worklog-review

name	worklog-review
description	Review whether current changes follow the worklog-driven development rules. Use before commits or when checking worklog structure.

Worklog review

Read:

1. docs/worklog-method.md
2. relevant numbered current work documents directly under .worklog/
3. current git diff
4. AGENTS.md
5. CLAUDE.md if present

Check:

1. Does this change require a work document?
2. If yes, does the document exist?
3. Is the type correct: spec, adr, or spike?
4. Is the numeric sequence correct across .worklog/ and .worklog/archive/?
5. Are current work documents stored directly under .worklog/?
6. Are archived work documents stored under .worklog/archive/?
7. Do work document filenames avoid old lifecycle markers?
8. Does .worklog/INDEX.md exist and reflect the current numbered documents?
9. Does the document have clear Goal, Context, and done criteria?
10. For specs, are scope and non-goals present?
11. For specs and ADRs, if Outcome exists, does it add durable engineering context instead of task status?
12. For spikes, are Result and Recommendation present and meaningful?
13. Are archived documents excluded from current requirements unless referenced through Replaces or explicitly needed for history?
14. If an old requirement or ADR changed, was the old document moved to .worklog/archive/ and the new current document given Replaces:?
15. Are accepted ADRs and old requirements left semantically immutable?
16. Are micro-changes and product-neutral small changes kept out of .worklog/ and left to commit messages?

Legacy migration check:

Flag files matching:

• .worklog/*.active.md
• .worklog/*.retired.md
• .worklog/archive/*.active.md
• .worklog/archive/*.retired.md

These should be renamed to the new lifecycle-free format.

Output:

• OK if the structure is fine.
• Otherwise list concrete fixes.
• Do not modify files unless the user asks.