Review Spec

Trigger

• Keywords: review spec, spec review, tech spec review, review-spec

When NOT to Use

• Code review (use /codex-review-fast)
• General document review (use /codex-review-doc)
• Writing a new spec (use /tech-spec)

Relationship to /codex-review-doc

Both are doc-plane producers of the same gate, dispatched over the same Codex exec transport (@skills/codex-code-review/references/codex-transport.md) and emitting the same sentinel pair. They differ only in review depth and dimensions: /review-spec is the design-landing depth (completeness, feasibility, risk, code consistency, test strategy), /codex-review-doc is the general document depth. Loop mechanics, severity calibration and [NIT_DEFERRED] handling are shared — see @skills/doc-review/SKILL.md.

Why not an Agent dispatch. The gate verdict is behaviour-layer: it comes from the reviewer's report, and review-state.js note records it (@rules/auto-loop.md § Enforcement — nothing parses reviewer output; hooks are reminders). What makes a verdict usable is that a contract-aware reviewer produced it against this family's template and sentinels. A built-in agent dispatched ad hoc is not that reviewer and its output closes nothing. Dispatching Codex over the shared transport is what makes the verdict this skill's to note. See @rules/auto-loop.md § Review Dispatch.

Codex Dispatch

Bind every placeholder before writing prompt.md. The body below is body-only, so nothing evaluates an expression inside it: ${FILE_PATH} and ${PROJECT_ROOT} must carry real values by the time the file is written, or the cat ${FILE_PATH} instructions reach Codex as literal text and cannot be run.

You are a senior technical spec reviewer. Perform a Document Review of the technical specification below, at design-landing depth.

Document Info

• Path: ${FILE_PATH}
• Type: technical specification
• Project root: ${PROJECT_ROOT}

⚠️ Important: You must independently read and research the project ⚠️

Do NOT expect pre-provided file content. Read the spec and research the project yourself using your sandbox access. The spec makes concrete claims about this repository — verify them against the actual files rather than taking them on trust.

Document Reading (Priority)

1. Read the full document: cat ${FILE_PATH}
2. If long: cat ${FILE_PATH} | head -300 then cat ${FILE_PATH} | tail -200

Code-Documentation Consistency Research

1. Project structure, discovered rather than assumed: ls at the repository root, then the directories it actually shows — do not assume a src/ layout; many repositories, this one included, have none
2. Search for every file, function, flag and command the spec names: grep -rn "keyword" . -l --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" --include="*.sh" | head -10
3. Read related files: cat <file-path> | head -100
4. Verify: do referenced files exist? Are names correct? Do described behaviours match code?

Review Dimensions

#	Dimension	Checks
1	Completeness	Are requirements, scope, risks and work breakdown all present and specific
2	Feasibility	Can this be built as described, with the dependencies it names
3	Risk Assessment	Are the real failure modes identified, and does each have a bound
4	Code Consistency	Do referenced files/functions exist and behave as described (verify with grep/cat)
5	Test Strategy	Is every acceptance criterion mapped to evidence; are guards two-directional

Severity Calibration ⚠️

A 🔴 blocks the document and costs a full review round. Reserve it for defects that would mislead a reader into building the wrong thing:

Mark 🔴	Do NOT mark 🔴
A described file, function, flag or command that does not exist	Wording that could be clearer
A described behaviour that contradicts what the code actually does	A section you would have structured differently
A security or data-handling design that is wrong or unsafe	A missing section that no rule requires
An internal contradiction — two passages that cannot both be true	Prose where a table would be tidier
A broken cross-reference, or a step whose stated dependency is not met by its own ordering	Hypothetical future concerns not present in the change

Do not manufacture findings to fill a section. An empty 🔴 section is a normal outcome.

Output Format

Your report must begin with the literal line ## Document Review. Nothing parses it — the verdict is behaviour-layer and review-state.js records only an explicit note (@rules/auto-loop.md § Enforcement). The header matters for the reader: it is what tells a document review apart from a code or security review in a transcript.

Document Review

Review Summary

Dimension	Rating (1-5⭐)	Notes
Completeness	...	...
Feasibility	...	...
Risk Assessment	...	...
Code Consistency	...	...
Test Strategy	...	...

🔴 Must Fix (blocking — see Severity Calibration)

• [Section/Line] Issue description -> Fix recommendation

(Write None if there are none.)

🟡 Suggested Changes (non-blocking)

• [Section/Line] Issue description -> Fix recommendation

⚪ Optional Improvements

• Suggestion

Deferred Findings

For every 🟡 and ⚪ above, emit one line here, starting at column 0:

[NIT_DEFERRED] <file:line> | <issue> | reason: sub-threshold-doc | <ISO8601 UTC>

Do not reorder the fields and do not use a different tag. Omit this section entirely if there are no 🟡 or ⚪ items.

Gate

End the report with exactly one verdict terminal, alone at column 0 on the final line — the same rule as @skills/doc-review/references/review-loop-doc.md, and what scripts/validate-family-sentinel.js doc accepts. As list items they are not a legal terminal.

• No 🔴 findings → final line ✅ Mergeable
• Any 🔴 finding → final line ⛔ Needs revision

Dispatch this body per @skills/codex-code-review/references/codex-transport.md § Start; the transport pins the sandbox and approval policy, so nothing is chosen here. Save the returned threadId — loop re-review continues the same thread per that reference's § Resume; see @skills/doc-review/references/review-loop-doc.md.

Task

Document to Review

$ARGUMENTS

If no path is given, auto-detect: git-modified 2-*.md under docs/features/ → staged .md → newest tech spec. Multiple candidates: list them and ask which to review.

Gate

Sentinel	Meaning
✅ Mergeable	No 🔴 items — the spec may proceed to implementation
⛔ Needs revision	🔴 items present — fix, then re-review on the same thread

These are the doc-plane sentinels (@rules/auto-loop.md § Gate Sentinels). No hook parses them — the verdict is behaviour-layer and review-state.js records only an explicit note. One thing does read them mechanically, and it is not a hook: scripts/validate-family-sentinel.js doc validates a fallback carrier's raw report before its verdict may be adopted. That is why the shape is fixed in both directions — a paraphrase reads as no verdict to a human, and fails the validator outright when a fallback produced it. Emit them verbatim.

🔴 only. 🟡 and ⚪ are non-blocking: log them via [NIT_DEFERRED] and proceed (@rules/auto-loop.md § Sub-Threshold Findings). Round cap and its ## Max Rounds override come from the shared contract (@rules/auto-loop.md § Tiers); still failing → report the blocker rather than spending another round.

Verification

• Dispatched over the Codex exec transport (§ Start), not an Agent
• The prompt asks for a Document Review, and the report opens with that header
• Codex verified code-documentation consistency independently
• Gate is one of ✅ Mergeable / ⛔ Needs revision

References

• Shared loop mechanics and severity model: @skills/doc-review/SKILL.md
• Re-review template: @skills/doc-review/references/review-loop-doc.md
• Dispatch contract: @rules/codex-invocation.md