// Use after implementation to review code against spec and quality standards
| name | code-review |
| description | Use after implementation to review code against spec and quality standards |
Review implementation against spec and quality standards. Catch issues before they cascade.
Check that implementation matches requirements:
Must verify:
Red flags:
Check for:
Severity levels:
Structure your review:
## Spec Compliance
[✅ Compliant / ❌ Issues found]
Issues (if any):
- Missing: [what's missing from spec]
- Extra: [what was added but not requested]
## Code Quality
Strengths:
- [What's done well]
Issues:
- [Critical] [issue description]
- [Important] [issue description]
- [Minor] [issue description]
## Assessment
[Ready to proceed / Needs fixes]
If reviewer finds issues:
If you disagree with feedback:
Never:
Always:
Use when starting new feature work to turn ideas into fully formed designs through collaborative dialogue
Use when an implementation plan exists and needs to be broken into parallelizable work units with dependencies
Use when bead implementation is complete and ready for integration
Use when executing a single bead/task with test-driven development approach
Use when a design document exists and needs to be broken into detailed implementation tasks