Review and finalize (REVIEWER + DOCUMENTER phases) - runs adversarial code review, commits changes, completes task, and records reflection to capture pattern outcomes.
From apexnpx claudepluginhub benredmond/apex --plugin apexThis skill uses the workspace's default tool permissions.
Combines REVIEWER (adversarial code review) and DOCUMENTER (commit, complete, reflect). </overview>
<phase-model> phase_model: frontmatter: [research, plan, implement, rework, complete] rework: enabled db_role: [RESEARCH, ARCHITECT, BUILDER, BUILDER_VALIDATOR, REVIEWER, DOCUMENTER] legacy_db_role: [VALIDATOR] source_of_truth: gating: frontmatter.phase telemetry: db_role </phase-model> <phase-gate requires="implement" sets="complete"> <reads-file>./apex/tasks/[ID].md</reads-file> <requires-section>implementation</requires-section> <appends-section>ship</appends-section> </phase-gate> <mandatory-actions> This phase requires THREE mandatory actions in order: 1. **Adversarial Review** - Launch review agents 2. **Git Commit** - Commit all changes 3. **Final Reflection** - Record pattern outcomes and key learningsYOU CANNOT SKIP ANY OF THESE for APPROVE or CONDITIONAL outcomes.
If REJECT, stop after review, set frontmatter to phase: rework, and return to /apex:implement.
</mandatory-actions>
You can find active tasks in ./apex/tasks/ or run with:
/apex:ship [identifier]
</if-no-arguments>
<if-arguments>Load task file and begin review.</if-arguments>
</initial-response>
Contract rules:
light:
standard:
lightdeep:
standardUse the selected context pack consistently in Phase 1 and Phase 2 prompts. </instructions> </step>
<step id="3" title="Phase 1: Launch mode-appropriate review agents"> <critical> Launch ALL 5 Phase 1 agents in a SINGLE message for true parallelism. Only use agents that actually exist in `agents/review/phase1/`. </critical> <mode-behavior> All modes use the same 5 Phase 1 agents: - `review-security-analyst` - `review-architecture-analyst` - `review-test-coverage-analyst` - `review-code-quality-analyst` - `review-git-historian`Modes change context depth, not reviewer count or scoring rules:
light → concise context pack for low-risk, localized changesstandard → normal context packdeep → richer context pack (plan warnings, validation gaps, git churn, adjacent snippets) and more explicit prompts for scrutinizing downstream impact of changed lines
</mode-behavior>
Task ID: [taskId] Review Mode: [selected mode] Code Changes: [Full diff] Mode Context Pack: [Context assembled in Step 2.6 for the selected mode] Journey Context: Architecture warnings, implementation decisions, test results
Review for security vulnerabilities. In deep, read adjacent context and likely exploit paths to better assess changed lines, but only report findings rooted in the diff. Return the standard security-analyst YAML schema.
</agent>
Task ID: [taskId] Review Mode: [selected mode] Code Changes: [Full diff] Mode Context Pack: [Context assembled in Step 2.6 for the selected mode] Journey Context: Original architecture from plan, pattern selections
Review for architecture violations and pattern consistency. In deep, use neighboring abstractions and dependency context to assess the changed lines more rigorously, but keep findings anchored to the diff. Return the standard architecture-analyst YAML schema.
</agent>
Task ID: [taskId] Review Mode: [selected mode] Code Changes: [Full diff] Mode Context Pack: [Context assembled in Step 2.6 for the selected mode] Validation Results: [From implementation section]
Review for test coverage gaps. In deep, use integration seams and adjacent helpers to reason about risky changed paths, but only flag gaps tied to changed behavior. Return the standard test-coverage-analyst YAML schema.
</agent>
Task ID: [taskId] Review Mode: [selected mode] Code Changes: [Full diff] Mode Context Pack: [Context assembled in Step 2.6 for the selected mode] Journey Context: Patterns applied, conventions followed
Review for maintainability and code quality. In deep, examine long-term complexity and compounding design debt around the changed lines, but keep findings tied to the diff. Return the standard code-quality-analyst YAML schema.
</agent>
Task ID: [taskId] Review Mode: [selected mode] Code Changes: [Full diff] Mode Context Pack: [Context assembled in Step 2.6 for the selected mode] Git Context: [recent commits, churn, regressions, ownership signals from the selected mode context pack]
Review for pattern violations, regressions, and inconsistencies using git history. In deep, prioritize high-churn and previously reverted areas to pressure-test the changed lines. Return the standard git-historian YAML schema.
</agent>
<wait-for-all>WAIT for ALL 5 Phase 1 agents to complete before Phase 2.</wait-for-all> </step>
<step id="4" title="Phase 2: Adversarial challenge"> <agents parallel="true"> <agent type="apex:review:phase2:review-challenger"> **Review Mode**: [selected mode] **Review Mode Rationale**: [why this mode was chosen] **Phase 1 Agents Used**: [all 5 Phase 1 agents] **Phase 1 Findings**: [YAML from all 5 Phase 1 agents] **Mode Context Pack**: [Context assembled in Step 2.6 for the selected mode] **Original Code**: [Relevant snippets] **Journey Context**: Plan rationale, implementation justifications, validation status, git risk signalsChallenge EVERY finding using the standard challenger contract:
Use the selected review mode only to decide how much context to read before applying the standard contract:
light → concise context packstandard → normal context packdeep → richer context pack and more context-reading before judgment
</agent>
<wait-for-all>WAIT for the challenger to complete.</wait-for-all> </step>
<step id="5" title="Synthesize review results"> <confidence-adjustment> For each challenge in `challenger.challenges[]`: REQUIRE challenge.final_confidence and challenge.final_category If either is missing: STOP and re-run Phase 2 with the standard challenger schema finalConfidence = challenge.final_confidence finalCategory = challenge.final_category </confidence-adjustment> <action-decision> - if finalConfidence >= 80 → FIX_NOW - else if finalConfidence >= 60 → SHOULD_FIX - else → FILTEREDIf finalCategory disagrees with the threshold-implied category:
Filtered findings are internal only:
<action-items>If task modified API or CLI:
If task modified data structures:
Search strategy:
# Find docs that might reference changed files
for file in [modified_files]; do
grep -r "$(basename $file .ts)" docs/ README.md CLAUDE.md
done
🤖 Generated with Claude Code
Co-Authored-By: Claude noreply@anthropic.com" git log -1 --oneline # Capture commit SHA
</commands>
<checkpoint>Commit SHA captured for evidence.</checkpoint>
<compound-prompt>
After successful commit, display:
Committed: [SHA]
Run /apex:compound [identifier] to capture learnings for future agents.
</compound-prompt>
</step>
<step id="7" title="Reflection and completion">
<critical>
You MUST record a final reflection. This is NOT optional.
Without reflection:
- Learnings aren't captured
- Pattern outcomes aren't recorded
- Future tasks don't benefit
</critical>
<reflection-format>
```markdown
### Reflection
- **Outcome**: success | partial | failure
- **Key Learning**: [Main lesson from this task]
- **Patterns Used**: [PAT:ID from plan] with outcome notes
- **New Patterns / Anti-patterns**: [If discovered]
- **Evidence**: [Commit SHA, files, tests]
<ship>
<metadata>
<timestamp>[ISO]</timestamp>
<outcome>success|partial|failure</outcome>
<commit-sha>[SHA]</commit-sha>
</metadata>
<review-summary>
<review-mode>[light|standard|deep]</review-mode>
<review-mode-rationale>[Why this mode was selected]</review-mode-rationale>
<phase1-findings count="X">
<by-severity critical="N" high="N" medium="N" low="N"/>
<by-agent>
<agent name="code-quality-analyst" findings="N"/>
<agent name="git-historian" findings="N"/>
<agent name="test-coverage-analyst" findings="N"/>
<agent name="architecture-analyst" findings="N"/>
<agent name="security-analyst" findings="N"/>
</by-agent>
</phase1-findings>
<phase2-challenges>
<upheld>N</upheld>
<downgraded>N</downgraded>
<dismissed>N</dismissed>
</phase2-challenges>
<final-categories fix-now="N" should-fix="N" filtered="N"/>
<false-positive-rate>[X%]</false-positive-rate>
</review-summary>
<contract-verification>
<contract-version>[N]</contract-version>
<amendments-audited>[List amendments or "none"]</amendments-audited>
<acceptance-criteria-verification>
<criterion id="AC-1" status="met|not-met">[Evidence or exception]</criterion>
</acceptance-criteria-verification>
<out-of-scope-check>[Confirm no out-of-scope work slipped in]</out-of-scope-check>
</contract-verification>
<action-items>
<fix-now>
<item id="[ID]" severity="[S]" confidence="[C]" location="[file:line]">
[Issue and fix]
</item>
</fix-now>
<should-fix>[Deferred items]</should-fix>
<accepted>[Accepted risks with justification]</accepted>
</action-items>
<commit>
<sha>[Full SHA]</sha>
<message>[Commit message]</message>
<files>[List of files]</files>
</commit>
<reflection>
<patterns-reported>
<pattern id="PAT:X:Y" outcome="[outcome]"/>
</patterns-reported>
<key-learning>[Main lesson]</key-learning>
<reflection-status>recorded|missing</reflection-status>
</reflection>
<final-summary>
<what-was-built>[Concise description]</what-was-built>
<patterns-applied count="N">[List]</patterns-applied>
<test-status passed="X" failed="Y"/>
<documentation-updated>[What docs changed]</documentation-updated>
</final-summary>
</ship>
📊 Metrics:
💬 Summary: [Concise description of what was built]
📚 Patterns:
✅ Acceptance Criteria:
🔍 Review:
⏭️ Next: Task complete. No further action required. </template> </step>
</workflow> <completion-verification> BEFORE reporting to user, verify ALL actions completed:<ship><reflection>?If ANY unchecked → GO BACK AND COMPLETE IT. </completion-verification>
<success-criteria> - Adversarial review completed with a selected mode (`light`, `standard`, or `deep`) - All 5 Phase 1 agents ran with the selected context depth - ROI analysis included in challenger findings - Challenger used the selected mode as posture guidance while returning the standard schema - Documentation checklist completed (grep → read → update → verify) - Contract verification completed with AC mapping and scope confirmation - All FIX_NOW items resolved (or explicitly accepted) - Git commit created with proper message - Reflection recorded with patterns and learnings - Task file updated with complete ship section - Frontmatter shows phase: complete, status: complete </success-criteria> </skill>