---
docType: review
layer: project
reviewType: tasks
slice: dispatch-action
project: squadron
verdict: CONCERNS
sourceDocument: project-documents/user/tasks/145-tasks.dispatch-action.md
aiModel: minimax/minimax-m2.7
status: complete
dateCreated: 20260331
dateUpdated: 20260331
---

# Review: tasks — slice 145

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

## Findings

### [CONCERN] Missing `action_type` field in ActionResult return

The slice design's implementation code shows `ActionResult` being constructed with `action_type=self.action_type`:
```python
return ActionResult(
    success=True,
    action_type=self.action_type,
    outputs={"response": response_text},
    metadata={...},
)
```
However, T3's task description does not include `action_type=self.action_type` in the result. The task only specifies:
> `return ActionResult(success=True, outputs={"response": text}, metadata={...})`

This discrepancy means either the slice design has extra fields not in the actual API, or T3's implementation is incomplete. If `ActionResult` supports `action_type`, this field should be added to T3's specification.

### [PASS] All success criteria traced

All 17 success criteria from the slice design (12 functional + 5 technical) are covered by corresponding tasks:
- Protocol compliance → T4
- `action_type` → T3 + T4
- `validate()` error on missing prompt → T3 + T4
- `validate()` empty list on valid config → T3 + T4
- Model resolution → T3 + T4
- Profile resolution with override → T3 + T4
- Agent dispatch → T3 + T4
- SDK deduplication → T3 + T4
- Token metadata → T3 + T4
- Agent shutdown → T3 + T4
- Error handling (never raises) → T3 + T4
- Auto-registration → T3 + T5
- pyright clean → T6
- ruff clean → T6
- Existing tests pass → T6
- External boundaries mocked → T4
- Provider loader extraction → T1 + T2

### [PASS] Test-with pattern followed

T1 (extract) → T2 (test) → T3 (implement) → T4 (test) → T5 (integration) → T6 (verification). Proper sequential pattern maintained with no gaps.

### [PASS] No scope creep detected

All tasks trace to slice design requirements or supporting infrastructure. T1/T2 (provider loader extraction) are explicitly called out in slice design's "Implementation Details > Provider Loading" section as option 1. No tasks reference future slice concerns like multi-turn conversations, streaming, or retry logic.

### [PASS] No gaps detected

No success criteria lack corresponding tasks.

### [PASS] Task sequencing is correct

Dependencies flow properly: T1/T2 (provider loader) → T3/T4 (dispatch action) → T5 (integration) → T6 (verification). No circular dependencies.

### [PASS] Commit checkpoints distributed appropriately

Six distinct commits spread across six tasks, avoiding the anti-pattern of batching commits at the end.

### [PASS] Task sizing appropriate

Tasks T3 and T4 are comprehensive but appropriately scoped given the complexity of implementing a pipeline-to-LLM interface with full error handling, mocking requirements, and metadata capture. The checkboxes within tasks provide sufficient granularity for a junior AI to execute incrementally.
