recipe-front-review

Context: Post-implementation quality assurance for React/TypeScript frontend

Required Skills [LOAD BEFORE EXECUTION]

Before loading required skills, use wc -c to size the files and set both exec_command.max_output_tokens and the outer // @exec: {"max_output_tokens": N} budget to accommodate their contents, including the combined output of batched reads. Split oversized reads upfront; recover any truncated content before proceeding.

1. [LOAD IF NOT ACTIVE] coding-rules -- repository implementation rules
2. [LOAD IF NOT ACTIVE] testing -- verification and test quality rules
3. [LOAD IF NOT ACTIVE] ai-development-guide -- review and repair discipline
4. [LOAD IF NOT ACTIVE] llm-friendly-context -- task file contract
5. [LOAD IF NOT ACTIVE] subagents-orchestration-guide -- agent coordination and result handling

Invocation rule: Start each named agent with spawn_agent and fork_turns="none". When invoking the same named agent again within this flow, use followup_task on its existing instance with the inputs specified for the current invocation.

Execution Method

• Implementation review -> performed by code-reviewer
• Security validation -> performed by security-reviewer
• Code-side fix path -> performed by task-executor-frontend
• Design-side update path -> performed by technical-designer-frontend in update mode, then document-reviewer, then design-sync when multiple Design Docs exist
• Quality checks -> performed by quality-fixer-frontend
• Re-validation -> performed by code-reviewer / security-reviewer

Orchestrator spawns agents and passes structured data between them.

Design Doc (uses most recent if omitted): $ARGUMENTS

Execution Flow

1. Prerequisite Check

Identify the Design Doc in docs/design/. Derive $STEP_1_FILES as the complete change set for the current work from repository history, tracking state, and the working tree. Include committed, staged, unstaged, and untracked paths, and pass the complete set unchanged to both reviewers. If a single active work plan is explicitly provided or unambiguously resolved for that Design Doc, read its Review Scope line. Otherwise set Work Plan: none and Review Scope: none; do not infer.

[STOP -- BLOCKING] If no Design Doc or implementation files found, notify user and halt. Proceed when both a Design Doc and implementation files are available.

2. Execute code-reviewer

Invoke code-reviewer agent: "Review the completed frontend implementation. governingDocuments: [{type: design-doc, path: [design-doc-path]}]. Work Plan: [resolved work plan path or none]. Review Scope: [literal Review Scope value or none]. implementationFiles: [$STEP_1_FILES]. Return the initial review JSON."

Store output as: $STEP_2_OUTPUT

3. Execute security-reviewer

Invoke security-reviewer with governingDocuments: [{type: "design-doc", path: [path]}] and implementationFiles: $STEP_1_FILES.

Store output as: $STEP_3_OUTPUT

4. Verdict and Response

Review reception: Unnecessary repairs create lasting work. Before assigning a fix, use Review Resolution to judge no change, removal or narrowing, and reuse first; record why any retained or added mechanism is necessary.

If either reviewer returns a blocked or otherwise unusable result, apply Orchestrator Escalation Resolution before continuing.

Apply a security-reviewer finding only when leaving it unresolved would violate an explicit governing requirement or repository rule, or leave a concrete material security failure in the actual reachable trust model. The violated requirement, rule, or failure defines implementation scope: route the smallest correction that resolves it, treating the reviewer's suggestion as one candidate implementation.

Code criteria:

• code-reviewer verdict is pass

Security criteria:

• pass -> Pass
• needs_revision -> Requires disposition

Report required corrections from both results, then apply Review Resolution before proposing corrections:

Implementation Review: [verdict]
  Acceptance Criteria: [fulfilled/unfulfilled items with evidence]
  Findings: [required-correction findings with basis and effect]

Security Review: [status from security-reviewer]
  Findings by category:
  - [confirmed_risk] [location]: [description] — [rationale]
  - [defense_gap] [location]: [description] — [rationale]

Proposed corrections:
  Code-side fix
  Design-side update

Apply Review Resolution before presenting results. Recommend a correction route only for findings classified apply or user decision required:

• Use the design-side route when the Design Doc is stale, excessive, or incorrect for the required outcome. A selected reduction may require both source updates and code removal; neither route makes existing implementation authoritative.
• Use the code-side route when the required correction changes implementation.

Present the review. When no correction remains, proceed to Final Report. Because this recipe is a review request rather than prior implementation authority, ask once before applying the proposed code or document corrections.

If the user declines corrections, skip fix steps and proceed to Final Report.

Correction Flow

1. Design-side update: If any accepted finding uses the design-side route, invoke technical-designer-frontend in update mode, then document-reviewer with doc_type: DesignDoc and review_context: update, then design-sync when multiple Design Docs exist. If both routes apply, re-evaluate the code-side findings against the updated Design Doc and drop any now satisfied.
2. Plan fixes: Use the active execution plan when one exists. When none exists, create one for the accepted fix flow. Create docs/plans/tasks/review-fixes-frontend-task-01.md with only findings selected for code-side correction.
3. Execute fixes: Start the Per-Task Change Set, invoke task-executor-frontend with the task file, inspect its result and repository diff, and accumulate its paths.
4. Quality check: Invoke quality-fixer-frontend with task_file, filesModified: taskWriteSet, and executor operation-verification evidence. On pass, add its paths and commit the reconciled set; repair stubs through task-executor-frontend, accumulate their paths, and resolve blocked results through Orchestrator Escalation Resolution.
5. Re-validate: Run code-reviewer and security-reviewer against the updated Design Doc and actual implementation and fix files. For code-reviewer, pass prior_feedback: [the complete initial result, applied corrections, declined finding IDs with reasons and evidence, and the correction paths or diff] and apply its Rerun Boundary. Pass the applicable corrections and dispositions to security-reviewer.

After any code fix, both review agents must re-run even when only one reviewer initially reported a finding.

Apply Review Resolution to rerun findings. Its convergence rule governs any further correction and rerun; code-reviewer receives the latest complete result and the next correction paths or diff.

Final Report

Delete the review-fix task file this recipe created, if present. Its work is committed; docs/plans/ is ephemeral working state.

Implementation Review:
  Initial: [verdict]
  Final: [verdict] (if fixes executed)

Security Review:
  Initial: [status]
  Final: [status] (if fixes executed)

Remaining issues:
- [items requiring manual intervention]

Completion Criteria

• Design Doc compliance validated
• Security review completed
• Compliance verdict is evidence-backed
• User informed of results
• Fixes executed if requested and approved
• Quality gates passed for all fixes
• Final compliance and security re-validated

Scope: Design Doc compliance validation, security review, and auto-fixes.