Task Review Session

Review and refine tasks in UNIFIED_PLAN.md. You can review all tasks or focus on a specific task.

Arguments received: $ARGUMENTS

Command Dispatch

If no arguments: Review All Tasks

1. Read UNIFIED_PLAN.md and analyze each task for:

   • Completeness (all required sections present)
   • Clarity (unambiguous requirements)
   • User story quality (testable acceptance criteria)
   • Dependencies (correctly identified and up-to-date)
   • Status accuracy (does status reflect actual state?)

2. Generate a review report:

# Task Review Report

## Summary
| Task | Title | Issues Found | Recommendation |
|------|-------|--------------|----------------|
| 1    | ...   | None         | Ready          |
| 2    | ...   | Missing deps | Needs update   |

## Detailed Findings

### Task N: [Title]
- **Status:** [Current status]
- **Issues:**
  - [Issue 1]
  - [Issue 2]
- **Recommendations:**
  - [Action 1]
  - [Action 2]

3. Ask user which tasks they want to address, then update UNIFIED_PLAN.md accordingly.

If task number provided: Review Specific Task

1. Read UNIFIED_PLAN.md and find the specified task.

2. Analyze the task for:

   • Description clarity: Is the purpose clear?
   • User stories: Are they complete and testable?
   • Acceptance criteria: Specific and measurable?
   • Dependencies: Still accurate? Any new blockers?
   • Files to create/modify: Complete list?
   • Inventory checks: All prerequisites listed?
   • Completion criteria: How do we know it's done?

3. Interactive refinement: Use AskUserQuestion to:

   • Clarify any ambiguous requirements
   • Identify missing user stories
   • Update outdated information
   • Add newly discovered dependencies

4. Update the task in UNIFIED_PLAN.md with refinements.

5. Commit changes with descriptive message.

Review Checklist

For each task, verify:

Structure

• Has Description section
• Has Dependencies section (even if "None")
• Has User Stories (at least one)
• Has Files to Create/Modify section
• Has Inventory Check section
• Has Completion Criteria section

Quality

• Description explains "what" and "why"
• Each user story follows "As a... I want... so that..." format
• Acceptance criteria are testable (not vague)
• Dependencies reference specific task numbers
• File paths are accurate and complete
• Inventory checks are verifiable

Consistency

• Task number matches position in document
• Status reflects actual progress
• Layer (Crane/daosys/product) is correct
• Worktree branch name follows convention

Common Issues to Flag

1. Vague acceptance criteria: "Works correctly" → Should be specific
2. Missing error cases: Only happy path covered
3. Stale dependencies: Completed tasks still listed as blockers
4. Incomplete file lists: Tests or interfaces missing
5. No inventory checks: Agent won't verify prerequisites
6. Status mismatch: Marked "Ready" but has unmet dependencies