本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

review-work

Quality gate: verify each acceptance criterion of a completed task/work unit, run quality checks, and create follow-up tasks for gaps. Use before merging or to audit delivered work. Invoked as /agiflow:review-work <work-unit-or-task>. Uses get_work_unit, get_task, update_task, create_task, create_task_comment.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md6.2 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Invoked as /agiflow:review-work. In hosts without slash-prompts, this skill is triggered by matching intent and drives AgiFlow via its MCP tools.

Usage:

  • /agiflow:review-work <work-unit-slug-or-id> - Review a specific work unit
  • /agiflow:review-work <task-slug-or-id> - Review a specific task
  • /agiflow:review-work - List completed items for review

Examples:

  • /agiflow:review-work DXX-WU-1 (review work unit by slug)
  • /agiflow:review-work DXX-3 (review task by slug)
  • /agiflow:review-work (interactive selection)

Purpose Verify that completed work actually meets its acceptance criteria, catches quality issues, and is ready to ship. AI code has 1.7x more defects than human-written code — review is the last line of defense before shipping.

Guardrails

  • Review what exists — do not implement fixes during review (create follow-up tasks instead).
  • Every acceptance criterion gets a pass/fail verdict with evidence.
  • Flag issues by severity: blocker (must fix), warning (should fix), note (nice to fix).
  • Be honest — a "pass" with gaps is worse than a clear "needs rework".

If a work unit or task slug/id is provided, load it with get_work_unit / get_task; otherwise list candidates with list_work_units / list_tasks for selection.


AgiFlow Project Management Guidelines

Follow the shared AgiFlow project-management guidelines in references/agiflow-agents.md — agent assignment, the task status workflow and transitions, work-unit best practices, and the tags strategy apply to this workflow.


Steps

1. Load the Work for Review

If work unit slug/id provided:

  1. Use get_work_unit MCP tool to load the work unit and its tasks.
  2. For each task in the work unit, use get_task to load full details (acceptance criteria, devInfo, comments).

If task slug/id provided: 3. Use get_task MCP tool to load the task with full details.

If nothing provided: 4. Use list_work_units with status: "completed" to show completed work units. 5. Use list_tasks with status: "Review" or status: "Done" to show completed tasks. 6. Ask user to select what to review.

2. Acceptance Criteria Audit

  1. For each task, evaluate EVERY acceptance criterion:
CriterionVerdictEvidence
[criterion text]PASS / FAIL / PARTIAL[what you observed]

Verdict rules:

  • PASS: Criterion is fully met with evidence (test results, devInfo notes, implementation confirmed)
  • FAIL: Criterion is not met or cannot be verified
  • PARTIAL: Criterion is partially met — document what's missing
  1. Check devInfo for implementation evidence:
    • Were files actually changed? (filesChanged in devInfo)
    • Did tests pass? (testResults in devInfo)
    • Is there a draft PR? (draftPr in devInfo)
    • Were acceptance criteria marked as checked?

3. Quality Checks

  1. Evaluate these quality dimensions:

Completeness:

  • Are ALL acceptance criteria addressed (not just the easy ones)?
  • Are there gaps between what was asked and what was delivered?
  • Were test cases included for critical paths?

Consistency:

  • Do the changes align with the task/work unit description?
  • Is the scope appropriate (no gold-plating, no missing pieces)?
  • Do devInfo notes match the actual changes?

Risk Assessment:

  • Are there edge cases that weren't covered?
  • Could the changes break existing functionality?
  • Are there security implications?
  • Are there performance concerns?

4. Review Comments

  1. For each task reviewed, use list_task_comments to check existing progress notes.
  2. Use create_task_comment to add your review findings:
**Review Summary**

Verdict: APPROVED / NEEDS REWORK / APPROVED WITH NOTES

**Acceptance Criteria:**
- [criterion 1]: PASS - [evidence]
- [criterion 2]: FAIL - [what's missing]

**Issues Found:**
- [BLOCKER] [description] — must fix before shipping
- [WARNING] [description] — should fix, creates tech debt
- [NOTE] [description] — minor improvement opportunity

**What's Good:**
- [positive observation]

**Next Steps:**
- [action needed, if any]

5. Verdict and Actions

  1. Based on findings, recommend one of:

APPROVED — All criteria pass, no blockers.

  • If work unit: use update_work_unit to confirm status "completed"
  • If task: use update_task to confirm status "Done"
  • Summarize what shipped and its value

APPROVED WITH NOTES — All criteria pass, minor issues.

  • Keep current status
  • Create follow-up tasks for noted improvements using batch_create_tasks
  • Document notes in task comment

NEEDS REWORK — One or more criteria fail or blockers found.

  • If work unit: use update_work_unit to set status back to "in_progress"
  • If task: use update_task to set status back to "In Progress"
  • Uncheck failed acceptance criteria
  • Document what needs to change in task comment
  • Be specific: "criterion X fails because Y, to fix do Z"

6. Work Unit Summary (if reviewing a work unit)

  1. After reviewing all tasks in the work unit, produce a rollup:
**Work Unit Review: [title]**

Tasks: [N passed] / [total] passed
Overall: APPROVED / NEEDS REWORK

| Task | Slug | Verdict | Issues |
|------|------|---------|--------|
| [title] | [slug] | PASS | 0 |
| [title] | [slug] | FAIL | 2 blockers |

[Summary of what the work unit delivers and whether it's ready]

Common Mistakes to Avoid

  • Rubber-stamping: marking PASS without checking evidence
  • Fixing issues during review instead of documenting them for rework
  • Ignoring devInfo (it contains the implementation trail)
  • Reviewing only the happy path and missing edge cases
  • Not creating follow-up tasks for issues found
  • Approving work with unchecked acceptance criteria

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Use AtomLane to compile and execute safe atomic parallel plans on macOS and native Windows Preview for worthwhile independent argv tasks, dependency DAGs, supported platform entrypoints, or Apple-silicon operators. Use at task start or an execution boundary when structured local work may contain two or more worthwhile units; skip plain answers, one quick command, and work whose effects cannot be safely bounded.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

hashgraph-online/awesome-codex-plugins1,2752026年10月11日 更新

add

無料

Register a deferred decision in the debt registry. Trigger by judgment, not a marker scan, whenever a future reader would ask "why this way?": an unmade decision, stub, loosened type, bypassed check, swallowed error, a default picked "for now", or a TODO/FIXME/HACK/XXX marker. Trigger immediately whenever you defer work, or when the user invokes $add. Over-register freely; the developer drops with "drop A", "drop A,C", or "drop all".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

hashgraph-online/awesome-codex-plugins1,2752026年10月11日 更新

ADK 框架适配层。为 LangChain / EINO / AutoGen / AgentScope / CrewAI 提供框架特定的 代码模板、惯用模式、API 映射和项目结构,供 agent-dev-workshop Phase 5 代码生成使用。 每个框架 reference 文件标注 verified_date 用于版本锁定。

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

hashgraph-online/awesome-codex-plugins1,2752026年10月11日 更新

中文调试修复技能。用于报错、测试失败、页面异常、功能不符合预期、需要定位根因并做最小修复时。触发语包括"进入调试模式""帮我修问题""报错了""测试失败""页面坏了""找根因"。

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

hashgraph-online/awesome-codex-plugins1,2752026年10月11日 更新

交互式 AI Agent 开发工作坊:通过 6 阶段深度协作对话,引导用户完成 Agent 需求分析、架构设计、 工具定义、Prompt 与编排设计、代码生成、验证迭代,产出可直接运行的 Agent 项目。 框架无关设计优先,支持 LangChain / EINO / AutoGen / AgentScope / CrewAI 等 ADK 框架。

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

hashgraph-online/awesome-codex-plugins1,2752026年10月11日 更新

中文漂移审计技能。用于项目或学习过程变乱、上下文漂移、任务分叉、多个方案冲突、命名不一致、Codex 可能顺手改多了时。触发语包括"漂移检查""感觉跑偏了""项目变乱了""检查是否失控""分叉太多""上下文漂移"。

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

hashgraph-online/awesome-codex-plugins1,2752026年10月11日 更新

hashgraph-online のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する