review-spec

name	review-spec
description	Review a spec file from a QA perspective: weak assertions, missing coverage, implementation-focused tests. Use when the user runs /review-spec or asks for a review of their tests.

/review-spec — Review a Spec from a QA Perspective

Type: Quality Description: Reviews a spec file from a QA perspective, flagging weak assertions, missing coverage, and implementation-focused tests. Built for Persona 2 and 3.

---

Input Format

• A path to a spec file (or a pasted spec)

Output Format

A structured review:

• Strengths — what the spec does well
• Findings — each issue with severity (blocker / major / minor), location, and a concrete fix
• Missing coverage — scenarios not yet tested (negative / edge)
• Verdict — ship / revise

Step-by-Step Instructions

1. Read the spec and its Page Object(s).
2. Read the spec conventions in CLAUDE.md.
3. Evaluate against QA quality criteria:
   • Assertion strength: Are assertions meaningful, or just toBeVisible() everywhere? Do they verify the actual outcome?
   • Behavior vs implementation: Does it test what the user experiences, or internal/DOM details? (Common Persona 3 mistake.)
   • Coverage: Are Happy Path, Negative, and Edge cases all present and non-trivial?
   • Structure: AAA comments, plain-language names, fixture usage, no logic in describe.
   • Isolation: No order dependencies or shared mutable state.
4. List findings with severity, exact location, and a concrete fix each.
5. Call out missing scenarios explicitly and suggest /new-spec or /tc-to-spec to fill them.
6. Give a clear verdict.

Rules

• Be specific — cite line locations and propose concrete fixes.
• Favor behavior-focused assertions over implementation checks.
• Do not rewrite the whole file unless asked; this skill reviews. Offer /refactor for big rewrites.