Review

Dispatch a code review for a completed implementation. Quality gate between implementation and QA.

If bead ID provided: use it directly.

If no bead ID provided:

1. Run bd list --label needs-review --json to get beads awaiting review
2. Present the list showing: ID, title, priority, and labels
3. If no beads with needs-review label found, inform the user and stop
4. Ask the user which task to review</on-init>

Step 1: Read Bead Context

1. Parse bead JSON. Extract: description, acceptance, design, notes, status, labels, parent
2. Read bead comments: bd comments {BEAD_ID}
3. Identify the implementation branch

Step 2: Dispatch Code Reviewer

Dispatch using exactly these parameters — no more, no less:

Agent(
    subagent_type="code-reviewer",
    prompt="Review BEAD {BEAD_ID} on branch {branch-name}. Read the bead (bd show {BEAD_ID}) and comments (bd comments {BEAD_ID}) for full context — description, acceptance criteria, design notes, and the COMPLETED comment from the supervisor. Analyze the branch diff against acceptance criteria and log a structured REVIEW comment to the bead."
)

Do NOT add extra parameters unless the user explicitly requests it.

Step 3: Present Verdict

After the code-reviewer completes:

1. Read the REVIEW comment: bd comments {BEAD_ID}
2. Extract verdict: APPROVE or NEEDS-REWORK
3. Present the review summary

If APPROVE:

1. Extract [cosmetic] SUGGESTIONs from the REVIEW comment
2. If [cosmetic] items exist, auto-apply before proceeding:
   • Resolve supervisor from bead assignee field (same as /do Step 2)
   • If no supervisor can be resolved, skip auto-apply and treat [cosmetic] items as [semantic] for tracking in Step 4
   • Dispatch:

     Agent(
         subagent_type="{resolved-supervisor}",
         prompt="Apply cosmetic review fixes on BEAD {BEAD_ID}, branch {branch-name}. These are trivial, non-behavioral changes from the code review. Apply each fix, run build and tests to confirm nothing breaks, then commit as 'chore: review-cleanup {BEAD_ID}'. If any fix unexpectedly breaks build or tests, skip it and list skipped items in your report.\n\nCosmetic fixes to apply:\n{COSMETIC_LIST}"
     )

     Do NOT add extra parameters unless the user explicitly requests it.
   • If any items were skipped by the supervisor (reported as failures), promote them to [semantic] for tracking in Step 4
3. Update labels:

   bd label remove {BEAD_ID} needs-review
   bd label add {BEAD_ID} approved

If NEEDS-REWORK:

• Present findings (critical, warnings, suggestions)
• Update labels and status:

  bd label remove {BEAD_ID} needs-review
  bd label add {BEAD_ID} needs-rework
  bd update {BEAD_ID} --status in_progress

• Resolve branch for rework:
  • Ask: "Continue on existing branch {branch-name} or create a fresh branch? (default: continue)"
  • Store {REWORK_BRANCH_INSTRUCTION}

Step 4: Track Review Findings

Extract actionable findings from the REVIEW comment and apply the severity threshold policy:

Filtering rules:

• APPROVE: track [must-fix] WARNINGs as individual beads, batch [should-fix] WARNINGs into one bead, batch [semantic] SUGGESTIONs into one bead. [cosmetic] items already auto-applied in Step 3.
• NEEDS-REWORK: CRITICAL and [must-fix] WARNINGs addressed by rework. Batch [should-fix] WARNINGs and [semantic] SUGGESTIONs. [cosmetic] items bundled into rework prompt in Step 5.
• If no [must-fix] WARNINGs, [should-fix] WARNINGs, or [semantic] SUGGESTIONs exist: skip tracking entirely — do NOT dispatch Fernando
• Findings beads (bead has any finding:* label): the review verdict (APPROVE / NEEDS-REWORK) and rework cycle operate normally — CRITICALs and [must-fix] WARNINGs are still fixed via rework on the same bead. However, Step 4 tracking is skipped: [should-fix] WARNINGs and [semantic] SUGGESTIONs found during review of a findings bead are reported in the REVIEW comment for transparency but do NOT generate new beads. This breaks the recursive cycle where findings create findings indefinitely.

Resolve the target epic — findings go to the parent epic of the reviewed bead:

bd show {BEAD_ID} --json | python3 -c "import json,sys; d=json.load(sys.stdin); print(d[0].get('parent',''))"

• If parent is not empty: use it as {TARGET_EPIC_ID}
• ONLY if parent is empty: fall back to a "Review Findings" epic

Dispatch beads-owner using exactly these parameters — no more, no less:

Agent(
    subagent_type="beads-owner",
    prompt="Create beads issues for the following review findings from BEAD {BEAD_ID} review. IMPORTANT: Each issue MUST use --parent {TARGET_EPIC_ID} flag to place it inside the epic, and --deps 'discovered-from:{BEAD_ID}' to link back to the reviewed task. Do NOT use 'bd dep add' to link tasks to epics — only --parent does that. Use label 'finding:{severity}' (lowercase) for each. Include file path and line number. BATCHING RULE: Create individual beads for [must-fix] WARNING findings only. Batch [should-fix] WARNING findings into a single bead titled 'Review warnings: {BEAD_ID}' with each item as a checklist in the description. Batch ALL [semantic] SUGGESTION findings into a single bead titled 'Review cleanup: {BEAD_ID}' with each suggestion as a checklist item in the description. Note: [cosmetic] suggestions have already been applied automatically and are NOT included. Findings:\n\n{FINDINGS_LIST}"
)

Do NOT add extra parameters unless the user explicitly requests it.

Step 5: Auto-Dispatch Supervisor (NEEDS-REWORK only)

Skip when verdict is APPROVE.

1. Resolve supervisor from assignee field (same as /do Step 2)
2. Confirm before dispatch:

   Ready to dispatch {resolved-supervisor} for rework of {BEAD_ID}: "{bead title}"
     Branch: {REWORK_BRANCH_INSTRUCTION summary}
     Findings to address: {N} CRITICAL + {M} [must-fix] WARNING
   
   Proceed? [y/n]

3. If confirmed, dispatch using exactly these parameters — no more, no less:

   Agent(
       subagent_type="{resolved-supervisor}",
       prompt="Rework BEAD {BEAD_ID}. {REWORK_BRANCH_INSTRUCTION} Read the bead (bd show {BEAD_ID}) and comments (bd comments {BEAD_ID}) for full context. The latest REVIEW comment contains CRITICAL and [must-fix] WARNING findings that MUST be addressed. [should-fix] WARNINGs and [semantic] SUGGESTIONs have been tracked as separate issues. Also apply any [cosmetic] suggestions from the REVIEW — they are trivial, non-behavioral fixes that do not need separate tracking. After addressing all findings, log a COMPLETED comment summarizing what was fixed."
   )

   Do NOT add extra parameters unless the user explicitly requests it.
4. If declined: inform "Run /do {BEAD_ID} when ready." and stop.

1. Headline: verdict in plain language — "Code review passed — ready for QA" or "Code review found {N} issues that need attention"
2. What was found:
   • If APPROVE: brief summary of what was checked and confirmed. Mention any [cosmetic] items that were auto-applied.
   • If NEEDS-REWORK: for each CRITICAL/WARNING, explain in natural language what the issue is, why it matters, and what needs to change. Use a ASCII diagram if findings involve multi-component interactions.
3. Findings tracked: if Fernando created beads, list them with plain-language descriptions, not raw finding text
4. Repercussions: what could break if NEEDS-REWORK findings aren't addressed
5. Next step: recommend /quality {BEAD_ID} (APPROVE) or confirm rework dispatch (NEEDS-REWORK)
6. Technical details: raw REVIEW comment, spec references, and file:line locations in a <details> block</on-complete>