workflow-e2e-review

name	workflow-e2e-review
description	Review Smelter E2E evidence for missing proof, weak assertions, screenshots, videos, and user-visible behavior coverage.
version	0.55
type	workflow
consumes	artifacts/
produces	e2e-review.md
default_pattern	A
default_agent	code-reviewer
supports_patterns	["A"]
result_types	["pass","fail"]
min_verification_rounds	2
verification_rounds	[{"n":1,"focus":"omission","prompt_template":"templates/verification/round-1-omission.md"},{"n":2,"focus":"contradiction","prompt_template":"templates/verification/round-2-contradiction.md"}]
gate	{"postcondition":[{"file_exists":"e2e-review.md"},{"contains_verdict":"pass|fail"},{"visual_inspected":true}]}

workflow-e2e-review

Overview

Reviews E2E artifacts (video, screenshots, logs, transcripts). Evaluates scenario coverage and whether real validation occurred — specifically whether the target effect was proven, not just an acknowledgement signal.

Core principle: Artifacts existing ≠ valid E2E. Reviewing the artifacts for ack-only failures is the final gate before team review.

Violating the letter of this rule is violating the spirit of this rule.

Announce at start: "I'm using workflow-e2e-review to 2-round verify artifacts, scenario coverage, and effect evidence."

The Iron Law

NO TEAM-REVIEW HANDOFF WITHOUT 2/2 ROUNDS AT pass INCLUDING EFFECT VERIFICATION

Round 2 includes effect verification — it catches the ack-only failure mode that workflow-e2e's gate protects against. Both layers must hold.

Visual Inspection (v3)

Artifacts are not just counted — they are opened and read. The ack-only failure mode has a visual analog: screenshots exist, but they show the wrong state, or a blank page, or an error boundary. Counting file bytes is not inspection.

Inspection contract

1. Every screenshot (.png, .jpg) under $ARTIFACTS_DIR/e2e/ is opened via the Read tool (multimodal) or delegated to the vision agent. The reviewer must describe what is in the frame.
2. Every video (.webm, .mp4) has at least 3 frames sampled — start, middle, end. The middle frame is the most diagnostic: it captures the mid-flow state.
3. For each opened artifact, e2e-review.md must include opened:, observed:, and expected: lines. UI placement checks must mention the viewport or bounding box.
4. For each opened artifact, the reviewer must answer:
   • Does the frame match the expected state from tasks.md §§ scenarios?
   • Is the UI in a success state or an error / loading / blank state?
   • Does the captured effect match the target in test_cycles[].case_name?

Failure emission

A visible discrepancy is a hard fail with cause visual_mismatch:

{
  "skill": "workflow-e2e-review",
  "result": "fail",
  "declarer": "skill",
  "cause": "visual_mismatch",
  "evidence": {
    "type": "file_present",
    "detail": "artifacts/screenshots/07-after-save.png shows toast \"Saved\" but the saved row is absent from the table — expected effect not rendered"
  }
}

Producer chain routes visual_mismatch → workflow-coding (UI / logic bug). Iteration continues per Iron Law #1 until the frame matches.

Red flags

Thought	Reality
"The PNG is 85 KB so it rendered"	File size ≠ content. Open and describe.
"The video is 12s so the flow completed"	Duration ≠ correctness. Sample 3+ frames.
"Screenshot count matches scenario count"	Counting is not inspection.
"Vision agents are slow"	Visual verification is the user requirement. There is no faster substitute.

Output

e2e-review.md:

• ## Scenario Coverage — list of covered scenarios
• ## Missing Cases — missing cases (if any)
• ## Artifacts Quality — video/log quality assessment
• ## Visual Inspection — opened: artifact path, observed: frame contents, expected: target state / viewport comparison
• ## Effect Verification — per-scenario ack vs effect classification and any ack-only failures
• ## Verdict — pass / fail

Red Flags - STOP

Thought	Reality
"Video exists, pass it"	Existence is one check. Coverage, quality, and effect verification are the others.
"Banner-text screenshot is enough"	Round 2 includes ack-only "success" evidence checks. Require target-state assertion.
"Round 2 repeats round 1"	Round 1 is omission (any missing artifact). Round 2 checks contradiction and effect evidence. Different.
"All 5 scenarios have screenshots — done"	Screenshot of "Loading..." is not the effect. Check what the DOM actually asserts.
"Artifact quality is subjective, skip"	Sparse logs, corrupted video, or truncated transcripts mean the evidence cannot be re-verified. Flag them.

Rationalization Prevention

Excuse	Reality
"The runner reported all passed"	workflow-e2e already rejected that. This review re-verifies the artifacts themselves.
"Manual QA confirmed it works"	Manual QA is not an artifact on disk. Use the artifacts only.
"Just this once"	No exceptions.

Fail conditions

• Key scenarios uncovered (insufficient_scenario)
• Insufficient artifact quality (missing recording, sparse logs, corrupted video, etc.)
• Ack-only evidence where effect assertion is required (round 2)

Fail routing (producer)

• insufficient_scenario → workflow-coding (the implementation may need to add scenario coverage, not the test)
• file_absent (artifacts missing) → workflow-e2e
• effect_unverified (ack-only) → workflow-e2e (re-run with effect_evidence)

Multi-Pass Verification (2-Round Enforcement)

This skill runs 2 mandatory rounds before declaring pass. Each round has a distinct focus:

Round	Focus	Question
1	Omission	Are any required artifacts (video, screenshot, log) or scenarios missing?
2	Contradiction	Do artifacts conflict with each other or with the implementation diff/plan, and does each claimed success distinguish ack from effect?

Agent assignment per round

• Pattern A: Prefer different agent types across rounds. If reusing the same type, reset prompt context per round (fresh perspective).
• Pattern B: Each round runs with 95% consensus (3 × N agents × consensus rounds).
• Pattern D: Lead orchestrates 2 rounds, assigning different viewpoint sub-agents.

Artifact recording

All rounds are recorded in e2e-review.md. Skill-level pass is declared only when both rounds are present and both results are pass.

Failure handling

• Any round fail → skill-level fail with cause: verification_failed, evidence: {round, focus, findings[]}
• Producer-chain routes to workflow-e2e (the consumed artifact's producer)
• On re-entry after upstream fix, both rounds re-run (not just failed ones)

Anti-evasion enforcement

1. Do not inject prior round conclusions into current round prompts (bias prevention)
2. Do not use "already verified" as a reason to skip a fresh round
3. Do not declare pass without two recorded rounds

Terminal State — Required Next Skill

REQUIRED NEXT SKILL on pass: workflow-team-code-review

On fail: route per fail condition (workflow-coding or workflow-e2e).

Do NOT:

• Skip to workflow-human-check — team review must run first
• Stop after pass, report "E2E review complete", or ask "shall I continue?"
• Offer A/B/continue choices — Iron Law #1 forbids pausing at non-human-check stages

Evidence Integrity

Every fail verdict MUST cite at least one anchor in the strict form:

Evidence: path/to/file.ext:LINE[-LINE] "verbatim quote substring"

Rules:

• The path must exist on disk at this session's cwd.
• The quoted substring must appear on the cited line (or within the range).
• Quote is a substring match after whitespace normalization — not a regex.
• Record only anchors you verified against files in the current checkout.
• Do not paraphrase — quote the line verbatim.
• If you cannot produce a verified anchor, the symptom is not grounded; do not emit a fail verdict.