Review Criteria Skill

This skill defines how the CEO (Claude) reviews outputs from Codex workers.

Review Framework

Every Codex output must be reviewed across 5 dimensions:

1. Completeness (Required)

Question: Did the worker do what was asked?

Checklist:

• All files in task specification were created/modified
• The "Do" instruction was followed
• Output contains completion signal (TASK_COMPLETE)

Fail Conditions:

• Missing files that were specified
• Partial implementation with TODO comments
• No completion signal

2. Acceptance Criteria (Required)

Question: Does the output meet all acceptance criteria?

Process:

For each acceptance criterion in the task:

- [ ] AC-1: {criterion} → PASS/FAIL: {reason}
- [ ] AC-2: {criterion} → PASS/FAIL: {reason}
- [ ] AC-3: {criterion} → PASS/FAIL: {reason}

Criteria Met: {passed}/{total}

Fail Conditions:

• Any P0/P1 criterion fails
• More than 50% of criteria fail

3. Code Quality (Required)

Question: Is the code well-written?

Aspect	Weight	Check
Patterns	High	Follows existing codebase patterns
Bugs	High	No obvious logical errors
Error Handling	Medium	Proper try/catch, null checks
Readability	Medium	Clear naming, reasonable complexity
Security	High	No obvious vulnerabilities

Fail Conditions:

• Doesn't follow existing patterns
• Contains obvious bugs
• Missing critical error handling
• Security vulnerability present

4. Integration (Required)

Question: Will this work with existing code?

Checklist:

• Imports are correct and exist
• Exports match expected interface
• No circular dependencies
• Types are compatible (if TypeScript)

Fail Conditions:

• Broken imports
• Type mismatches
• Circular dependency introduced

5. Completeness of Output (Optional)

Question: Is the output complete and usable?

Checklist:

• No placeholder comments (// TODO, // FIXME)
• No incomplete implementations
• No ... or ellipsis in code
• File contents are complete

Fail Conditions:

• Contains placeholder code
• Implementation is skeletal

Review Decision Matrix

Completeness	Criteria	Quality	Integration	Decision
✓	✓	✓	✓	APPROVED
✓	✓	✗	✓	NEEDS_REVISION
✓	✗	✓	✓	NEEDS_REVISION
✓	✓	✓	✗	NEEDS_REVISION
✗	-	-	-	NEEDS_REVISION
-	✗✗	-	-	ESCALATE (if max retries)

Writing Review Feedback

For APPROVED

## Review: Task {id} - APPROVED ✓

All criteria met. Output is ready for verification.

**Summary**:
- Completeness: PASS
- Acceptance: {n}/{n} criteria met
- Quality: Good
- Integration: Compatible

For NEEDS_REVISION

## Review: Task {id} - NEEDS_REVISION ↻

Attempt {n} of {max}. Issues found:

**Issue 1**: {Specific issue}
- File: {path}
- Line: {number} (if applicable)
- Current: {what's wrong}
- Expected: {what's needed}
- Fix: {specific instruction}

**Issue 2**: {Specific issue}
- Fix: {specific instruction}

**Focus Areas for Retry**:
1. {Priority 1}
2. {Priority 2}

For ESCALATE

## Review: Task {id} - ESCALATE ⚠️

Max retries ({max}) reached or blocking issue found.

**Reason for Escalation**: {why}

**Attempts Summary**:
| Attempt | Issue | Feedback Given |
|---------|-------|----------------|
| 1 | {issue} | {feedback} |
| 2 | {issue} | {feedback} |
| 3 | {issue} | {feedback} |

**Options for User**:
1. Provide additional guidance and retry
2. Manually implement this task
3. Skip this task (if [OPTIONAL])
4. Modify requirements

Quality Standards

Code Pattern Matching

When reviewing, compare against:

1. Files in the same directory
2. Similar components/functions in codebase
3. Patterns specified in design.md
4. Project style guide (if exists)

Common Issues to Watch For

JavaScript/TypeScript:

• Missing async/await
• Unhandled promise rejections
• Incorrect this binding
• Missing type annotations

React:

• Missing key props in lists
• Direct state mutation
• Missing dependency arrays in hooks
• Memory leaks (missing cleanup)

API/Backend:

• Missing input validation
• SQL injection risks
• Missing authentication checks
• Improper error responses

Iteration Limits

Task Type	Max Iterations	Escalate After
Standard	3	3 failures
[CRITICAL]	5	5 failures
[OPTIONAL]	2	Skip after 2