SDLC Review Skill

Independently verify work handed from a Kanban implementation run to the review lane, then approve it, request changes, or escalate. This skill reviews the deliverable and its evidence; it does not take over the implementer's work.

When to Use

Use this skill when all of the following are true:

• the dispatcher spawned you for a task claimed from the review lane;
• an implementer submitted a review_requested handoff;
• the task needs an independent verdict before it can be completed.

Do not use it for a separate downstream review card. A downstream card is ordinary implementation work with a review-oriented specification and completes through its own lifecycle.

Prerequisites

• A Kanban worker context with the current task and run identifiers.
• Native Kanban tools: kanban_show, kanban_comment, kanban_complete, kanban_request_changes, and kanban_block.
• Workspace access through read_file, search_files, and terminal when the deliverable is code.
• The task's original specification, acceptance criteria, handoff summary, and prior run history must be available through kanban_show.

How to Run

This skill is loaded automatically by the review dispatcher. Start with kanban_show before inspecting files or choosing a verdict.

1. Read the task specification and the latest review_requested handoff.
2. Inspect the actual deliverable and run relevant verification.
3. Choose exactly one verdict: approve, request changes, or escalate.
4. Record concrete evidence in the terminal Kanban transition.

Quick Reference

Verdict	When	Final action
Approve	Acceptance criteria and verification pass	kanban_complete
Request changes	Correctable implementation defects remain	kanban_comment, then kanban_request_changes
Escalate	A human decision or external prerequisite is required	kanban_block

A requested-changes transition returns the task to its original implementer. When that implementer requests review again without naming a reviewer, the persisted reviewer provenance routes the re-review back to the same reviewer profile.

Review Lenses

Vary how you look at the work on each round instead of repeating the same inspection. Decorrelated lenses catch different defect classes: a cold read of the artifact surfaces design and correctness problems that the implementer's narrative would have framed away, execution surfaces claims that do not reproduce, and a strict contract audit surfaces quiet scope drift. Repeating the round-1 lens on round 3 mostly re-finds what round 1 already found.

Determine the current round from the history the task record already gives you: count the changes_requested entries in the "Prior attempts on this task" section of your worker context (also visible as prior runs in kanban_show). The current review round is that count plus one. Round 1 therefore shows zero changes_requested attempts; round 2 shows one; and so on.

Round	Lens	How to apply it
1	Artifact	Read the diff or deliverable cold, before the implementer's summary. Form an independent judgment, then compare it against the handoff narrative and investigate every mismatch.
2	Execution	Check out the work and actually run it via terminal: build, test, and exercise the reported behavior yourself. Verify each handoff claim empirically instead of re-reading the artifact.
3+	Contract	Re-read the ORIGINAL task body and acceptance criteria, then audit the deliverable strictly against them. Also verify that every item from every prior kanban_request_changes round actually landed.

The baseline duties in the Procedure section still apply on every round; the lens sets which inspection you lead with and weight most heavily.

Lens variation for ad-hoc review fan-outs

The same principle applies outside the Kanban review lane. When spawning multiple parallel reviewers via delegate_task, give each reviewer a different lens — one diff-only brief, one full-context brief, one checkout-and-run brief — rather than identical briefs. Identical briefs produce correlated verdicts and duplicate findings; varied briefs cover more defect classes for the same review spend.

Procedure

1. Orient from the durable task record

Call kanban_show and identify:

• the original task body and acceptance criteria;
• the latest implementation summary and structured metadata;
• changed files, commit identifiers, and test evidence;
• comments and decisions from earlier runs;
• findings from prior review rounds.

Treat the handoff as a claim to verify, not as proof that the work is correct.

2. Compare requested behavior with delivered behavior

Map every acceptance criterion to concrete implementation or output evidence. Note omissions, changed semantics, and unrelated scope before deciding whether to run deeper checks.

For code work:

1. Use read_file and search_files to inspect the changed paths and their callers.
2. Use terminal to inspect the diff and run the project's existing focused tests, lint, type checks, or build commands.
3. Exercise the reported failure path and at least one ordinary control path when practical.
4. Check error handling, edge cases, concurrency boundaries, data preservation, security boundaries, and cross-platform behavior relevant to the change.
5. Confirm that tests assert behavior rather than merely snapshotting source text or constants.

For non-code work:

1. Inspect the complete deliverable rather than only its summary.
2. Check correctness, completeness, formatting, and provenance.
3. Validate referenced URLs or external facts with the appropriate native tools when they affect the verdict.

3. Choose one verdict

Approve

Approve only when the acceptance criteria are satisfied and the evidence is sufficient. Call:

kanban_complete(
    summary="Reviewed and approved. <what was verified>",
    metadata={"review_outcome": "approved", "reviewer_checks": [...]}
)

Include the exact checks that passed and any bounded caveat that does not block acceptance.

Request changes

Use this for specific, correctable defects. First record actionable findings:

kanban_comment(
    task_id="<current-task-id>",
    body="Changes requested:\n1. <file or artifact + defect>\n2. <required correction>",
)

Then return the same task to its implementer:

kanban_request_changes(
    reason="<concise summary of the required corrections>"
)

State where the defect is, how it reproduces, why it violates the task, and what minimum outcome would resolve it. The transition does not use blocker recurrence accounting.

Escalate

Use escalation only when the reviewer and implementer cannot resolve the problem without a human decision or external prerequisite:

kanban_block(
    reason="escalation: <decision or prerequisite required>"
)

Explain the blocked decision and the smallest information needed to continue.

4. Preserve role separation

Do not edit the implementation while acting as reviewer. Request changes and let the implementer produce the next candidate; then independently verify that candidate in the next review run.

Pitfalls

• Rubber-stamping: A passing handoff summary is not independent evidence.
• Reviewer implementation: Editing the deliverable hides ownership and weakens the re-review boundary.
• Vague findings: “Needs work” does not give the implementer a reproducible correction target.
• Style-only blocking: Do not request changes for preference-level nits when behavior and repository standards are satisfied.
• Skipping prior rounds: Re-review must confirm both the requested corrections and preservation of previously passing behavior.
• Using blockers for ordinary rework: Correctable defects belong in kanban_request_changes; reserve kanban_block for genuine external blockers or human decisions.
• Completing without evidence: Every approval summary must name the checks or artifacts actually inspected.

Verification

Before submitting the verdict, confirm:

• kanban_show was read for the current task and run.
• Every acceptance criterion was mapped to evidence.
• The actual deliverable was inspected.
• Relevant focused checks were run or an explicit reason was recorded when execution was impossible.
• Prior requested changes were re-tested on re-review.
• Unrelated regressions and scope changes were considered.
• The verdict uses exactly one terminal action.
• The summary contains concrete, non-secret evidence.
• No implementation files were edited by the reviewer.