Menü
Two-stage review gates ensuring both requirement compliance and code quality before merging.
Mit Codex oder Claude installieren Kopieren Sie diesen Prompt, fügen Sie ihn in Codex, Claude oder einen anderen Assistant ein und lassen Sie die Skill-Seite prüfen und installieren.
Basierend auf der SOC-Berufsklassifikation
End-to-end orchestrated execution. Takes a feature description and drives the entire pipeline — plan, plan review (3 fresh reviewers), WU decomposition, 4-phase execution loop per WU, final review, COMMIT-READY emit. Honors user's git policy (no auto-commit).
`--default-domain` comes from the project-detect framework signal (orchestrator Step 5b / project-context); it only decides how UI files with no strong path marker are classified. `--risk-tier` is the WU's `risk_tier` fi
**Capture the WU baseline ONCE per WU, before attempt 1 (NOT on retries).** This is what makes file-scope checks correct across a multi-WU run where the user has not yet committed prior WUs (per the `ben yapacagim` git p
This gate has **two interchangeable execution paths that MUST emit the identical aggregated verdict object** (Step 3). The prose path below is the canonical fallback and the single source of truth for reviewer prompts an
A baton-based system for building mobile features across multiple Claude Code sessions with persistent progress tracking and simulator verification between steps.
Set up end-to-end testing framework with CI integration
| name | review-gates |
| description | Two-stage review gates ensuring both requirement compliance and code quality before merging. |
| source_type | skill |
| source_file | skills/review-gates.md |
Migrated from skills/review-gates.md.
references/... or workflow/..., are packaged beside this SKILL.md.agents/..., commands/..., scripts/..., resources/..., rules/..., hooks/..., or templates/..., are packaged at this plugin root.skills/orchestration/...) is packaged under source/skills/orchestration/... for exact-reference lookups; all other Telar skills exist here only as the generated adapters under the plugin-root skills/ directory.../.. when reading support files or running packaged scripts.Two-stage review gates ensuring both requirement compliance and code quality before merging.
Does the implementation meet the requirements?
For each F-x and UI-x covered by this implementation:
## Requirements Compliance
| Requirement | Description | Status | Evidence |
|-------------|-------------|--------|----------|
| F-1 | Email auth | PASS | `lib/features/auth/auth_repository.dart` |
| F-7 | Calendar view | FAIL | Missing conflict resolution (F-7 business rule 3) |
| UI-5 | Calendar screen | PASS | `lib/screens/calendar/calendar_screen.dart` |
### Verdict: FAIL (1 unmet requirement)
Action: Implement F-7 business rule 3 before Stage 2
If PLAN.md and PROGRESS.md exist:
## Task Acceptance Check
| Task | Requirement | Acceptance Criteria | Status |
|------|-------------|--------------------|---------|
| T1 | F-1 | Auth repository initialises without errors | PASS |
| T3 | F-7 | Calendar loads events for current month | PASS |
| T4 | F-7 | Conflict shown when two events overlap | FAIL |
### Verdict: FAIL (1 unmet criterion)
Both 1A and 1B must pass before Stage 2 begins.
Verification requirement: Evidence must be fresh — re-run tests and re-verify on simulator before claiming pass. See
verification-before-completionskill.
Does the code follow project standards?
## Code Quality Check
### Architecture
- [ ] Follows existing project structure
- [ ] No circular dependencies
- [ ] Appropriate separation of concerns
### Patterns
- [ ] Matches existing state management approach
- [ ] Consistent error handling pattern
- [ ] Proper loading state management
- [ ] API responses validated
### Performance
- [ ] No unnecessary re-renders / rebuilds
- [ ] List rendering optimised
- [ ] No large imports
- [ ] Images optimised
### Platform Conventions
- [ ] Touch targets >= 44pt iOS / 48dp Android
- [ ] Safe area handling correct
- [ ] Platform-specific navigation patterns respected
- [ ] Deep link handling for new routes
### Accessibility
- [ ] Interactive elements have accessibility labels
- [ ] Error messages announced
- [ ] Focus order logical
- [ ] Color contrast WCAG AA
### Testing
- [ ] Unit tests for business logic
- [ ] Component tests for UI
- [ ] Edge cases covered
### Maintainability
- [ ] No duplicated logic (textual or semantic) whose sites change together for the same reason — unified, not copy-pasted
- [ ] Existing shared components/utils/RPCs/views reused, not re-implemented
- [ ] No speculative abstraction / dead flexibility (simplicity-first)
- [ ] Design patterns consistent with codebase conventions; no misapplied pattern
- [ ] Reuse/refactor opportunities noted as advisories (non-blocking)
- [ ] NOT flagged: coincidental similarity with different responsibilities (wrong abstraction), dogmatic tiny-function/length gates
### Verdict: PASS / FAIL
commands/review-code.mdrules/quality-gates.mdREQUIREMENTS.md, PLAN.md, PROGRESS.mdskills/requirements-traceability.md