/peer-review

name: peer-review
description: >
  Start the Review phase of the SPARK loop: the Reviewer audits the diff
  produced by /increment — plan conformance, correctness, edge cases,
  security, test quality — and writes the review report. Use after
  /increment reports done, or to re-review after fixes.

/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 path of every active lens whose own frontmatter `phases` field includes `review` — read each active lens's file (`${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/lenses/<name>.md`) to decide; do not work from a list of lens names given here. If a tool resolved as available in step 1, pass `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/tools/aspark-graph.md` the same way — one more path alongside the lens paths, nothing else. Always also pass `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/standards/anti-generosity.md`, by this literal path: no constitution read, no flag. Tell the agent to read it in full before any verdict and to name it in the report as applied. 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. If the report does not name the anti-generosity standard as applied, tell the user. 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`. 6. **Open findings.** After the gate decision, run `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/standards/open-findings.md` (read it now; it is conductor-side): propose follow-up tickets for findings that stay open, file only on an explicit yes, and say nothing when none are open.

Rules

• Never soften the verdict when presenting it.
• The reviewer's own fixes must be visible to the user — list them, they are

part of the diff now.

• Don't skip re-review after fixes: fixed code is new code.

Handoff

• Review `passed` → **`/demo-day`** (QA in the real browser)
• Findings to fix → **`/increment`**