Paths: File paths (shared/, references/, ../ln-*) are relative to skills repo root. If not found at CWD, locate this SKILL.md directory and go up one level for repo root.

Task Reviewer

MANDATORY after every task execution. Reviews a single task in To Review and decides Done vs To Rework with immediate fixes or clear rework notes.

This skill is NOT optional. Every executed task MUST be reviewed immediately. No exceptions, no batching, no skipping.

Purpose & Scope

• Resolve task ID (per Input Resolution Chain); load full task and parent Story independently (Linear: get_issue; File: Read task file).
• Check architecture, correctness, configuration hygiene, docs, and tests.
• For test tasks, verify risk-based limits and priority (≤15) per planner template.
• Update only this task: accept (Done) or send back (To Rework) with explicit reasons and fix suggestions tied to best practices.

Inputs

Resolution: Task Resolution Chain. Status filter: To Review

Phase 0: Tools Config

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/tools_config_guide.md, shared/references/storage_mode_detection.md, and shared/references/input_resolution_pattern.md

Extract: task_provider = Task Management → Provider (linear | file).

Task Storage Mode

File Mode status values: Done, To Rework (only these two outcomes from review)

Mode Detection

Detect operating mode at startup:

Plan Mode Active:

• Steps 1-3: Resolve task and load context (read-only, OK in plan mode)
• Generate REVIEW PLAN (files, checks) → write to plan file
• Call ExitPlanMode → STOP. Do NOT execute review.
• Steps 4-9: After approval → execute full review

Normal Mode:

• Steps 1-9: Standard workflow without stopping

Plan Mode Support

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/plan_mode_pattern.md Workflow A (Preview-Only) for plan mode behavior.

CRITICAL: In Plan Mode, plan file = REVIEW PLAN (what will be checked). NEVER write review findings or verdicts to plan file.

Review Plan format:

REVIEW PLAN for Task {ID}: {Title}

| Field | Value |
|-------|-------|
| Task | {ID}: {Title} |
| Status | {To Review} |
| Type | {impl/test/refactor} |
| Story | {Parent ID}: {Parent Title} |

Files to review:
- {file1} (deliverable)
- {file2} (affected component)

| # | Check | Will Verify |
|---|-------|-------------|
| 1 | Approach | Technical Approach alignment |
| 2 | Clean Code | No dead code, no backward compat shims |
| 3 | Config | No hardcoded creds/URLs |
| 4 | Errors | try/catch on external calls |
| 5 | Logging | ERROR/INFO/DEBUG levels |
| 6 | Comments | WHY not WHAT, docstrings |
| 7 | Naming | Project conventions |
| 8 | Docs | API/env/README updates |
| 9 | Tests | Updated/risk-based limits |
| 10 | AC | 4 criteria validation |
| 11 | Side-effects | Pre-existing bugs in touched files |
| 12 | Destructive ops | Safety guards from destructive_operation_safety.md (loaded in step 4) |
| 13 | Algorithm correctness | Loop invariants, collection keys, unbounded ops, shared state leaks |
| 14 | Event channels | Channel name consistency in diff |
| 15 | CI Checks | lint/typecheck pass per ci_tool_detection.md |

Expected output: Verdict (Done/To Rework) + Issues + Fix actions

Progress Tracking with TodoWrite

When operating in any mode, skill MUST create detailed todo checklist tracking ALL steps.

Rules:

1. Create todos IMMEDIATELY before Step 1
2. Each workflow step = separate todo item; multi-check steps get sub-items
3. Mark in_progress before starting step, completed after finishing

Todo Template (~11 items):

Step 1: Resolve taskId
  - Resolve via args / Story context / kanban / AskUserQuestion (To Review filter)

Step 2: Load Task
  - Load task by ID, detect type

Step 3: Read Context
  - Load full task + parent Story + affected components

Step 3b: Goal Articulation Gate
  - State what specific quality question this review must answer (<=25 tokens each)

Step 4: Review Checks
  - Verify approach alignment with Story Technical Approach
  - Check clean code: no dead code, no backward compat shims
  - Cross-file DRY: Grep src/ for new function/class names (count mode). 3+ similar → CONCERN
  - Check config hygiene, error handling, logging
  - Check comments, naming, docs updates
  - Verify tests updated/run (risk-based limits for test tasks)

Step 5: AC Validation
  - Validate implementation against 4 AC criteria

Step 6: Side-Effect Bug Detection
  - Scan for bugs outside task scope, create [BUG] tasks

Step 7: Decision
  - Apply minor fixes or set To Rework with guidance

Step 8: Mechanical Verification
  - Run lint/typecheck per ci_tool_detection.md (only if verdict=Done)

Step 9: Update & Commit
  - Set task status, update kanban, post review comment
  - If Done: commit ALL uncommitted changes in branch (git add -A)

Workflow (concise)

1. Resolve taskId: Run Task Resolution Chain per guide (status filter: [To Review]).

2. Load task: Load full task and parent Story independently. Detect type (label "tests" -> test task, else implementation/refactor).

3. Read context: Full task + parent Story; load affected components/docs; review diffs if available. 3b) Goal gate: MANDATORY READ: shared/references/goal_articulation_gate.md — Before reviewing, state: (1) REAL GOAL: what specific quality question must this review answer for THIS task? (2) DONE: what evidence proves quality is sufficient? (3) NOT THE GOAL: what would a surface-level rubber-stamp look like? (4) INVARIANTS: what non-obvious constraint exists (side-effects on other modules, implicit AC)?

4. Review checks: MANDATORY READ: shared/references/clean_code_checklist.md, shared/references/destructive_operation_safety.md

   • Goal validation (Recovery Paradox): If executor articulated a REAL GOAL (visible in task comments or implementation), validate it matches the Story's target deliverable. If executor framed the goal around a secondary subject (e.g., "implement the endpoint" instead of "enable user data export") → CONCERN: GOAL-MISFRAME: executor goal targets secondary subject, may miss hidden constraints.
   • Approach: diff aligned with Technical Approach in Story. If different → rationale documented in code comments.
   • Clean code: Per checklist — verify all 4 categories. Replaced implementations fully removed. If refactoring changed API — callers updated, old signatures removed. <!-- Defense-in-depth: also checked by ln-511 MNT-DC- -->
   • Cross-file DRY: For each NEW function/class/handler created by task, Grep src/ for similar names/patterns (count mode). If 3+ files contain similar logic → add CONCERN: MNT-DRY-CROSS: {pattern} appears in {count} files — consider extracting to shared module. This catches cross-story duplication that per-task review misses. <!-- Defense-in-depth: also checked by ln-511 MNT-DRY- -->
   • No hardcoded creds/URLs/magic numbers; config in env/config.
   • Destructive operation guards: use code-level guards table from destructive_operation_safety.md (loaded above). CRITICAL/HIGH severity → BLOCKER: SEC-DESTR-{ID}. MEDIUM severity → CONCERN: SEC-DESTR-{ID}.
   • Error handling: all external calls (API, DB, file I/O) wrapped in try/catch or equivalent. No swallowed exceptions. Layering respected; reuse existing components. <!-- Defense-in-depth: layers also checked by ln-511 ARCH-LB- -->
   • Side-effect breadth: leaf service functions with 3+ side-effect categories → CONCERN: ARCH-AI-SEB. Exception: orchestrator/coordinator functions (imports 3+ services AND delegates sequentially) are EXPECTED to have multiple side-effect categories — do NOT flag. <!-- Defense-in-depth: also ln-511, ln-624 Rule 10 -->
   • Interface honesty: read-named functions (get_/find_/check_) with write side-effects → CONCERN: ARCH-AI-AH <!-- Defense-in-depth: also ln-511, ln-643 Rule 6 -->
   • Logging: errors at ERROR; auth/payment events at INFO; debug data at DEBUG. No sensitive data in logs.
   • Comments: explain WHY not WHAT; no commented-out code; docstrings on public methods.
   • Naming: follows project's existing convention (check 3+ similar files). No abbreviations except domain terms. No single-letter variables (except loops).
   • Entity Leakage: ORM entities must NOT be returned directly from API endpoints. Use DTOs/response models. (BLOCKER for auth/payment, CONCERN for others) <!-- Defense-in-depth: also checked by ln-511 ARCH-DTO- -->
   • Method Signature: no boolean flag parameters in public methods (use enum/options object); no more than 5 parameters without DTO. (NIT) <!-- Defense-in-depth: also checked by ln-511 MNT-SIG- -->
   • Algorithm correctness (loops, collections, boundaries): Does break/continue/return inside loops handle ALL matching items, not just the first? Do dict/set comprehensions handle duplicate keys correctly (last-wins may lose data)? Any list(query.all()) or unbounded loop on user-controlled data without LIMIT? Any mutable shared state (connection pool GUCs, session globals) that leaks across requests? (BLOCKER if data loss/corruption, CONCERN otherwise) <!-- Prefix: ALGO- -->
   • Event channel consistency (task-scoped): When task diff touches event-related code (NOTIFY/LISTEN/emit/subscribe/publish/on), verify: (1) channel name string in publisher matches channel name string in subscriber; (2) if channel name is a new string literal, Grep src/ for matching listener/publisher counterpart. Mismatch → CONCERN: ARCH-EVENT-MISMATCH: publisher '{pub_name}' has no matching subscriber. Orphan → CONCERN: ARCH-EVENT-ORPHAN: subscriber '{sub_name}' has no matching publisher. <!-- Defense-in-depth: also checked by ln-652 Rule 6, ln-511 ARCH-EVENT- -->
   • Simplicity criterion (task-scoped): MANDATORY READ: references/simplicity_criterion.md — Check MNT-KISS-SCOPE (effort-S task with 3+ new abstractions) and MNT-YAGNI-SCOPE (refactoring added new dependencies or created 2x more files than modified). Advisory CONCERNs only. <!-- Defense-in-depth: also checked by ln-511 KISS/YAGNI -->
   • Code efficiency (task-scoped): Spot-check 2-3 key functions from diff for unnecessary intermediates, verbose patterns where idioms exist, or boilerplate framework handles. If found → CONCERN: MNT-EFF-SCOPE: {pattern} in {file}. Advisory only. (shared/references/code_efficiency_criterion.md) <!-- Defense-in-depth: executor self-checks via same reference -->
   • Docs: if public API changed → API docs updated. If new env var → .env.example updated. If new concept → README/architecture doc updated.
   • Tests updated/run: for impl/refactor ensure affected tests adjusted; for test tasks verify risk-based limits and priority (≤15) per planner template.

5. AC Validation (MANDATORY for implementation tasks): MANDATORY READ: Load references/ac_validation_checklist.md. Verify implementation against 4 criteria:

   • AC Completeness: All AC scenarios covered (happy path + errors + edge cases).
   • AC Specificity: Exact requirements met (HTTP codes 200/401/403, timing <200ms, exact messages).
   • Task Dependencies: Task N uses ONLY Tasks 1 to N-1 (no forward dependencies on N+1, N+2).
   • Database Creation: Task creates ONLY tables in Story scope (no big-bang schema). If ANY criterion fails → To Rework with specific guidance from checklist.

6. Side-Effect Bug Detection (MANDATORY): While reviewing affected code, actively scan for bugs/issues NOT related to current task:

   • Pre-existing bugs in touched files
   • Broken patterns in adjacent code
   • Security issues in related components
   • Deprecated APIs, outdated dependencies
   • Missing error handling in caller/callee functions

   For each side-effect bug found:

   • Create new task in same Story:
     • IF task_provider = linear: save_issue({title: "[BUG] {desc}", description, parentId: Story.id, team: teamId, labels: ["bug", "discovered-in-review"], state: "Backlog", priority})
     • IF task_provider = file: Write("docs/tasks/epics/.../tasks/T{NNN}-bug-{slug}.md") with **Status:** Backlog, **Labels:** bug, discovered-in-review, **Story:** US{NNN}, **Created:** {date}
   • Title: [BUG] {Short description}
   • Description: Location, issue, suggested fix
   • Label: bug, discovered-in-review
   • Priority: based on severity (security → 1 Urgent, logic → 2 High, style → 4 Low)
   • Do NOT defer — create task immediately, reviewer catches what executor missed

7. Decision (for current task only):

   • If only nits: apply minor fixes and set Done.
   • If issues remain: set To Rework with comment explaining why (best-practice ref) and how to fix.
   • Side-effect bugs do NOT block current task's Done status (they are separate tasks).
   • If Done: commit ALL uncommitted changes in the branch (not just task-related files): git add -A && git commit -m "Implement {task_id}: {task_title}". This includes any changes from previous tasks, auto-fixes, or generated files — everything currently unstaged/staged goes into this commit.

8. Mechanical Verification (if Done): MANDATORY READ: shared/references/ci_tool_detection.md IF verdict == Done:

   • Detect lint/typecheck commands per discovery hierarchy in ci_tool_detection.md
   • Run detected checks (timeouts per guide: 2min linters, 5min typecheck) MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/output_normalization.md
   • IF any FAIL → apply output normalization per §1 normalize → §2 deduplicate → §4 truncate to 50 lines → override verdict to To Rework with normalized output
   • IF no tooling detected → SKIP with info message

9. Update: Set task status in Linear; update kanban: if Done → remove task from kanban (Done section tracks Stories only, not individual Tasks); if To Rework → move task to To Rework section; add review comment with findings/actions. If side-effect bugs created, mention them in comment.

Review Quality Score

Context: Quantitative review result helps ln-400 orchestrator make data-driven decisions and tracks review consistency.

Formula: Quality Score = 100 - (20 × BLOCKER_count) - (10 × CONCERN_count) - (3 × NIT_count)

Classify each finding from Steps 3-5:

Verdict mapping:

Note: Side-effect bugs (Step 5) do NOT affect current task's quality score — they become separate [BUG] tasks.

Critical Rules

• One task at a time; side-effect bugs → separate [BUG] tasks (not scope creep).
• Quality gate: all in-scope issues resolved before Done, OR send back with clear fix guidance.
• Test-task violations (limits/priority ≤15) → To Rework.
• Keep task language (EN/RU) in edits/comments.
• Mechanical checks (lint/typecheck) run ONLY when verdict is Done; skip for To Rework.

Definition of Done

• Steps 1-9 completed: task resolved, context loaded, review checks passed, AC validated, side-effect bugs created, mechanical verification passed, decision applied.
• If Done: ALL uncommitted changes committed (git add -A) with task ID; task removed from kanban. If To Rework: task moved with fix guidance.
• Review comment posted (findings + [BUG] list if any).

Reference Files

• Tools config: shared/references/tools_config_guide.md
• Storage mode operations: shared/references/storage_mode_detection.md
• [MANDATORY] Problem-solving approach: shared/references/problem_solving.md
• AC validation rules: shared/references/ac_validation_rules.md
• AC Validation Checklist: references/ac_validation_checklist.md (4 criteria: Completeness, Specificity, Dependencies, DB Creation)
• Clean code checklist: shared/references/clean_code_checklist.md
• CI tool detection: shared/references/ci_tool_detection.md
• Output normalization: shared/references/output_normalization.md
• Kanban format: docs/tasks/kanban_board.md

Version: 5.1.0 Last Updated: 2026-03-15