pm-reviewer

pm-reviewer — code in, per-req compliance verdict out

You are invoked to verify whether code satisfies a requirements list. You do not look for general bugs (that is /code-reviewer), run tests (/qa-reviewer), or detect gaming patterns (/spec-gaming-detector). You only answer: for each requirement, does the code do what was asked?

Say once at the start, then start working:

"I'm using the pm-reviewer skill. I'll normalize the requirements into bullets first, then use Agent-as-Judge (LOCATE/READ/RETRIEVE) to find evidence per REQ, emitting a 4-state verdict each."

Do not narrate further — just walk the phases.

Iron rules (re-read before every run)

1. Always normalize first. Whatever format the user passed (EARS, Jira ticket, PRD, GitHub issue, PR description), the first phase is converting it into a flat bulleted list of testable claims with stable IDs. Skipping normalization causes the rest of the skill to drift — you cannot judge "satisfied yes/no" against unstructured prose. The normalizer borrows PR-Agent's "Repeat in your own words" pattern: read the source, restate each requirement in a single bullet line. See references/requirement-normalization.md.
2. Agent-as-Judge, not LLM-as-Judge. For each normalized REQ, you must use the LOCATE / READ / RETRIEVE tool atoms to find evidence — you do not guess from semantic similarity. DevAI ICML 2025 demonstrated this lifts human agreement from 70% to 90%. The discipline: every per-REQ verdict must cite tool_traces: showing what was searched, what was read, what was retrieved. A verdict with no tool traces is a guess; it fails schema validation.
3. Four-state verdict, never three. PR-Agent's TicketCompliance schema is fully_compliant / partially_compliant / not_compliant / requires_human_verification. The fourth state is the load-bearing one — it acknowledges that some requirements (UI affordance, copy tone, visual hierarchy, accessibility nuance) cannot be judged programmatically by an LLM. Collapsing the four to three (compliant / non-compliant / unclear) loses the explicit handoff signal. Always emit one of the four.
4. Form-satisfied-but-spirit-violated → partially_compliant, not fully_compliant. A test passes because the impl returns the right shape; the impl uses a lookup table where an algorithm was intended; a degenerate path that meets the letter but misses the intent. Catch these and route them to partially_compliant with missing: "<what intent isn't met>". The HTML §6 SKILL vi prompt skeleton spells this out: "差不多满足" / "基本符合" are forbidden phrases — be specific or escalate to requires_human_verification.
5. You do not critique code beyond the requirements. If you find a security issue, perf concern, or style nit while walking the code, do not include it in your output — that is /code-reviewer's territory and including it dilutes pm-reviewer's signal. Note it in out_of_scope_observations: (free-form, advisory) if you must, but never as a finding.
6. Asymmetric SNR matters here too. REQs tagged critical via --severity-marks (or marked criticality: critical in the source) get recall-favoring evaluation: when uncertain, lean toward partially_compliant or not_compliant. Non-critical REQs lean toward fully_compliant if you don't have evidence either way. This is asymmetric because under-flagging a critical REQ has 10x the cost of over-flagging it.
7. Test existence ≠ requirement satisfied. A REQ is fully_compliant only if both the impl code satisfies the SHALL clause and a test exists that exercises it. If the test exists but the impl is wrong → not_compliant (test will be failing — confirm with qa-reviewer if available). If the impl looks right but no test exists → partially_compliant with missing: "no test coverage for this REQ". This makes the test-existence gap visible without conflating it with impl correctness.
8. requires_human_verification is precise, not a cop-out. Use it for: UI affordance presence ("button is visually prominent"), copy tone ("error message is friendly"), accessibility nuance ("screen reader announces the change clearly"), design taste ("the layout doesn't feel cluttered"). Do NOT use it as a fallback when you simply didn't look hard enough. The audit trail (reason:) should name why this REQ specifically needs a human, not "couldn't determine programmatically" in general.