue-taxonomy-quality-testing.md)
2. Determine severity (Critical/High/Medium/Low)
3. Assess impact (Reliability/Security/Cost/Performance)
4. Identify root cause
5. Estimate fix effort

Analysis Framework:

• What is the issue?
• Why is it a problem?
• What are the consequences?
• What is the root cause?
• How should it be fixed?

Deliverable: Analyzed issue list with severity and impact

Phase 3: Score (Prioritization)

Goal: Prioritize issues for remediation

Severity Levels:

Critical (P0): Security vulnerabilities, data loss risks, system crashes, compliance violations. Fix immediately.

High (P1): Reliability issues, performance problems, cost inefficiencies, safety gaps. Fix within 1 week.

Medium (P2): Code quality issues, minor performance issues, missing observability. Fix within 1 month.

Low (P3): Style issues, optimization opportunities, nice-to-have features. Backlog.

Prioritization Matrix:

Impact vs Effort:
           Low Effort    High Effort
High       Quick Wins    Major Projects
Impact     (Do First)    (Plan)

Low        Easy Wins     Avoid
Impact     (Do Later)    (Skip)

Deliverable: Prioritized roadmap

Phase 4: Report (Communication)

Goal: Communicate findings effectively to stakeholders

Report Components:

1. Executive Summary (1 page) - Overall assessment and top recommendations
2. Issue Inventory (Detailed) - All issues with severity and recommendations
3. Remediation Roadmap - Phased approach with quick wins
4. Metrics Dashboard - Issue counts and maturity score

Deliverable: Comprehensive review report

See refs/deliverable-templates.md for complete templates.

Issue Severity Classification

Determining Severity

1. Can it cause data loss? → Critical
2. Can it cause security breach? → Critical
3. Does it crash the system? → Critical/High
4. Does it violate compliance? → Critical
5. Does it affect reliability? → High/Medium
6. Does it waste money? → High/Medium
7. Is it a code quality issue? → Medium/Low

Examples by Severity

Critical:

• No input validation (SQL injection risk)
• Credentials in code
• No error handling (system crashes)
• Production deletes without approval
• Missing audit logs for compliance

High:

• No circuit breakers (cascading failures)
• Missing observability (can't debug)
• No resource limits (runaway costs)
• Hardcoded prompts (can't iterate)
• No testing (high bug risk)

Medium:

• Inefficient token usage
• Missing documentation
• No caching (higher costs)
• Verbose logging
• Code duplication

Low:

• Style inconsistencies
• Missing type hints
• Suboptimal variable names
• Minor optimizations

See refs/issue-taxonomy-reliability-safety.md and refs/issue-taxonomy-quality-testing.md for complete classification guide.

Finding Documentation Template

For each issue, document:

## Issue: [Short Title]

**ID:** ISSUE-001
**Severity:** Critical | High | Medium | Low
**Category:** Reliability | Security | Safety | Cost | Performance | Quality
**Component:** [Which agent/module]

### Description
[What is the issue?]

### Evidence
[Code snippets, logs, metrics]

### Impact
[What are the consequences?]

### Root Cause
[Why does this exist?]

### Recommendation
[How to fix it?]

### Effort Estimate
[Hours/Days/Weeks]

### Priority
[P0/P1/P2/P3]

Tips for Effective Reviews

1. Be Systematic: Follow all four phases
2. Be Objective: Focus on facts, not opinions
3. Be Specific: Provide code examples and evidence
4. Be Constructive: Suggest solutions, not just problems
5. Be Prioritized: Don't overwhelm with low-priority issues
6. Be Clear: Use simple language in reports

References

• refs/issue-taxonomy-reliability-safety.md and refs/issue-taxonomy-quality-testing.md - Complete issue category reference and anti-pattern detection
• refs/deliverable-templates.md - Detailed report templates and review checklist