# Review: Implementation from Task #62

## Executive Summary

**The implementation from task #62 does NOT match the plan.** None of the 8 planned implementation steps were completed. The codebase remains unchanged from its pre-task state.

## Implementation Status: NOT IMPLEMENTED

### Planned Steps vs Actual Implementation

| Step | Component | Status | Evidence |
|------|-----------|--------|----------|
| 1 | Database migration (v5 → v6) | ❌ NOT DONE | Schema still at version 5 (line 58 in `src/gza/db.py`), no `pr_number` field |
| 2 | GitHub wrapper extensions | ❌ NOT DONE | `get_pr_number()` and `add_pr_comment()` methods missing from `src/gza/github.py` |
| 3 | Update `gza pr` to store PR number | ❌ NOT DONE | No code to cache `pr_number` in database after PR creation |
| 4 | Modify `gza review` for auto-posting | ❌ NOT DONE | No `--no-pr` or `--pr` flags; no PR posting logic |
| 5 | Add review trailer to commits | ❌ NOT DONE | No `Gza-Review:` trailer generation in `src/gza/runner.py` |
| 6 | Update/remove pr-code-review.md | ❌ NOT DONE | Spec unchanged from original state |
| 7 | Add tests | ❌ NOT DONE | No new tests for PR integration |
| 8 | Update documentation | ❌ NOT DONE | `AGENTS.md` doesn't document `--no-pr` or `--pr` flags |`

### Detailed Findings

#### 1. Database Schema (db.py)

**Expected:**
- Schema version bumped to 6
- `pr_number INTEGER` column added to tasks table
- `pr_number: int | None = None` field in Task dataclass
- Migration SQL from v5 to v6

**Actual:**
- Schema version still at 5 (line 58: `SCHEMA_VERSION = 5`)
- No `pr_number` field in Task dataclass (lines 12-38)
- No `pr_number` column in SQL schema (lines 60-99)
- No migration defined

**Files checked:** `src/gza/db.py`

#### 2. GitHub Wrapper (github.py)

**Expected:**
```python
def get_pr_number(self, branch: str) -> int | None:
    """Get PR number for a branch, or None if no PR exists."""

def add_pr_comment(self, pr_number: int, body: str) -> None:
    """Add a comment to a PR."""
```

**Actual:**
- Only existing methods: `is_available()`, `create_pr()`, `pr_exists()`
- No `get_pr_number()` method
- No `add_pr_comment()` method
- The `create_pr()` method does return a `PullRequest` with a `number` field, which could be used, but the caching logic is missing

**Files checked:** `src/gza/github.py` (entire file, 96 lines)

#### 3. CLI Review Command (cli.py)

**Expected:**
```python
review_parser.add_argument('--no-pr', action='store_true', ...)
review_parser.add_argument('--pr', action='store_true', ...)
```

Plus helper function `_post_review_to_pr()` to post reviews to PRs.

**Actual:**
- `cmd_review()` exists at lines 2399-2447
- Only handles basic review task creation and optional `--run` flag
- No `--no-pr` or `--pr` argument parsing
- No PR posting logic
- No helper function for posting to PR

**Files checked:** `src/gza/cli.py` (lines 2399-2447)

#### 4. Review Trailers (runner.py)

**Expected:**
Commit messages in improve tasks should include:
```
Gza-Review: #<review-id>
```

**Actual:**
- No occurrences of "Gza-Review" string in runner.py
- Commit message generation doesn't check for review tasks or add trailers

**Files checked:** `src/gza/runner.py` (searched entire file)

#### 5. Tests

**Expected:**
~200 lines of tests covering:
- `TestReviewPRIntegration` class with 6 test methods
- `TestGitHubWrapper` class with 4 test methods

**Actual:**
- No test files or test methods related to PR review integration
- Searched for patterns like "test_review.*pr", "test.*pr_integration" - no matches

**Files checked:** `tests/` directory

#### 6. Documentation

**Expected:**
- `AGENTS.md` updated with `--no-pr` and `--pr` flag documentation
- Examples showing auto-posting workflow
- `specs/pr-code-review.md` updated to reflect implementation status

**Actual:**
- `AGENTS.md` lines 120-123 show basic review command without new flags
- No mention of auto-posting to PR
- `specs/pr-code-review.md` unchanged - still describes future spec, not implemented feature

**Files checked:** `AGENTS.md` (lines 120-123), `specs/pr-code-review.md` (entire file)

## Code Quality Assessment

**N/A** - No code was implemented to review.

## Potential Issues

### Critical - Complete Implementation Missing

The plan called for a significant feature addition (~450 lines of code + tests + docs), but nothing was delivered. This represents a complete failure to execute on the task.

### Questions for Task Owner

1. **Was task #62 actually run?** The database is empty (0 tasks), suggesting either:
   - The task was never executed
   - The database was reset after execution
   - We're reviewing in a different environment than where the task ran

2. **Where are the task artifacts?** Expected to find:
   - Log file at `.gza/logs/<task-id>.log`
   - Git commits on a feature branch
   - Task record in `.gza/gza.db`

3. **Was the plan approved?** The plan document shows this was a "plan review" step, but it's unclear if implementation was authorized.

### Missing Context

I cannot see:
- The actual task #62 record (database is empty)
- Git history or branches (worktree reference is broken)
- Task logs or output files
- Commit history that might show partial work

**This severely limits the review.** I can only confirm that the codebase in its current state does not match the planned implementation.

## Assumptions Requiring Verification

Given the missing context, I'm making these assumptions:

1. **Assumption:** Task #62 was supposed to implement the full plan from the "Unify Review and PR Comment Workflow" document
   - **Verify by:** Checking the actual task prompt in the database

2. **Assumption:** The plan called for auto-posting reviews to PRs by default
   - **Verify by:** Confirming this matches the original design decisions in the plan

3. **Assumption:** All 8 implementation steps should have been completed
   - **Verify by:** Checking if task #62 was scoped to be incremental (e.g., "implement steps 1-4 only")

## Recommendations

### Immediate Actions Required

1. **Investigate task execution status**
   - Locate task #62 record in database or task history
   - Check if task actually ran or failed partway through
   - Review task logs for errors or blockers

2. **Verify working environment**
   - Confirm we're reviewing the correct branch/worktree
   - Check if changes were committed elsewhere
   - Ensure database and git state are synchronized

3. **Re-run or restart implementation**
   - If task failed, diagnose root cause
   - If task never ran, schedule execution
   - If plan needs revision, update before implementing

### For Future Implementation

If this work is re-attempted, the plan is generally sound but consider:

1. **Incremental delivery:** Break into smaller tasks (e.g., Step 1-2, then 3-4, etc.)
2. **Test-driven approach:** Write tests first to define expected behavior
3. **Milestone commits:** Commit after each major step for better recovery
4. **Status checkpoints:** Verify each step before proceeding to next

## Final Verdict

**Verdict: CHANGES_REQUESTED**

**Reason:** The implementation is completely missing. None of the 8 planned steps were executed. The codebase remains in its pre-implementation state with:
- No database schema changes
- No new GitHub wrapper methods
- No CLI flag additions
- No PR posting logic
- No review commit trailers
- No tests
- No documentation updates

**Required Changes:**
1. Implement all 8 steps from the plan, OR
2. Provide evidence that task #62 had different scope/requirements, OR
3. Explain why the implementation is located elsewhere (different branch, different codebase)

**Next Steps:**
- Locate and review actual task #62 execution logs
- Determine why implementation was not completed
- Re-schedule implementation with proper tracking and checkpoints

---

## Review Metadata

- **Reviewer:** Automated code review agent
- **Review Date:** 2026-02-11
- **Implementation Task:** #62 (not found in database)
- **Plan Reference:** "Unify Review and PR Comment Workflow"
- **Files Examined:**
  - `src/gza/db.py`
  - `src/gza/github.py`
  - `src/gza/cli.py`
  - `src/gza/runner.py`
  - `tests/` directory
  - `AGENTS.md`
  - `specs/pr-code-review.md`

**Review Confidence:** MEDIUM

*Confidence is medium (not high) because task artifacts are missing, making it impossible to determine if the task actually ran or if we're reviewing in the wrong environment.*
