story-review
[IMPORTANT] Use
TaskCreateto break ALL work into small tasks BEFORE starting — including tasks for each file read. This prevents context loss from long files. For simple tasks, AI MUST ask user whether to skip.
Evidence Gate: MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST — every claim, finding, and recommendation requires
file:lineproof or traced evidence with confidence percentage (>80% to act, <80% must verify first).
OOP & DRY Enforcement: MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST — flag duplicated patterns that should be extracted to a base class, generic, or helper. Classes in the same group or suffix (ex *Entity, *Dto, *Service, etc...) MUST inherit a common base (even if empty now — enables future shared logic and child overrides). Verify project has code linting/analyzer configured for the stack.
External Memory: For complex or lengthy work (research, analysis, scan, review), write intermediate findings and final results to a report file in
plans/reports/— prevents context loss and serves as deliverable.
.claude/skills/shared/double-round-trip-review-protocol.md— Mandatory two-round review enforcement.claude/skills/shared/graph-impact-analysis-protocol.md— Graph impact analysis: blast-radius + trace to find potentially stale/affected files
Quick Summary
Goal: Auto-review user stories for completeness, acceptance criteria coverage, dependency ordering, and quality before implementation proceeds.
Key distinction: AI self-review (automatic), NOT user interview.
Be skeptical. Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence percentages (Idea should be more than 80%).
Frontend/UI Context (if applicable)
When this task involves frontend or UI changes, MUST READ .claude/skills/shared/ui-system-context.md and the following docs:
- Component patterns:
docs/project-reference/frontend-patterns-reference.md - Styling/BEM guide:
docs/project-reference/scss-styling-guide.md - Design system tokens:
docs/project-reference/design-system/README.md
Workflow
- Locate stories — Find story artifacts in
team-artifacts/stories/or plan context - Load source PBI — Read the parent PBI to cross-reference acceptance criteria
- Evaluate checklist — Score each check
- Classify — PASS/WARN/FAIL
- Output verdict
Checklist
Required (all must pass)
- AC coverage — Every acceptance criterion from PBI has at least one corresponding story
- GIVEN/WHEN/THEN — Each story has minimum 3 BDD scenarios (happy, edge, error)
- INVEST criteria — Stories are Independent, Negotiable, Valuable, Estimable, Small, Testable
- Story points — All stories have SP <=8 (>8 must be split)
- Dependency table — Story set includes dependency ordering table (must-after, can-parallel, independent)
- No overlapping scope — Stories don't duplicate functionality
- Vertical slices — Each story delivers end-to-end value (not horizontal layers)
- Authorization scenarios — Every story includes at least 1 authorization scenario (unauthorized access → rejection) per PBI roles table (ref:
.claude/skills/shared/cross-cutting-quality-concerns-protocol.md§1) - UI Wireframe section — If story involves UI: has
## UI Wireframesection perui-wireframe-protocol.md(wireframe + component tree + interaction flow + states + responsive). If backend-only: explicit "N/A"
Recommended (>=50% should pass)
- Edge cases — Boundary values, empty states, max limits addressed
- Error scenarios — Failure paths explicitly covered in stories
- API contract — If API changes needed, story specifies contract
- UI/UX visualization — Frontend stories have component decomposition tree with EXISTING/NEW classification, design token mapping, and responsive breakpoint behavior per
ui-wireframe-protocol.md - Seed data stories — If PBI has seed data requirements, Sprint 0 seed data story exists (ref:
.claude/skills/shared/cross-cutting-quality-concerns-protocol.md§2) - Data migration stories — If PBI has schema changes, data migration story exists (ref:
.claude/skills/shared/cross-cutting-quality-concerns-protocol.md§5)
Output
## Story Review Result
**Status:** PASS | WARN | FAIL
**Stories reviewed:** {count}
**Source PBI:** {pbi-path}
### AC Coverage Matrix
| Acceptance Criterion | Covered By Story | Status |
| -------------------- | ---------------- | ------ |
### Required ({X}/{Y})
- ✅/❌ Check description
### Recommended ({X}/{Y})
- ✅/⚠️ Check description
### Missing Stories
- {Any PBI AC not covered}
### Dependency Issues
- {Circular deps, missing ordering}
### Verdict
{PROCEED | REVISE_FIRST}
Round 2: Focused Re-Review (MANDATORY)
Protocol:
.claude/skills/shared/double-round-trip-review-protocol.md
After completing Round 1 checklist evaluation, execute a second full review round:
- Re-read the Round 1 verdict and checklist results
- Re-evaluate ALL checklist items — do NOT rely on Round 1 memory
- Challenge Round 1 PASS items: "Is this really PASS? Did I verify with evidence?"
- Focus on what Round 1 typically misses:
- Implicit assumptions that weren't validated
- Missing acceptance criteria coverage
- Edge cases not addressed in the artifact
- Cross-references that weren't verified
- Update verdict if Round 2 found new issues
- Final verdict must incorporate findings from BOTH rounds
Key Rules
- FAIL blocks workflow — If FAIL, do NOT proceed. List specific fixes.
- Cross-reference PBI — Every check against stories MUST trace back to PBI acceptance criteria.
- No guessing — Reference specific story content as evidence.
- Flag missing stories — If a PBI acceptance criterion has no covering story, that's a FAIL.
Next Steps
MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST after completing this skill, use AskUserQuestion to recommend:
- "/plan (Recommended)" — Create implementation plan from validated stories
- "/story" — Re-create stories if FAIL verdict
- "/prioritize" — Prioritize stories in backlog
- "Skip, continue manually" — user decides
Closing Reminders
MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST break work into small todo tasks using TaskCreate BEFORE starting.
MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST validate decisions with user via AskUserQuestion — never auto-decide.
MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST add a final review todo task to verify work quality.