Review+

review+ — Compliance Review

Wraps superpowers:requesting-code-review. Requires superpowers to be installed.

Procedure

Phase A: Gather Review Context

1. Load the plan from docs/plans/.

1. Get the list of files changed since the plan was created:

`` git diff --name-only [plan-commit]..HEAD ``

1. Invoke the scout agent to get current codebase state for comparison:

`` Agent(subagent_type="scout", prompt="Get current state of these files: [changed files list]. For each file, report: symbol count, key exports, test coverage status.") ``

Phase B: Spec Compliance Review

1. Dispatch the typed spec reviewer with the per-task payload (role content

lives in the agent definition):

`` Agent(subagent_type="spec-reviewer", prompt="Task requirements: [full task text from the plan]. Implementer's report: [what was claimed/committed for this task]. Verify the implementation matches the spec — nothing more, nothing less.") ``

If the typed agent is unavailable, fall back to a general-purpose subagent using the superpowers spec-reviewer prompt template.

1. The spec reviewer verifies, for each task in the plan:

• Check: was the task implemented? (file exists, code present)
• Check: does the implementation match the plan's specification?
• Check: are the specified tests present and passing?
• Check: were any plan tasks skipped or significantly changed?

1. Check stale test status:

• For each changed source file, verify a corresponding test file was also changed
• Flag any source edits without test updates as stale test violations

1. Check enforcement compliance (see active enforcement rules from session-start output):

• [ ] Active enforcement rules followed in all test and source files (real dependencies in stack/E2E tests; mocks appropriate in unit tests)
• [ ] All claims of success are backed by command output
• [ ] Full-loop assertions present where applicable
• [ ] No conditional test assertions (if (condition) assert(...))
• [ ] No empty test bodies
• No .skip without documented reason

Phase C: Code Quality Review (delegate to superpowers:requesting-code-review)

1. Invoke superpowers:requesting-code-review for process. Where it instructs

Task tool with general-purpose type, instead dispatch the typed reviewer with only the per-task payload:

`` Agent(subagent_type="code-reviewer", prompt="DESCRIPTION: [what was built]. PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: [plan file path or task text]. BASE_SHA: [starting commit]. HEAD_SHA: [ending commit].") ``

If the typed agent is unavailable, fall back to a general-purpose subagent using the superpowers code-reviewer prompt template.

1. Check code quality:

• Files are focused (one clear responsibility per file)
• Interfaces are well-defined
• No unnecessary abstractions
• No speculative generalization
• Positive framing in code comments and error messages

Phase D: Review Report

1. Produce a two-stage review report:

``` ## Review Report

### Stage 1: Spec Compliance

• [ ] All plan tasks implemented
• [ ] Implementation matches plan specification
• [ ] No stale test violations
• [ ] Active enforcement rules followed (see session-start output)

### Stage 2: Code Quality

• [ ] Files are focused and well-structured
• [ ] Interfaces are clean
• [ ] No unnecessary complexity
• [ ] Positive framing throughout

### Verdict PASS / FAIL with specific items to address ```

1. If PASS: the implementation is complete. Proceed to integration.

If FAIL: list specific items, return to tdd+ to fix, then re-run verify+ and review+.

Skill Chain

After review+ passes:

• The implementation is complete
• Proceed to merge/PR decision (superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch)
• If branch discipline is active, finish with a PR (gh pr create via

superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch) rather than a local merge.

Completion

Report one of these states when the skill finishes:

• DONE — Review passed (PASS verdict). All spec compliance and code quality checks confirmed.
• DONEWITHCONCERNS — Review passed with minor items noted for follow-up.
• BLOCKED — Review failed (FAIL verdict). Items must be fixed before proceeding.
• NEEDS_CONTEXT — Need user input to resolve a review question or accept a deviation.

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

• Author: franklywatson
• Source: franklywatson/claude-rig
• License: MIT

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.