Pre-PR review activity skill for PAW workflow. Reviews implementation against spec before Final PR creation with configurable single-model, multi-model, or society-of-thought execution.
Installer avec Codex ou Claude Copiez ce prompt, collez-le dans Codex, Claude ou un autre assistant, puis laissez-le vérifier la page du skill et l'installer pour vous.
Une commande directe contourne le prompt de vérification. Examinez la source avant de l'exécuter.
Pre-PR review activity skill for PAW workflow. Reviews implementation against spec before Final PR creation with configurable single-model, multi-model, or society-of-thought execution.
Final Agent Review
Execution Context: This skill runs directly in the PAW session (not a subagent), preserving user interactivity for apply/skip/discuss decisions.
Automated review step that runs after all implementation phases complete, before Final PR creation. Examines the full implementation diff against specification to catch issues before external review.
Capabilities
Review implementation against spec for correctness, patterns, and issues
Multi-model parallel review with synthesis (CLI only)
Society-of-thought review via paw-sot engine with specialist personas, parallel/debate execution, and confidence-weighted synthesis (CLI only)
Single-model review (CLI and VS Code)
Interactive, smart, or auto-apply resolution modes
Generate review artifacts in .paw/work/<work-id>/reviews/
Procedure
Step 1: Read Configuration
Read WorkflowContext.md for:
Work ID and target branch
Final Review Mode: single-model | multi-model | society-of-thought
Final Review Interactive: true | false | smart
Final Review Models: comma-separated model names (for multi-model)
{{#cli}}
If mode is multi-model, parse the models list. Default: latest GPT, latest Gemini, latest Claude Opus.
If mode is society-of-thought, also read:
Final Review Specialists: all (default) | comma-separated specialist names | adaptive:<N>
Final Review Interaction Mode: parallel (default) | debate
Final Review Specialist Models: none (default) | model pool | pinned pairs | mixed
{{/cli}}
{{#vscode}}
Note: VS Code only supports single-model mode. If multi-model is configured, proceed with single-model using the current session's model.
{{/vscode}}
Step 2: Gather Review Context
Required context (review subagents gather this themselves via tools):
Spec.md, ImplementationPlan.md, CodeResearch.md in .paw/work/<work-id>/
Step 3: Create Reviews Directory
Create .paw/work/<work-id>/reviews/ if it doesn't exist.
Create .paw/work/<work-id>/reviews/.gitignore with content * (if not already present). This is a local-only scratch ignore marker — do NOT stage or commit it.
Review Prompt (shared)
Provide this to all review subagents (single-model or each multi-model subagent). Subagents have full tool access — they gather context themselves rather than receiving it inline.
Review this implementation against the specification. Be critical and thorough.
## Context Locations
- **Diff**: Run `git diff <base-branch>...<target-branch>` to see all changes
- **Specification**: Read `.paw/work/<work-id>/Spec.md`
- **Implementation Plan**: Read `.paw/work/<work-id>/ImplementationPlan.md`
- **Codebase Patterns**: Read `.paw/work/<work-id>/CodeResearch.md`
Start by gathering the diff and reading the spec, then review against these criteria:
## Review Criteria
1. **Correctness**: Do changes implement all spec requirements? Any gaps?
2. **Plan Deliverable Coverage**: Compare `ImplementationPlan.md` `Changes Required` sections and explicit minimum commitments against actual implementation. Missing planned deliverables or empty scaffolding where the plan promised concrete output is `should-fix` minimum, not `consider`.
3. **Pattern Consistency**: Does implementation follow established codebase patterns?
4. **Bugs and Issues**: Logic errors, edge cases, race conditions, error handling gaps
5. **Token Efficiency**: For prompts/skills, opportunities to reduce verbosity
6. **Documentation**: Missing or outdated documentation
For each finding, provide:
- Issue description
- Current code/text
- Proposed fix
- Severity: must-fix | should-fix | consider
Write findings in structured markdown.
{{#cli}}
Step 4: Execute Review (CLI)
If single-model mode:
Execute review using the prompt above
Save to REVIEW.md
If multi-model mode:
Read the resolved model names from WorkflowContext.md. Log the models being used, then start immediately — models were already confirmed during paw-init.
Then spawn parallel subagents using task tool with model parameter for each model. Each subagent receives the review prompt above. Save per-model reviews to REVIEW-{MODEL}.md.
After multi-model reviews complete, generate synthesis.
Important: If any findings involve interface changes, API modifications, or data flow updates, populate the Verification Checklist with specific components that need coordinated updates. This prevents half-fixes where only one side of an interface is updated.
Final Review Specialists value from WorkflowContext.md
interaction_mode
Final Review Interaction Mode value from WorkflowContext.md
interactive
Final Review Interactive value from WorkflowContext.md
specialist_models
Final Review Specialist Models value from WorkflowContext.md
perspectives
Final Review Perspectives value from WorkflowContext.md
perspective_cap
Final Review Perspective Cap value from WorkflowContext.md
After paw-sot completes orchestration and synthesis, proceed to Step 5 (Resolution) to process the REVIEW-SYNTHESIS.md findings.
{{/cli}}
{{#vscode}}
Step 4: Execute Review (VS Code)
Note: VS Code only supports single-model mode. If multi-model is configured, report to user: "Multi-model not available in VS Code; running single-model review."
If society-of-thought is configured, report to user: "Society-of-thought requires CLI for specialist persona loading (see issue #240). Running single-model review."
Execute single-model review using the shared review prompt above. Save to REVIEW.md.
{{/vscode}}
discussed - Modified based on discussion, then applied or skipped
{{#cli}}
For multi-model mode, process synthesis first (consensus → partial → single-model). Track cross-finding duplicates to avoid re-presenting already-addressed issues.
For society-of-thought mode, process REVIEW-SYNTHESIS.md findings by severity (must-fix → should-fix → consider). Present trade-offs from the "Trade-offs Requiring Decision" section for user decision. Track cross-finding duplicates.
{{/cli}}
If Interactive = smart:
{{#cli}}
If Final Review Mode is single-model, smart degrades to interactive behavior (no synthesis to classify). Follow the Interactive = true flow.
If Final Review Mode is multi-model, classify each synthesis finding, then resolve in phases:
Classification heuristic (applied per finding):
Agreement Level
Severity
Classification
Consensus
must-fix
auto-apply
Consensus
should-fix
auto-apply
Partial
must-fix/should-fix
interactive
Single-model
must-fix/should-fix
interactive
Consensus
consider
quick-win evaluation*
Partial/Single
consider
report-only
Consensus agreement implies models converged on the fix — no per-model cross-referencing needed.
If Final Review Mode is society-of-thought, classify each REVIEW-SYNTHESIS.md finding:
Confidence
Grounding
Severity
Classification
HIGH
Direct
must-fix
auto-apply
HIGH
Direct
should-fix
auto-apply
HIGH
Inferential
must-fix/should-fix
interactive
MEDIUM/LOW
any
must-fix/should-fix
interactive
HIGH
Direct
consider
quick-win evaluation*
Other
any
consider
report-only
—
—
trade-off
interactive (always)
*Quick-win evaluation: auto-apply if all three hold: (1) trivial fix — < ~2 min, localized change; (2) clearly net-positive — no design tradeoff, scope expansion, or new dependencies; (3) improves safety, correctness, or clarity — not purely style. For SoT findings, security/correctness categories and multi-specialist agreement favor applying. Otherwise → report-only.
Phase 1 — Auto-apply: Apply all auto-apply and quick-win findings without user interaction. Display batch summary:
Phase 2 — Interactive: Present each interactive finding using the same format as Interactive = true (apply, skip, or discuss).
Phase 3 — Summary: Display final summary of all dispositions:
## Resolution Summary
**Auto-applied**: N findings (consensus fixes + quick wins)
**User-applied**: N findings
**User-skipped**: N findings
**Deferred**: N findings (consider-severity, with one-line reasons)
If all findings are auto-apply/quick-win or report-only, skip Phase 2. If all findings are interactive, skip Phase 1.
{{/cli}}
{{#vscode}}
Smart mode degrades to interactive behavior in VS Code (single-model has no agreement signal). Follow the Interactive = true flow above.
{{/vscode}}
If Interactive = false:
Auto-apply all must-fix and should-fix findings. For each consider finding, apply the quick-win evaluation* — auto-apply if it passes, otherwise report as a deferred consider with a one-line reason. Report all applied and deferred findings.
{{#cli}}
Moderator Mode (society-of-thought only)
After finding resolution completes, if Final Review Mode is society-of-thought and (Final Review Interactive is true, or smart with significant findings remaining), invoke paw-sot a second time for moderator mode — pass the review context type (same as orchestration invocation, i.e., diff), output_dir (containing individual REVIEW-{SPECIALIST}.md files and REVIEW-SYNTHESIS.md), and review coordinates (diff range, artifact paths).
The paw-sot moderator mode handles specialist summoning, finding challenges, and deeper analysis. See paw-sot skill for interaction patterns.
Exit: User says "done", "continue", or "proceed" to exit moderator mode and continue to paw-pr.
Skip condition: If Final Review Interactive is false, or no findings exist, skip moderator mode entirely.
{{/cli}}
Step 6: Completion
Report back:
Total findings count
Applied / skipped / discussed counts
Summary of key changes made
Review artifacts location
Status: complete (ready for paw-pr)
Edge cases:
Empty diff → Report "no implementation changes to review", proceed to paw-pr
All findings skipped → Proceed to paw-pr (user's choice respected)
Review Artifacts
Mode
Files Created
single-model
REVIEW.md
multi-model
REVIEW-{MODEL}.md per model, REVIEW-SYNTHESIS.md
society-of-thought
REVIEW-{SPECIALIST}.md per specialist, REVIEW-SYNTHESIS.md (produced by paw-sot)
Location: .paw/work/<work-id>/reviews/
All files gitignored via .gitignore with * pattern.
