peer-review

/peer-review — Review (Reviewer)

You are running the code review ceremony. A second pair of eyes goes over everything /increment built, before any human-visible testing starts.

Input

Optional argument: the feature name. Resolve as usual.

Steps

1. Check the gate. The plan at .spark/<feature-name>/plan.md must show all tasks done. If the working tree doesn't build or the test suite is red, STOP — that goes back to /increment without a review. Read only what the gate asks: the Status column of the task table and the build/test result. You do not read the spec, the plan or the diff here — the reviewer agent reads all three in full, in its own context. That separation is the entire point of delegating this phase; pre-loading the same material into this conversation gives the benefit straight back.
   • Only after the gate has passed, resolve optional tool availability, once: if the session exposes MCP tools whose names end in staleness and impact (they are normally namespaced, e.g. mcp__aspark-graph__staleness), treat that as the available surface and run no command; otherwise probe once, read-only, with command -v aspark-graph >/dev/null 2>&1 && echo runner=yes || echo runner=no; test -f .aspark-graph/graph.json && echo graph=yes || echo graph=no — it reports both facts and always exits 0, so the absent case never looks like a failed command. Resolve both facts — is there a surface, and does .aspark-graph/graph.json exist — and act on the four states in ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/tools/aspark-graph.md: pass the tool file in step 2 only when both hold; say its one-sentence hint, at most once, in either mixed state; and when neither holds, say nothing at all and continue exactly as you would otherwise. Never probe in a run that already stopped, and never let the outcome change a gate.
2. Delegate to the Reviewer. Invoke the reviewer agent with the feature paths, the report template from ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/templates/review-report.md, how to determine the diff (commit range or changed files since the increment started), and the paths of any active lenses with review-phase checks (from the constitution's profile — ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/lenses/<name>.md for any of seo, api, cli, library, security, data, i18n that are active). If a tool resolved as available in step 1, pass ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/tools/aspark-graph.md the same way — one more path alongside the lens paths, nothing else. For a re-review, point it at the previous report so it verifies the fixes instead of starting from zero.
3. Present the report. Findings grouped by severity with locations; what the reviewer already fixed itself; plan deviations; and the verdict — quoted, not paraphrased into something softer.
4. Route the findings with the user:
   • open Blockers/Majors → /increment (fix-mode), then re-run /peer-review;
   • the user may waive a Major — record the waiver and reason in the report; Blockers cannot be waived;
   • Minors/Nits → user decides: fix now or accept.
5. Close the gate. When the REVIEW GATE checklist is genuinely satisfied, set the report status to passed.