reviewed-edit.md

name	reviewed-edit
description	Implement, then review in two passes — spec compliance first, code quality second — then verify. Use for quality-critical changes where you don't trust a single pass. Reviewers run in fresh contexts with no memory of the implementation reasoning. Fix loop iterates until both approve.
parameters	name description task What to implement. Include file paths and expected behavior. name description criteria Acceptance criteria the spec reviewer checks against. name description verify Shell command that must exit 0 after approval, e.g. 'npm test && npm run lint'.

task: "{{task}}" success_criteria: "{{criteria}}" artifacts:

• name: notes description: Implementation and fix notes from the worker.

• name: spec_verdict description: "Spec compliance verdict: does the implementation match the requirements?" fields: [compliant, gaps]

• name: quality_verdict description: "Code quality verdict: is the implementation well-written?" fields: [approved, issues, fixes]

steps:

• type: action name: implement actor: worker instruction: | {{task}} Write a summary of your changes to the notes artifact. writes: [notes] routes: { done: spec_review }

• type: action name: spec_review actor: reviewer instruction: | Review the implementation for spec compliance only. The requirements are: {{criteria}}

  Read the notes artifact and the actual changed files. Check: does the implementation satisfy every requirement? Ignore code quality — that's a separate review.

  Write a spec_verdict artifact:

  • If compliant: {"compliant": true}
  • If not: {"compliant": false, "gaps": ["requirement X is missing", ...]} reads: [notes] writes: [spec_verdict] routes: approved: quality_review changes_requested: fix

• type: action name: quality_review actor: reviewer instruction: | Review the implementation for code quality only. Spec compliance has already been verified — focus on:

  • Correctness and edge cases
  • Error handling
  • Naming and readability
  • Unnecessary complexity

  Read the notes artifact and the actual changed files.

  Write a quality_verdict artifact:

  • If acceptable: {"approved": true}
  • If not: {"approved": false, "issues": ["..."], "fixes": ["..."]}

  Be specific. Name files, functions, and line numbers. reads: [notes] writes: [quality_verdict] routes: approved: verify changes_requested: fix

• type: action name: fix actor: worker instruction: | Read the spec_verdict and quality_verdict artifacts. Apply every requested change. Update the notes artifact with what you fixed. reads: [spec_verdict, quality_verdict] writes: [notes] routes: { done: spec_review }

• type: command name: verify command: "{{verify}}" on_success: done on_failure: failed

• type: terminal name: done outcome: success summary: "Implemented, reviewed (spec + quality), and verified."

• type: terminal name: failed outcome: failure summary: Verification failed after review approval.