---
docType: review
reviewType: slice
slice: cli-foundation
project: squadron
verdict: PASS
dateCreated: 20260323
dateUpdated: 20260323
---

# Review: slice — slice 103

**Verdict:** PASS
**Model:** minimax/minimax-m2.7

## Findings

### [PASS] Architectural Goal Alignment

The slice correctly implements the CLI as the "primary development and experimentation interface" as stated in the architecture. The four commands (spawn, list, task, shutdown) provide the fastest path to experimentation. Typer is used as the architecture specifies, and the `orchestration` entry point is correctly named. The slice delivers the stated M1 value: a developer can spawn an SDK agent, give it a task, and see structured output from the terminal.

### [PASS] Layer Responsibility

The CLI correctly operates as a thin interface layer. The documented component interaction confirms proper layering:

```
CLI → AgentRegistry → AgentProvider Protocol → SDKAgentProvider → Claude
```

The CLI does not import SDK provider internals directly — it goes through the registry. This respects the architecture's key invariant: "the core engine never depends on provider internals."

### [PASS] Dependency Direction

Declared dependencies are correct:
- **Foundation**: For `AgentConfig`, `AgentState`, `Message`, error types (`ProviderError`, `ProviderAuthError`)
- **SDK Agent Provider**: Assumes `"sdk"` provider is registered in the provider registry
- **Agent Registry (slice 102)**: Primary runtime dependency for `get_registry()`, `spawn()`, `get()`, `list_agents()`, `shutdown_agent()`, `shutdown_all()`

No backward dependencies or hidden dependencies detected. The `asyncio.run()` bridge pattern for synchronous Typer → async registry calls is appropriate for a CLI tool that doesn't need a persistent event loop.

### [PASS] Scope Boundaries

The Excluded section correctly identifies features deferred to future slices:
- `chat` command → slice 6+ (requires message bus)
- `observe` command → slice 8 (multi-agent routing)
- `pool` command → slice 5 (warm pool management)
- `review` command → slice 15 (templates)
- `workflow` commands → slice 12 (ADK integration)
- Streaming output for `task` → slice 9 (human-in-the-loop)
- Configuration file support → deferred as enhancement

This alignment prevents scope creep. Each deferred feature has a clear future slice assignment.

### [PASS] Integration Points

The "Provides to Other Slices" section correctly documents:
- **Slice 5 (Warm Pool)**: `spawn` command unchanged — pool optimization is transparent behind registry
- **Slice 15 (Review)**: `review` command composes `spawn` + `task` with templates
- **Slice 9 (HITL)**: `chat` command requires message bus (slice 6)
- **Slice 8 (Multi-Agent)**: `observe` command for watching conversations
- **Slice 17 (E2E)**: CLI commands are primary test surface

These integration points are correctly scoped to what each consuming slice expects from the CLI.

### [PASS] Project Structure Alignment

The package structure matches the architecture's specified layout:

Architecture specifies:
```
src/orchestration/cli/                   # CLI Interface
│   ├── app.py            # typer app
│   └── commands/
```

Slice implements:
```
src/orchestration/cli/
├── __init__.py
├── app.py               # Typer app definition
└── commands/
    ├── __init__.py
    ├── spawn.py
    ├── list.py
    ├── task.py
    └── shutdown.py
```

This is consistent with the architecture's prescribed structure.

### [CONCERN] Typer Entry Point Name

The architecture's project structure shows `sq` as the CLI command (via `squadron/` root and `sq` references in infrastructure section), while the slice uses `orchestration` as the entry point name. The architecture states:

> **Local development** — `sq` CLI commands. No build step, no bundling.

However, the architecture also shows the app at `src/orchestration/cli/` with entry point `app.py`, and the architecture is for `squadron/orchestration`. The `orchestration` entry point name may be intentional to differentiate from future commands. This is a minor concern — clarification would help ensure consistency with user expectations, but it doesn't constitute an architectural violation.

### [PASS] Technical Decisions

- **Error handling**: User-friendly messages for known exceptions without stack traces aligns with developer-experience goals
- **Output formatting**: Rich tables for `list`, styled output for `task`, appropriate coloring by state
- **Testing strategy**: CliRunner with mocked registry at unit level, integration smoke test without SDK — this is the correct testing pyramid for an interface layer
- **Async pattern**: `asyncio.run()` per command is appropriate; alternative (`anyio.from_thread.run`) would be unnecessary complexity
