| name | trellis-review-twostage |
| description | Before marking a Trellis subtask complete after self-check all green, conduct two-stage code review: mechanically check spec compliance (against PRD acceptance criteria/decision table/forbidden/file manifest/mount points), then code quality review (against .trellis/spec/guides engineering standards and design discipline). Used in Codex / Claude Code team collaboration scenarios, especially when implementation is by a small-parameter model like qwen3.6 35b—small models reviewing their own code is unreliable, Stage 2 should escalate to strong model; critical issues block completion.
|
Trellis Two-Stage Review
Overview
Quality gate before marking subtask complete, after implementation self-check all green. Split into two independent review stages:
- Stage 1 Spec Compliance: Mechanically check against
prd.md, can be done by small model + checklist.
- Stage 2 Code Quality: Check against engineering standards and design discipline, should be done by strong model (small model reviewing its own output is unreliable).
Any stage finding critical issue blocks completion, send back to trellis-implement-tdd for fix; after fix, review again.
Trigger: trellis-implement-tdd wrap-up self-check all green, handoff to review.
Write every review pass to the fixed task-local file <task-dir>/review-report.md. Create it from references/review-report-template.md on the first review pass, then append a new review-round block for each re-review. Do not edit the template under the skill directory.
Constraints
- Review based on diff +
prd.md, not re-reading entire requirements document.
- Stage 1 and Stage 2 separate, don't merge—merging causes "did it follow spec" and "is code good" to mask each other.
- Stage 2 use strong model (role-layered model assignment). If only small model available, Stage 2 at least strictly walk
references/review-stage2-checklist.md item by item, and flag "not reviewed by strong model" risk in report.
- Severity grading: critical (blocking) / major (should fix) / minor (can record for later). Only critical blocks completion.
- Reviewer doesn't directly change code: output issue list to send back to implementation skill for fix, keeping "write" and "review" separate.
Workflow
1. Prepare
- Get this task's diff (relative to task start point).
- Read
prd.md: Acceptance Criteria, Decision Table, Forbidden, File Manifest, Behavior Constraints; if design.md exists read Mount Point Checklist, Orchestration-Computation Separation.
- If
check.jsonl exists: pre-load the regression/risk context listed.
2. Stage 1 · Spec Compliance (Mechanical check, small model ok)
Walk references/review-stage1-checklist.md item by item, check if implementation did as planned:
- Each
AC-xxx has corresponding test and is green?
- Changed files all within「File Manifest」? Any file outside manifest changed?
- Any violation of「Forbidden」(create already-existing base class, introduce unlisted dependency, etc.)?
- Choices in「Decision Table」followed (annotation / naming / schema / branching)?
- 「Mount Point Checklist」wired item by item (route / config / subscription / DI)?
- Any non-compliance → record as issue. AC without test, changed forbidden file, mount point missing wire = critical.
3. Stage 2 · Code Quality (Strong model)
Walk references/review-stage2-checklist.md item by item, review code itself against .trellis/spec/guides/ and design discipline:
- Orchestration-Computation Separation: Orchestration logic and computation logic mixed in one place? Pure computation stuffed into orchestration layer making it hard to test?
- Structural Health: Keep piling into an already-fat file? Create "kitchen-sink that holds everything"?
- Simplification/Reuse: Duplicate implementation of existing capability? Unrequested over-abstraction (YAGNI violation)?
- Correctness: Boundary / error paths actually handled (not just making happy-path test green)?
- Spec Compliance: Naming / layering / error semantics conform to
.trellis/spec/?
- Record by severity; introducing correctness defect or breaking existing behavior = critical.
4. Issue report and verdict
Use references/review-report-template.md to produce/update <task-dir>/review-report.md:
- Has critical → block, send back to
trellis-implement-tdd, only fix flagged items, after fix return to step 1 for re-review.
- Only major/minor → can pass; major suggest fix this round, minor note to task remarks/later.
- All pass → hand back to orchestration session to advance task status (
task.py advance / enter finish).
Small-model adaptation highlights
- Write-review separation + model layering: Implementation uses small model, Stage 2 review uses strong model—this is key to trusting small-model output.
- Stage 1 mechanization: Spec compliance is mechanical item-by-item checking against PRD, small model can handle it, use it to filter out low-level deviations first.
- Critical blocking: Turn "quality meets bar" into objective gate, not subjective feeling of letting pass.
- For teams: Two-stage review + severity grading makes PRs reviewable, gives objective acceptance criteria for others'/small-model output.
Reference files
references/review-stage1-checklist.md —— Spec compliance mechanical check list, read in Stage 1.references/review-stage2-checklist.md —— Code quality and design discipline list (includes orchestration-computation separation/structural health), read in Stage 2.references/review-report-template.md —— Read-only template for <task-dir>/review-report.md; append/update the task-local file when producing review results.
