---
docType: review
layer: project
reviewType: tasks
slice: review-transport-unification-provider-decoupling
project: squadron
verdict: PASS
sourceDocument: project-documents/user/tasks/128-tasks.review-transport-unification-provider-decoupling.md
aiModel: minimax/minimax-m2.7
status: complete
dateCreated: 20260327
dateUpdated: 20260327
---

# Review: tasks — slice 128

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

## Findings

### [PASS] All success criteria mapped to tasks

Cross-reference confirms:
- Functional: Codex routing (T9/T10), SDK routing (T11/T12), review unification (T13/T14), auth status cleanup (T15/T16), alias addition (T17)
- Technical: ProviderCapabilities (T1/T2), AUTH_STRATEGIES registry (T3/T4), no string dispatch (T3/T13/T15), runner.py deletion (T11), no provider imports in review_client.py (T13)

### [PASS] Test-after pattern consistently followed

Each implementation task has a corresponding test task immediately following it: T1→T2, T3→T4, T5→T6, T7→T8, T9→T10, T11→T12, T13→T14, T15→T16. This ensures tests are written for implementation, not bolted on.

### [PASS] Commits distributed throughout, not batched at end

Nine commits distributed across 19 tasks (T2, T4, T6, T8, T10, T12, T13, T16, T17, T19). Good checkpoint frequency.

### [PASS] Task scoping appropriate

- T1 (ProviderCapabilities): 4 focused checklist items, completable
- T9 (Codex provider): Larger but justified—three new files with protocol implementations and MCP transport
- T13 (review_client unification): Substantial but scoped to a single file rewrite

### [PASS] Dependencies respected

Sequencing is logical: foundational capabilities/auth (T1-T6) → rename (T7-T8) → new codex provider (T9-T10) → SDK migration (T11-T12) → review unification (T13-T14) → CLI cleanup (T15-T16) → aliases (T17) → validation (T18) → docs (T19).

### [CONCERN] Auth type rename visibility

The slice design explicitly specifies renaming `"codex"` auth type → `"oauth"` and `CodexAuthStrategy` → `OAuthFileStrategy`. T5 creates `OAuthFileStrategy` and registers `"oauth"`, but no task explicitly calls out updating the codex profile's `auth_type` field in `profiles.py`. This is technically covered by T5's "Update codex profile in `BUILT_IN_PROFILES`" checklist item, but the naming rename is not made explicit. Consider adding explicit mention of the auth type rename in T5 or T17 to match slice design terminology.

### [CONCERN] End-to-end codex routing not explicitly tested

T10 tests `CodexProvider` and `CodexAgent` unit-level behavior. T14 updates review client tests for SDK and OpenAI profiles but does not explicitly add tests for `sq review code 128 --profile codex` routing through CodexAgent. The functional requirement states: "`sq review code 128 --profile codex` routes through `CodexAgent.handle_message()`". Recommend adding explicit test coverage for codex profile routing in T14.

### [PASS] runner.py deletion properly sequenced

T11 deletes runner.py; T12 migrates its tests. This is correctly ordered and the note about either deleting or emptying test_runner.py with a pointer to the new location is good hygiene.

### [PASS] No scope creep detected

All tasks trace to slice design requirements. No tasks introduce features outside the defined scope (review transport unification, provider decoupling, string dispatch elimination, naming changes).

### [PASS] Full validation pass covers regression

T18 explicitly checks for regressions including SDK/ClaudeSDKClient imports removed, no string dispatch in review_client.py and auth.py, runner.py deleted, and provider registration working. This provides confidence that behavioral regressions would be caught.
