---
docType: review
reviewType: tasks
slice: scoped-code-review-prompt-logging
project: squadron
verdict: PASS
dateCreated: 20260325
dateUpdated: 20260325
---

# Review: tasks — slice 127

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

## Findings

### [PASS] All success criteria are covered

Each functional and technical requirement from the slice design has a corresponding task or set of tasks:
- **Criteria 1-4 (scoped diff):** T1, T2, T3, T4, T11, T12
- **Criteria 5-6 (prompt log):** T7, T8, T9, T10
- **Criteria 7-8 (debug appendix):** T5, T6, T13, T14
- **Criteria 9 (--diff override):** T11
- **Criteria 10 (JSON exclusion):** T5, T6
- **Technical requirements:** T4, T8, T14, T15

### [PASS] No scope creep detected

All tasks map to features described in the slice design. Tasks T15 and T16 (validation pass, documentation) are standard slice completion tasks and appropriate.

### [PASS] Task sequencing is correct

Implementation → Test pattern is consistently followed:
- T1→T4 (git_utils functions → tests)
- T5→T6 (ReviewResult fields → tests)
- T7→T8 (_write_prompt_log → tests)
- T9→T10 (wiring → tests)
- T11→T12 (scoped diff → tests)
- T13→T14 (debug appendix → tests)

### [PASS] No circular dependencies

Each task depends only on completed state (referenced in `projectState`), not on other tasks in this slice.

### [PASS] Tasks are appropriately sized

All tasks are completable by a junior AI with clear success criteria. Each task has specific:
- Implementation steps (checkboxes)
- Success criteria statement
- Quality gate (`pyright`/`ruff`/`pytest`)

### [PASS] Test-with pattern is followed

All test tasks immediately follow their implementation counterparts (T4 after T3, T6 after T5, etc.).

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

Commit points are placed appropriately after each feature cluster (T4, T6, T8, T10, T12, T14, T15, T16), not batched at the end.

### [CONCERN] Missing integration test for new git_utils with mocked git

**Description:** The slice design's "Implementation Details" section includes a suggested "Integration test: end-to-end with mocked git commands" but this is not explicitly captured as a task. T15 runs existing tests, but doesn't specifically validate the new `git_utils.py` functions in an integrated context.

**Impact:** Low. T4 provides unit test coverage with mocked subprocess calls. T11-T12 validate the wiring into `review_code()`. The concern is that the integration between git_utils and the CLI isn't explicitly tested with a mocked git environment.

**Recommendation:** Consider adding a test within T12 (or a new T12b) that patches `_find_slice_branch`, `_find_merge_commit`, and `resolve_slice_diff_range` with realistic git-like outputs and verifies the final diff value passed to the underlying review logic. However, T4's subprocess mocking and T11-T12's wiring tests provide reasonable coverage, so this is a minor gap rather than a failure.

### [PASS] T6 test file location is slightly ambiguous

**Description:** T6 says "In `tests/review/test_parsers.py` (or appropriate existing test file)". The ambiguity is resolved by the parenthetical, but `test_parsers.py` seems like an odd location for `ReviewResult` model tests — `test_models.py` would be more conventional.

**Impact:** Minor. The task acknowledges the ambiguity and defers to developer judgment.

**Recommendation:** If `tests/review/test_models.py` or `tests/review/test_review_result.py` exists, use that instead. If not, `test_parsers.py` is acceptable.

---
