sirius-cc-wu/review-execution

Review Execution

Use this skill after implementation and validation, and before close-slice, when a execution slice needs an explicit review against brief.md and blueprint.md.

Responsibilities

1. Review implementation and validation evidence against the active slice's brief.md and blueprint.md.
2. Distinguish brief-to-implementation gaps from intent-to-brief gaps.
3. Feed durable fixes back into slice-scoped artifacts or upstream planning guidance so the next execution starts from improved context.
4. Confirm whether the slice is ready for close-slice or needs more execution work first.

Preferred Input

• <slice_path>/brief.md
• <slice_path>/blueprint.md
• optional <slice_path>/slices.md for legacy slices
• the implementation diff or changed files
• validation results, review notes, or PR context when available

Resolve <slice_path> through guide-execution.

Required Output

• updated slice-scoped execution artifacts when the review exposes durable gaps
• explicit review outcome recorded in the PR, closure context, or repository docs used by the team

Artifact Ownership

review-execution owns the review outcome and any durable updates needed in brief.md, blueprint.md, or upstream planning guidance when the review exposes context gaps.

guide-execution should route into execution review, but it should not absorb the review itself or silently close slices without that owning review step.

Review Rules

• Check that requirements, acceptance notes, and validation steps still match the implementation.
• Classify findings explicitly:
  • brief-to-implementation gap
  • intent-to-brief gap
  • follow-up improvement outside the active slice
• Prefer fixing the brief or plan when the issue reflects missing or ambiguous execution context.
• Capture any follow-up work in planning docs, the next slice backlog, or PR context instead of overloading slice readiness state.

Workflow

1. Resolve the active slice with guide-execution.
2. Read brief.md, blueprint.md, changed code, and available validation evidence.
3. Compare the implementation with the slice-scoped requirements and validation plan.
4. Update brief.md, blueprint.md, or upstream planning guidance when the review reveals a durable context gap.
5. Stop when the slice is ready for close-slice or return the work to execution with explicit findings.

Guardrails

• Do not close the slice while blocking review findings remain unresolved.
• Do not treat code-only fixes as complete if the underlying brief or plan is still wrong.
• Do not use slice metadata to mirror ad hoc execution states beyond the readiness model owned by guide-execution.