final-review

name	final-review
description	Run final fidelity review against implemented behavior, idea/spec/plan alignment, validation and regression gaps, unresolved implementation drift, and docs close-out readiness. Use before workflow closure, and write output to `./docs/workflows/{slug}/reviews/final/round-XX.md`.

Final Review

Use this skill as the final fidelity-review playbook; the active session synthesizes reviewer critique into one official review round.

Use assets/review-template.md as the default saved review-round skeleton. Adapt sections as needed for the actual findings and recommendation.

Input:

• the implemented change, diff, or implementation summary
• the relevant idea.md, spec.md, and plan.md
• the latest implementation-review round
• execution.md when present
• validation output that should stay in view

Reviewer roster:

• Product Manager or Product Strategist
• Software Architect
• QA Engineer

Requirements:

• derive slug from the workflow dossier being reviewed
• write the next review round to ./docs/workflows/{slug}/reviews/final/round-XX.md
• create a new zero-padded round file for each pass rather than overwriting earlier rounds
• do not overwrite the source artifacts
• list the exact reviewed artifact paths in the review artifact
• link the immediately prior final-review round when one exists and summarize what changed since that round
• keep the reviewer roster explicit in the saved artifact
• keep the saved review artifact concise and findings-first
• focus on fidelity, regressions, and unresolved gaps rather than rerunning all prior stage debate
• identify each reviewer with persona, concrete agent name, and display name when the runtime exposes one
• validate that each official reviewer matches the resolved role binding from workflow-run
• preserve a one-sentence reviewer-by-reviewer synopsis of each subagent's main point
• omit empty boilerplate sections from the saved artifact when they would only say None
• keep saved rounds compact unless material findings require more

Focus on:

• fidelity of code and delivered behavior against idea.md, spec.md, and plan.md
• unresolved correctness gaps, regressions, and validation gaps
• places where implementation drifted from the approved artifact chain
• whether the delivered solution stayed simple and the repo markdown artifacts support docs close-out without chat history
• stale wording in earlier artifacts after later accepted decisions, especially idea/spec statements superseded by planning or implementation review
• whether run.md stayed a compact restart ledger without validation evidence or implementation journaling
• the strongest reasons not to begin docs close-out yet

Reviewer input:

• ask each reviewer for up to three consequential findings, one explicit recommendation, and only the rationale needed to support that recommendation
• merge overlapping findings, keep synopses brief, and preserve only disagreements that materially affect closure readiness
• summarize validation or regression concerns as actionable gaps rather than long transcripts
• if the repo markdown artifacts are not sufficient to continue safely, state that as a key finding
• when many code files were reviewed, group paths by subsystem and rely on execution.md for exact changed-file evidence

Finish with an explicit recommendation:

• Recommendation: loop back to implement-plan
• Recommendation: loop back to plan-create
• Recommendation: loop back to spec-create
• Recommendation: loop back to idea-create
• Recommendation: ready for docs close-out

The recommendation informs the next decision, but the orchestrator and user decide whether to reroute, continue remediation, or begin close-out. This phase checks readiness for docs close-out; it does not perform docs close-out or close the workflow.