Integrated Harness review skill.
This SKILL.md is a thin dispatcher; read references/ for detailed quality criteria.
if $ARGUMENTS == "":
→ Interpret as "review of work done so far" and run Review target detection
→ Auto-start only when exactly one review target can be determined
→ When the review target is unclear or there are multiple candidates, use AskUserQuestion to present options and align understanding before starting
The last line of skill output must always include this literal:
↑Claude will summarize this result. Press Enter to continue, or enter a new prompt for a different instruction.
This is an explicit instruction for the UX problem where text displayed via <local-command-stdout> makes users feel it has "stopped" (patterns.md P35).
Dispatcher Contract
This skill's responsibility is review judgment only.
Commit / push / release are not performed by default.
Review default read-only boundary: Read-only by default. Does not auto-commit even on APPROVE.
Do not push just to review: Do not push solely for review purposes.
When a commit is needed, delegate to an explicit user request, harness-work, or the harness-release Work Commit Gate.
Side effects in this skill's default are prohibited until explicit opt-in like --commit-on-approve is designed.
Quick Reference
Command
Mode
Purpose
/harness-review
code
Auto-detect work done so far and review
/harness-review --quick
quick
Quick closeout of a small dirty change
/harness-review --codex-closeout
codex-closeout
Codex advice + focused tests closeout
/harness-review --dual
dual
Claude + Codex second opinion
/harness-review --team-debate
team-debate
Force TeamAgent Debate
/harness-review --security
security
Security-only review
/harness-review plan
plan
Review Plans.md plan
/harness-review scope
scope
Scope creep / gap review
Mode Decision
Determine execution mode from arguments and selectively load required references/.
quick and codex-closeout are lightweight paths.
For quickly reviewing small dirty changes, single commits, or PR branch closeouts.
They do not discard quality gates.
Review Target Detection
REVIEW_AUTOSTART contract:
When called with no args ($ARGUMENTS == ""), interpret input of just review / /review / /harness-review as "review of work done so far."
Output only one handshake line before starting Step 1:
REVIEW_TARGET_ASK contract:
When the review target is unclear or there are multiple candidates on a bare call, use AskUserQuestion once before proceeding to Step 1 to narrow down to 2-3 candidates and confirm.
Build candidates in this order:
Working tree: uncommitted changes only (staged / unstaged / untracked)
Branch range: commits from upstream or main/master to HEAD
Recent commits: most recent 1 commit / most recent 5 commits when branch range cannot be obtained on clean tree
When multiple candidates are simultaneously valid:
For REQUEST_CHANGES: show fix policy for critical/major items and re-review conditions after fixing
Review Governance Contract
Details in references/governance.md.
Only the minimum pass threshold is fixed here.
Clear pass threshold
Return APPROVE only when all of the following are met:
Zero critical / major findings
No conflict with spec source of truth (spec_path) or explicit spec_skip_reason
No conflict with Plans.md task / DoD / Depends
No regression evidence in any of: existing tests, existing UX, existing CLI, existing config, existing docs, distribution mirrors
Verification evidence exists. Output with APPROVE but empty evidence is prohibited.
When TeamAgent Debate was run, all disagreements are resolved or downgraded to minor / recommendation with reasoning.
TeamAgent Debate
Details in references/team-debate.md.
TeamAgent Debate is a review pass that collides different views read-only.
Agent
Primary question
Spec Agent
Find conflicts between spec source of truth and implementation diff
Plans Agent
Verify correspondence between Plans.md task / DoD / Depends and diff
Regression Agent
Find regressions in existing behavior, tests, distribution mirrors, CLI/skill UX
Skeptic Agent
Find major risks being overlooked under the assumption of wanting to pass
Even when native TeamAgent is unavailable in Codex environments, this gate must not be skipped.
Reproduce the same 2-4 perspectives using codex-companion.sh review, available reviewer subagents, or an explicitly separated read-only manual-pass, and record team_agent_mode as native / codex-companion / manual-pass / unavailable.
Code Review Summary
Details in references/code-review.md.
Normal code review checks:
Security
Performance
Quality
Accessibility
AI Residuals
Spec Alignment
Plans Alignment
Regression Safety
TDD compliance
Spec source of truth alignment check is mandatory.
When spec_path exists, verify the diff does not conflict with the spec source of truth; when a spec is needed but absent, check the validity of spec_skip_reason.
Plans.md alignment check and regression alignment check are handled at the same gate.
AI Residuals: prioritize using scripts/review-ai-residuals.sh and scripts/review-weak-supervision-report.sh.
Use --include-untracked when checking untracked files as well.
mockData, dummy, fake, localhost, TODO, FIXME, it.skip, test.skip, expect(true).toBe(true) etc. are candidates; determine severity from diff context.
TDD compliance check
For TDD-required tasks, verify evidence of skip_tdd_reason, red-log, and focused tests.
Do not APPROVE without evidence.
Quick / Codex Closeout Summary
Details in references/codex-closeout.md.
Lightweight path principles:
Fix target selection first
Treat Codex findings as advisory; confirm with actual code before accepting or rejecting
Final report includes: review command / tests / accepted findings / rejected findings / clean result
Stop-on-clean: No additional review just for appearance after a clean result
When Codex is unavailable, fall back to full manual pass; do not treat failure as success
Details in references/plan-review.md.
Plan Review checks DoD / Depends / Status and implementation order in Plans.md.
When a task requires a spec source of truth but spec_path is missing, stop as decision_needed.
Scope Review Summary
Details in references/scope-review.md.
Scope Review checks whether the boundary of requirements, diff, tests, and docs has expanded beyond scope.
When scope change is needed, do not proceed by guessing — return to AskUserQuestion or plan update.
/ultrareview is not called by default within Harness flow.
It does not replace the connection with Harness flow's review-result.v1, commit guard, and sprint-contract.
claude ultrareview [target] --json is treated only as a second-opinion from CI / scripts.
PR Host Boundary
GitHub-first.
Review facts on the PR host treat GitHub as authoritative; local diff is treated as supplementary evidence.
Local uncommitted reviews are not pushed to GitHub.
Output Contract
User-facing prose follows the explicit session or project language.
If no language is configured, use English. Use Japanese only when
i18n.language: ja, CLAUDE_CODE_HARNESS_LANG=ja, or an explicit session
instruction requests Japanese output.
Machine-readable values stay English.
Available tools differ in Codex environments.
Even so, the contracts for pass threshold, spec source of truth, Plans.md, regression, post-fix re-review, and AskUserQuestion / decision_needed.v1 are the same.
