---
docType: review
layer: project
reviewType: tasks
slice: compact-action-and-step-types
project: squadron
verdict: CONCERNS
sourceDocument: project-documents/user/tasks/147-tasks.compact-action-and-step-types.md
aiModel: claude-haiku-4-5-20251001
status: complete
dateCreated: 20260402
dateUpdated: 20260402
---

# Review: tasks — slice 147

**Verdict:** CONCERNS
**Model:** claude-haiku-4-5-20251001

## Findings

### [CONCERN] Compact action `template` parameter not listed in design's validation table

**Reference:** Slice design line 219 (validation table) vs. Tasks line 52 (T2 validation)

The task (T2, line 52) specifies validation for an optional `template` string parameter on CompactAction, but the design's official validation table (line 219) does not list `template` as an optional config field—only `keep` and `summarize` are listed. 

While the design's decision section (line 191) mentions "defaulting to `default`" for template loading, this doesn't explicitly establish `template` as a user-configurable parameter. This creates ambiguity: is `template` an intended feature or overly defensive validation?

**Impact:** Low. The CompactStepType will pass through any config keys (T6, line 155), so the param works either way. But it should be explicitly documented in the design's validation table if intentional.

---

### [CONCERN] CompactAction execute specification incomplete for `template` parameter

**Reference:** Tasks T2 lines 54-60 (execute spec) and line 52 (validate spec)

T2's `validate()` method checks the `template` parameter (line 52: "If `template` is present, validate it is a string"), but the `execute()` specification (lines 54-60) makes no mention of using this parameter if provided. The spec only says "defaulting to `"default"`" without any conditional logic to use `context.params["template"]` if available.

This creates a specification gap: validated input is not consumed in the implementation.

**Impact:** Medium. If users can pass a `template` param through CompactStepType (T6, line 155), the CompactAction should use it. Otherwise, why validate it?

---

### [CONCERN] Compact action `keep` parameter validation omits semantic/whitelist check required by design

**Reference:** Slice design line 193 vs. Tasks T2 line 50 and T3 test spec

The design explicitly requires: "Validate `keep` values against a known set of artifact names" (line 193 in Technical Decisions).

However:
- T2 (line 50) only validates `keep` is a list of strings: "If `keep` is present, validate it is a list of strings"
- T3's test spec (lines 72-84) contains no test for whitelist validation

This validates the *structure* but not the *semantics*—invalid artifact names would be silently accepted. SC2 does permit this as a minimum ("at minimum"), but the design specification requires more.

**Impact:** Medium. Allows invalid configs to pass validation. The design anticipates a specific set of artifacts to preserve, but T2 doesn't enforce it. This could be deferred to slice 151 (per design line 195: "instructions will be refined during end-to-end pipeline testing"), but should be noted.

---

### [PASS] Complete coverage of all success criteria

**Reference:** Slice design lines 237-258 vs. all tasks

Every success criterion maps to one or more tasks:
- SC1-2 (Compact action functionality): T2, T3
- SC3-6 (Phase step type): T4, T5  
- SC7 (Compact step type): T6, T7
- SC8 (Review step type): T8, T9
- SC9 (Devlog step type): T10, T11
- SC10-11 (Validation, registration): All implementation + T12
- SC12-17 (Tests, code quality): T12, T13

No gaps identified.

---

### [PASS] Proper task sequencing and dependency chain

**Reference:** Task file ordering (T1 through T13)

- T1 (template) → T2 (compact action) correctly sequences template creation before usage
- Test-with pattern observed: implementation immediately followed by tests (T2→T3, T4→T5, etc.)
- Registry tests (T12) correctly depend on all step type/action implementations (T2, T4, T6, T8, T10)
- Final verification (T13) properly positioned at end
- No circular dependencies

---

### [PASS] All tasks appropriately scoped

**Reference:** All 13 tasks

No tasks are too large (requiring splitting) or too granular (requiring merging):
- Implementation tasks are single-component focused (one action or one step type)
- Test tasks are paired with their implementations  
- Registry and verification tasks have appropriate scope
- Each task has a specific, clear commit point

---

### [PASS] Commit checkpoints well-distributed throughout

**Reference:** Task file commit specifications (lines 41, 66, 86, 120, 141, 159, 174, 194, 209, 228, 246, 270, 292)

All 13 tasks include explicit commit messages. Commits are distributed evenly (one per task), not batched at the end. This follows best practices for incremental, reviewable changes.

---

### [PASS] "Each" step type exclusion appropriately acknowledged

**Reference:** Slice design line 250 note vs. Tasks T12 line 259

SC12 mentions testing for "each" step type with a note that it's registered in slice 149. T12 correctly tests for only the 6 step types in scope (design, tasks, implement, compact, review, devlog), respecting the documented exclusion. No false expectation created.
