.claude/skills/ln-402-task-reviewer/SKILL.md
L3 Worker. Reviews task implementation for quality, code standards, test coverage. Creates [BUG] tasks for side-effect issues found outside task scope. Sets task Done or To Rework. Runs inline (Skill tool) from ln-400 main flow.
npx skillsauth add cbbkrd-tech/jl-finishes ln-402-task-reviewerInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
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.
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 task executed by ln-401/ln-403/ln-404 MUST be reviewed by ln-402 immediately. No exceptions, no batching, no skipping.
| Aspect | Linear Mode | File Mode |
|--------|-------------|-----------|
| Load task | get_issue(task_id) | Read("docs/tasks/epics/.../tasks/T{NNN}-*.md") |
| Load Story | get_issue(parent_id) | Read("docs/tasks/epics/.../story.md") |
| Update status | update_issue(id, state: "Done"/"To Rework") | Edit the **Status:** line in file |
| Add comment | Linear comment API | Append to task file or kanban |
File Mode status values: Done, To Rework (only these two outcomes from review)
Detect operating mode at startup:
Plan Mode Active:
Normal Mode:
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 | CI Checks | lint/typecheck pass per ci_tool_detection.md |
Expected output: Verdict (Done/To Rework) + Issues + Fix actions
When operating in any mode, skill MUST create detailed todo checklist tracking ALL steps.
Rules:
in_progress before starting step, completed after finishingTodo Template (~11 items):
Step 1: Receive Task
- Load task by ID
Step 2: Read Context
- Load full task + parent Story + affected components
Step 2b: Goal Articulation Gate
- State what specific quality question this review must answer (<=25 tokens each)
Step 3: 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 4: AC Validation
- Validate implementation against 4 AC criteria
Step 5: Side-Effect Bug Detection
- Scan for bugs outside task scope, create [BUG] tasks
Step 6: Decision
- Apply minor fixes or set To Rework with guidance
Step 7: Mechanical Verification
- Run lint/typecheck per ci_tool_detection.md (only if verdict=Done)
Step 8: Update & Commit
- Set task status, update kanban, post review comment
- If Done: commit ALL uncommitted changes in branch (git add -A)
Receive task: Get task ID from orchestrator (ln-400). Load full task and parent Story independently. Detect type (label "tests" -> test task, else implementation/refactor).
Read context: Full task + parent Story; load affected components/docs; review diffs if available.
2b) 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)?
Review checks:
MANDATORY READ: shared/references/clean_code_checklist.md
GOAL-MISFRAME: executor goal targets secondary subject, may miss hidden constraints.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- -->ARCH-AI-SEB <!-- Defense-in-depth: also ln-511, ln-624 Rule 10 -->ARCH-AI-AH <!-- Defense-in-depth: also ln-511, ln-643 Rule 6 -->// See PROJ-123).AC Validation (MANDATORY for implementation tasks):
MANDATORY READ: Load references/ac_validation_checklist.md. Verify implementation against 4 criteria:
Side-Effect Bug Detection (MANDATORY): While reviewing affected code, actively scan for bugs/issues NOT related to current task:
For each side-effect bug found:
[BUG] {Short description}bug, discovered-in-reviewDecision (for current task only):
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.Mechanical Verification (if Done):
MANDATORY READ: shared/references/ci_tool_detection.md
IF verdict == Done:
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.
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:
| Category | Weight | Examples | |----------|--------|----------| | BLOCKER | -20 | AC not met, security issue, missing error handling, wrong approach | | CONCERN | -10 | Suboptimal pattern, missing docs, test gaps | | NIT | -3 | Naming, style, minor cleanup |
Verdict mapping:
| Score | Verdict | Action | |-------|---------|--------| | 90-100 | Done | Accept, apply nit fixes inline | | 70-89 | Done (with notes) | Accept, document concerns for future | | <70 | To Rework | Send back with fix guidance per finding |
Note: Side-effect bugs (Step 5) do NOT affect current task's quality score — they become separate [BUG] tasks.
git add -A) with task ID; task removed from kanban. If To Rework: task moved with fix guidance.shared/references/problem_solving.mdshared/references/ac_validation_rules.mdreferences/ac_validation_checklist.md (4 criteria: Completeness, Specificity, Dependencies, DB Creation)shared/references/clean_code_checklist.mdshared/references/ci_tool_detection.mddocs/tasks/kanban_board.mdVersion: 5.0.0 Last Updated: 2026-02-07
testing
When the user wants to plan a content strategy, decide what content to create, or figure out what topics to cover. Also use when the user mentions "content strategy," "what should I write about," "content ideas," "blog strategy," "topic clusters," or "content planning." For writing individual pieces, see copywriting. For SEO-specific audits, see seo-audit.
development
When the user wants to create competitor comparison or alternative pages for SEO and sales enablement. Also use when the user mentions 'alternative page,' 'vs page,' 'competitor comparison,' 'comparison page,' '[Product] vs [Product],' '[Product] alternative,' or 'competitive landing pages.' Covers four formats: singular alternative, plural alternatives, you vs competitor, and competitor vs competitor. Emphasizes deep research, modular content architecture, and varied section types beyond feature tables.
development
Write B2B cold emails and follow-up sequences that get replies. Use when the user wants to write cold outreach emails, prospecting emails, cold email campaigns, sales development emails, or SDR emails. Covers subject lines, opening lines, body copy, CTAs, personalization, and multi-touch follow-up sequences.
development
When the user wants to reduce churn, build cancellation flows, set up save offers, recover failed payments, or implement retention strategies. Also use when the user mentions 'churn,' 'cancel flow,' 'offboarding,' 'save offer,' 'dunning,' 'failed payment recovery,' 'win-back,' 'retention,' 'exit survey,' 'pause subscription,' or 'involuntary churn.' This skill covers voluntary churn (cancel flows, save offers, exit surveys) and involuntary churn (dunning, payment recovery). For post-cancel win-back email sequences, see email-sequence. For in-app upgrade paywalls, see paywall-upgrade-cro.