/phase-8-review
Verify codebase quality — architecture consistency, convention compliance, gap analysis. Triggers: code review, architecture check, quality, gap analysis default: bkit:code-analyzer validate: bkit:design-validator gap: bkit:gap-detector qa: bkit:qa-strategist team: bkit:cto-lead
Claude Code
$ npx -y skills add ww-w-ai/bkit-claude-code --skill phase-8-review --agent claude-code
Codex
$ npx skills add ww-w-ai/bkit-claude-code --skill phase-8-review -a codex -y
Cursor
$ npx skills add ww-w-ai/bkit-claude-code --skill phase-8-review -a cursor -y
Gemini CLI
$ npx skills add ww-w-ai/bkit-claude-code --skill phase-8-review -a gemini-cli -y
GitHub Copilot
$ npx skills add ww-w-ai/bkit-claude-code --skill phase-8-review -a github-copilot -y
OpenCode
$ npx skills add ww-w-ai/bkit-claude-code --skill phase-8-review -a opencode -y
Windsurf
$ npx skills add ww-w-ai/bkit-claude-code --skill phase-8-review -a windsurf -y
SKILL.md
phase-8-review.SKILL.mdname: phase-8-review
context: fork
background: false
classification: workflow
classification-reason: Process automation persists regardless of model advancement
deprecation-risk: none
effort: high
description: |
Verify codebase quality — architecture consistency, convention compliance, gap analysis.
Triggers: code review, architecture check, quality, gap analysis
default: bkit:code-analyzer
validate: bkit:design-validator
gap: bkit:gap-detector
qa: bkit:qa-strategist
team: bkit:cto-lead
allowed-tools:
- Read
- Glob
- Grep
- LSP
- Task
user-invocable: false
next-skill: phase-9-deployment
pdca-phase: check
task-template: "[Phase-8] {feature}"Phase 8: Architecture/Convention Review
> Overall codebase quality verification
Purpose
Review the entire codebase before deployment. Identify architecture consistency, convention compliance, and potential issues.
What to Do in This Phase
1. **Architecture Review**: Review structural consistency 2. **Convention Review**: Verify rule compliance 3. **Code Quality Review**: Duplication, complexity, potential bugs 4. **Refactoring**: Fix discovered issues
Deliverables
docs/03-analysis/
├── architecture-review.md # Architecture review
├── convention-review.md # Convention review
└── refactoring-plan.md # Refactoring plan
PDCA Application
- **Plan**: Define review scope/criteria
- **Design**: Design checklist
- **Do**: Execute code review
- **Check**: Analyze issues
- **Act**: Refactor and proceed to Phase 9
Level-wise Application
| Level | Application Method | |-------|-------------------| | Starter | Can be skipped (simple projects) | | Dynamic | Required | | Enterprise | Required + security review |
---
Full Phase Verification Matrix
Cross-Phase Consistency Verification
Phase 8 verifies that **all Phase outputs and rules** are consistently applied.
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Cross-Phase Dependency Flow │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ Phase 1 (Schema/Terminology) │
│ ↓ Glossary, entity definitions │
│ Phase 2 (Coding Convention) │
│ ↓ Naming rules, environment variable conventions │
│ Phase 3 (Mockup) │
│ ↓ Component structure, Props design │
│ Phase 4 (API) │
│ ↓ RESTful principles, response format, error codes │
│ Phase 5 (Design System) │
│ ↓ Design tokens, component variants │
│ Phase 6 (UI Implementation) │
│ ↓ API client, type sharing, error handling │
│ Phase 7 (SEO/Security) │
│ ↓ Security rules, metadata │
│ Phase 8 (Review) ← Current stage: Full verification │
│ ↓ │
│ Phase 9 (Deployment) │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Phase-specific Verification Checklist
Phase 1 → Verify: Terminology/Schema Consistency
□ Are glossary.md terms consistently used in code?
- Business terms → Code naming matching
- Global standard terms → API response field names matching
□ Do entity definitions match actual types?
□ Do relationship definitions match actual implementation?
Phase 2 → Verify: Convention Compliance
□ Naming rule compliance (PascalCase, camelCase, UPPER_SNAKE_CASE)
□ Folder structure rule compliance
□ Environment variable naming rule compliance (NEXT_PUBLIC_*, DB_*, API_*, etc.)
□ .env.example template completion
□ Environment variable validation logic (lib/env.ts) exists
Phase 4 → Verify: API Consistency
□ RESTful principle compliance
- Resource-based URLs (nouns, plural)
- Correct HTTP method usage
- Status code consistency
□ Response format consistency
- Success: { data, meta? }
- Error: { error: { code, message, details? } }
- Pagination: { data, pagination }
□ Error code standardization (matches ERROR_CODES constant)Phase 5 → Verify: Design System Consistency
□ Are design tokens defined? (CSS Variables / ThemeData)
□ Do components use tokens? (no hardcoded colors)
□ Are component variants consistent?
□ Dark mode support (if defined)
Phase 6 → Verify: UI-API Integration Consistency
□ API client layer structure compliance
- Components → hooks → services → apiClient
- No direct fetch calls
□ Type consistency
- Phase 4 API spec types = Phase 6 client types
□ Error handling consistency
- Global error handler usage
- Error code-specific handling logic
□ State management pattern consistency
Phase 7 → Verify: Security/SEO Application
□ Authentication/authorization middleware applied
□ Input validation (server-side)
□ XSS, CSRF defense
□ No sensitive info exposed to client
□ SEO meta tags applied
Phase 9 → Verify: Deployment Readiness
□ Environment variable Secrets registered (based on Phase 2 list)
□ Environment separation (dev/staging/prod)
□ Build successful
□ Environment variable validation script passes
---
Clean Architecture Verification
Layer Separation Principles
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Presentation Layer │
│ (pages, components, hooks - UI concerns) │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│
Read more
name: phase-8-review
context: fork
background: false
classification: workflow
classification-reason: Process automation persists regardless of model advancement
deprecation-risk: none
effort: high
description: |
Verify codebase quality — architecture consistency, convention compliance, gap analysis.
Triggers: code review, architecture check, quality, gap analysis
default: bkit:code-analyzer
validate: bkit:design-validator
gap: bkit:gap-detector
qa: bkit:qa-strategist
team: bkit:cto-lead
allowed-tools:
- Read
- Glob
- Grep
- LSP
- Task
user-invocable: false
next-skill: phase-9-deployment
pdca-phase: check
task-template: "[Phase-8] {feature}"Phase 8: Architecture/Convention Review
> Overall codebase quality verification
Purpose
Review the entire codebase before deployment. Identify architecture consistency, convention compliance, and potential issues.
What to Do in This Phase
1. **Architecture Review**: Review structural consistency 2. **Convention Review**: Verify rule compliance 3. **Code Quality Review**: Duplication, complexity, potential bugs 4. **Refactoring**: Fix discovered issues
Deliverables
docs/03-analysis/ ├── architecture-review.md # Architecture review ├── convention-review.md # Convention review └── refactoring-plan.md # Refactoring plan
PDCA Application
- **Plan**: Define review scope/criteria
- **Design**: Design checklist
- **Do**: Execute code review
- **Check**: Analyze issues
- **Act**: Refactor and proceed to Phase 9
Level-wise Application
| Level | Application Method | |-------|-------------------| | Starter | Can be skipped (simple projects) | | Dynamic | Required | | Enterprise | Required + security review |
---
Full Phase Verification Matrix
Cross-Phase Consistency Verification
Phase 8 verifies that **all Phase outputs and rules** are consistently applied.
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Cross-Phase Dependency Flow │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ │ Phase 1 (Schema/Terminology) │ │ ↓ Glossary, entity definitions │ │ Phase 2 (Coding Convention) │ │ ↓ Naming rules, environment variable conventions │ │ Phase 3 (Mockup) │ │ ↓ Component structure, Props design │ │ Phase 4 (API) │ │ ↓ RESTful principles, response format, error codes │ │ Phase 5 (Design System) │ │ ↓ Design tokens, component variants │ │ Phase 6 (UI Implementation) │ │ ↓ API client, type sharing, error handling │ │ Phase 7 (SEO/Security) │ │ ↓ Security rules, metadata │ │ Phase 8 (Review) ← Current stage: Full verification │ │ ↓ │ │ Phase 9 (Deployment) │ │ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Phase-specific Verification Checklist
Phase 1 → Verify: Terminology/Schema Consistency
□ Are glossary.md terms consistently used in code? - Business terms → Code naming matching - Global standard terms → API response field names matching □ Do entity definitions match actual types? □ Do relationship definitions match actual implementation?
Phase 2 → Verify: Convention Compliance
□ Naming rule compliance (PascalCase, camelCase, UPPER_SNAKE_CASE) □ Folder structure rule compliance □ Environment variable naming rule compliance (NEXT_PUBLIC_*, DB_*, API_*, etc.) □ .env.example template completion □ Environment variable validation logic (lib/env.ts) exists
Phase 4 → Verify: API Consistency
□ RESTful principle compliance
- Resource-based URLs (nouns, plural)
- Correct HTTP method usage
- Status code consistency
□ Response format consistency
- Success: { data, meta? }
- Error: { error: { code, message, details? } }
- Pagination: { data, pagination }
□ Error code standardization (matches ERROR_CODES constant)Phase 5 → Verify: Design System Consistency
□ Are design tokens defined? (CSS Variables / ThemeData) □ Do components use tokens? (no hardcoded colors) □ Are component variants consistent? □ Dark mode support (if defined)
Phase 6 → Verify: UI-API Integration Consistency
□ API client layer structure compliance - Components → hooks → services → apiClient - No direct fetch calls □ Type consistency - Phase 4 API spec types = Phase 6 client types □ Error handling consistency - Global error handler usage - Error code-specific handling logic □ State management pattern consistency
Phase 7 → Verify: Security/SEO Application
□ Authentication/authorization middleware applied □ Input validation (server-side) □ XSS, CSRF defense □ No sensitive info exposed to client □ SEO meta tags applied
Phase 9 → Verify: Deployment Readiness
□ Environment variable Secrets registered (based on Phase 2 list) □ Environment separation (dev/staging/prod) □ Build successful □ Environment variable validation script passes
---
Clean Architecture Verification
Layer Separation Principles
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Presentation Layer │ │ (pages, components, hooks - UI concerns) │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │
A Claude Code plugin that verifies AI-generated code against its own design specs. Three commands. Anyone — even someone vibe-coding for the first time — can ship robust, production-quality software.
Other skills on bkit.
More skills from other plugins.
agentmail
Use your assigned AgentMail inbox to read email tasks, explicitly send or reply, and check delivery. Provided automatically by…
adr-create
Create a new Architecture Decision Record with sequential numbering and AgentDB registration
Questions about phase-8-review.
- Which coding agents can use phase-8-review?
- phase-8-review installs in Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot, OpenCode and Windsurf with the skills CLI, using each agent's flag shown on this page. Flowy's auto-invocation, which fires a skill when your prompt matches, runs in Claude Code only.

