| name | bc-review |
| description | Adversarial review gate for scenario-based BC work; sole emitter of work_done for assign_scenarios and bugfix-with-scenarios dispatches |
BC Review
Overview
The reviewer is dispatched after the implementer's turn on any assign_scenarios or request_bugfix (with scenarios) message. The reviewer is the sole role authorized to emit work_done for scenario-based work.
The reviewer's posture is adversarial — not hostile, but genuinely probing. The goal is to catch gaps the implementer missed before the lead sees the output.
What You Read
Before starting any probe:
- The assigned Gherkin scenario(s) — read from
features/ as committed, including all @scenario_hash: tags.
- The implementer's work —
git diff origin/main..HEAD in the work branch (or the merged commit on main).
- The step definitions —
tests/conftest.py or equivalent.
- The implementation — the relevant
src/ files.
Do not rely on the implementer's summary. Read the artifacts directly.
BDD Re-Run
Run the assigned scenario(s) yourself against a clean tree:
git status --porcelain
pytest features/ --tags="@scenario_hash:<hash>"
If any assigned scenario fails: the work is not done. Do not sign off. This is an implementation gap (see Outcomes).
Adversarial Probes
Faithful Realization vs. Literal-Text Shortcut
Check whether the implementation faithfully realizes the behavior named in the scenario, or whether it literally satisfies the step text via a shortcut that would not generalize.
Examples of shortcuts to detect:
- Hardcoded return values matching exactly the scenario's expected output.
- Guard clauses that match only the scenario's specific input, passing nothing else through.
- Assertions in step definitions that match the scenario's exact strings without validating the underlying behavior.
If a shortcut is found: implementation gap.
Unpinned Adjacent Cases
The scenario pins one path through the behavior. Probe the adjacent paths:
- Equality boundaries. If the scenario uses a threshold (e.g., count ≥ 3), test count = 2 and count = 3 explicitly.
- Reverse cases. If the scenario tests the happy path, verify the error path is also handled (even if not assigned).
- Negatives. If the scenario tests that X happens, verify that X does not happen when the condition is absent.
These are not new scenarios to assign — they are probe tests you run as part of review. If they fail and reveal that the implementation only works for the assigned case, that is an implementation gap.
Step Definition Failure Modes
Inspect the step definitions for:
- Overly broad regexes. A step that matches too broadly may silently pass irrelevant inputs.
- Silent exception swallowing. A step that catches exceptions without asserting may hide failures.
- State leakage between steps. Shared mutable state in fixtures that is not reset between scenarios.
Outcomes
Three possible outcomes:
Sign-off (work_done complete)
All assigned scenarios pass. Adversarial probes reveal no shortcuts or uncovered adjacent cases. Step definitions are sound.
shop-msg respond work_done \
--bc <name> \
--work-id <work_id> \
--status complete \
--scenario-hash <hash1> [--scenario-hash <hash2> ...]
Scenario Gap → Clarify to Lead
The reviewer discovers that the assigned scenarios do not fully specify the required behavior — there is a gap in the specification itself that no amount of implementation work can resolve. This is not the implementer's failure; it is a gap in what was assigned.
shop-msg respond clarify \
--bc <name> \
--work-id <work_id> \
--question "Scenario gap: <description of what the scenario does not specify>"
Do not emit work_done in this case. The lead must revise the scenario(s) first.
Implementation Gap → work_done blocked
The scenarios are sufficient but the implementation does not faithfully realize them — shortcuts, failing adjacent cases, or step definition failures.
shop-msg respond work_done \
--bc <name> \
--work-id <work_id> \
--status blocked \
--summary "Implementation gap: <specific finding>"
Name the specific gap: quote the shortcut, name the failing adjacent case, or describe the step definition flaw. The implementer uses this as the input for a new implementation pass.
Observable-Artifact Checks (Checks 4–5)
Before running the adversarial probes, the reviewer must run Checks 4 and 5
from the work-done-gate skill (invoked via the Skill tool):
Check 4 (plan artifact): bd sub-issues exist for the work_id and are
closed, and at least one is an explicit failing-test (RED) sub-issue (title
contains "write the failing test for" or similar). This confirms the
implementer ran TDD planning, not ad-hoc coding.
bd show <work_id>
Absent → convert to work_done --status blocked --summary "no bd plan sub-issues for <work_id>".
Check 5 (test-first artifact): for each behavior, a test(red): <behavior> commit precedes its feat(green): <behavior> commit in the
work-branch history.
git log --oneline bc/<work_id>
Absent or mis-ordered → convert to work_done --status blocked --summary "no test-first commit sequence for <behavior>".
The work-done-gate skill runs Checks 4 and 5 as part of its full gate sweep.
The reviewer invokes work-done-gate after completing the adversarial probes
(see FIRST ACTION in the reviewer shim).
Anti-Rationalization
| Thought | Reality |
|---|
| "The scenarios pass — that's enough." | Passing assigned scenarios is necessary but not sufficient. Run the adversarial probes. |
| "The implementer is experienced — trust it." | Trust but verify. Read the diff. |
| "Adjacent cases weren't assigned — not my problem." | Adjacent cases reveal whether the implementation is real. Probing them is the review. |
| "I don't want to slow things down." | A blocked work_done now is faster than a production bug later. |
| "The commits look fine from here." | Verify Check 5 via git log — don't assume the test-first sequence is there. |
