---
docType: review
layer: project
reviewType: slice
slice: command-surface-parity
project: squadron
verdict: CONCERNS
sourceDocument: project-documents/user/slices/140-slice.command-surface-parity.md
aiModel: claude-haiku-4-5-20251001
status: complete
dateCreated: 20260328
dateUpdated: 20260328
---

# Review: slice — slice 140

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

## Findings

### [CONCERN] Architecture review template (`arch.yaml`) creation is unaddressed

The parent slice plan (140-slices.pipeline-foundation.md, line 19) explicitly states this slice should:
> "Add `sq review arch` command and `/sq:review arch` slash command for architecture reviews (template/prompt driven, same pattern as existing review types — `arch.yaml` template in `builtin/`)"

The slice document correctly adds the `/sq:review arch` slash command wrapper (lines 31, 66, 94), but:

1. Does not mention creating an `arch.yaml` template file
2. Explicitly places "Review template or pipeline changes" in the Out of Scope section (line 42)

If the template already exists (since the CLI command `sq review arch` already exists in v0.2.11), this should be stated explicitly. If it needs to be created, it should either be in-scope for this slice or clearly attributed to another slice (e.g., slice 141 Configuration Externalization). The omission creates ambiguity about a component listed in the slice plan.

---

### [CONCERN] Conditional `/sq:run` handling diverges from slice plan's stated commitment

The slice plan (140-slices.pipeline-foundation.md, line 19) lists "Add `/sq:run` slash command" as a definite slice 140 deliverable, with unconditional language.

The slice document (line 35, 99-101) treats `/sq:run` creation as conditional:
> "port to `run.md` (dispatching on `$ARGUMENTS` starting with `slice`) if straightforward; otherwise add deprecation notice pointing to future `sq run`"

This is pragmatic scope management given that the actual `sq run` CLI implementation happens in slice 151, but it represents a deferral/downgrade from the slice plan's framing. The success criteria (line 121) states "or `/sq:run-slice` has visible deprecation notice" — indicating uncertainty about whether `/sq:run` will actually be created. This should be clarified: is `/sq:run` a committed deliverable or conditional?

---

### [PASS] Slash command architecture follows established patterns without boundary violations

The slice applies the `cf/prompt.md` dispatching pattern (single file, first-argument subcommand routing) to `/sq:review` and `/sq:auth`. This pattern is proven, idiomatic, and operates entirely within the slash command layer. The architecture document (Pipeline Foundation) defines Python CLI commands and execution logic; this slice defines Claude Code slash command wrappers. No architectural boundaries are violated.

---

### [PASS] Dependencies and sequencing are correct

The slice correctly lists `dependencies: [100-band-complete]`. The slice plan sequences it first in initiative 140 precisely because it depends only on completed 100-band work (review system, CLI framework, auth mechanisms). The interfaces declaration points to slice 151 (CLI Integration), which is the correct integration point—that's when `/sq:run` becomes a real CLI command that needs a slash command wrapper. No hidden or incorrect dependencies.

---

### [PASS] Install-commands cleanup correctly bounds the scope of file deletions

The fix to `install_commands()` to remove stale files on reinstall is a necessary operational consequence of command consolidation. Without it, hyphenated command files would orphan themselves. The scope is appropriately bounded to the `sq/` directory, and the solution cites prior art (`daec117` in context-forge). This stays within the CLI commands layer and does not introduce architectural coupling.

---

### [PASS] Out-of-scope clarifications are appropriate

The slice correctly excludes "CLI command changes" (already correctly named in v0.2.11), "`/sq:run` full implementation" (deferred to slice 151), and "review template or pipeline changes." This prevents scope creep into the pipeline foundation work and keeps the slice focused on command surface unification. The fallback strategy for `run-slice.md` (port or deprecate) is sound.Based on my analysis, I'll now provide my architectural review. The documents show there's already a prior review, but let me conduct my own independent evaluation.

### [CONCERN] Architecture review template (`arch.yaml`) creation is unaddressed

The parent slice plan (140-slices.pipeline-foundation.md, line 19) explicitly states this slice should:
> "Add `sq review arch` command and `/sq:review arch` slash command for architecture reviews (template/prompt driven, same pattern as existing review types — `arch.yaml` template in `builtin/`)"

The slice document correctly adds the `/sq:review arch` slash command wrapper (lines 31, 66, 94), but:

1. Does not mention creating an `arch.yaml` template file
2. Explicitly places "Review template or pipeline changes" in the Out of Scope section (line 42)

If the template already exists (since the CLI command `sq review arch` already exists in v0.2.11), this should be stated explicitly. If it needs to be created, it should either be in-scope for this slice or clearly attributed to another slice (e.g., slice 141 Configuration Externalization). The omission creates ambiguity about a component listed in the slice plan.

---

### [CONCERN] Conditional `/sq:run` handling diverges from slice plan's stated commitment

The slice plan (140-slices.pipeline-foundation.md, line 19) lists "Add `/sq:run` slash command" as a definite slice 140 deliverable, with unconditional language.

The slice document (line 35, 99-101) treats `/sq:run` creation as conditional:
> "port to `run.md` (dispatching on `$ARGUMENTS` starting with `slice`) if straightforward; otherwise add deprecation notice pointing to future `sq run`"

This is pragmatic scope management given that the actual `sq run` CLI implementation happens in slice 151, but it represents a deferral/downgrade from the slice plan's framing. The success criteria (line 121) states "or `/sq:run-slice` has visible deprecation notice" — indicating uncertainty about whether `/sq:run` will actually be created. This should be clarified: is `/sq:run` a committed deliverable or conditional?

---

### [PASS] Slash command architecture follows established patterns without boundary violations

The slice applies the `cf/prompt.md` dispatching pattern (single file, first-argument subcommand routing) to `/sq:review` and `/sq:auth`. This pattern is proven, idiomatic, and operates entirely within the slash command layer. The architecture document (Pipeline Foundation) defines Python CLI commands and execution logic; this slice defines Claude Code slash command wrappers. No architectural boundaries are violated.

---

### [PASS] Dependencies and sequencing are correct

The slice correctly lists `dependencies: [100-band-complete]`. The slice plan sequences it first in initiative 140 precisely because it depends only on completed 100-band work (review system, CLI framework, auth mechanisms). The interfaces declaration points to slice 151 (CLI Integration), which is the correct integration point—that's when `/sq:run` becomes a real CLI command that needs a slash command wrapper. No hidden or incorrect dependencies.

---

### [PASS] Install-commands cleanup correctly bounds the scope of file deletions

The fix to `install_commands()` to remove stale files on reinstall is a necessary operational consequence of command consolidation. Without it, hyphenated command files would orphan themselves. The scope is appropriately bounded to the `sq/` directory, and the solution cites prior art (`daec117` in context-forge). This stays within the CLI commands layer and does not introduce architectural coupling.

---

### [PASS] Out-of-scope clarifications are appropriate

The slice correctly excludes "CLI command changes" (already correctly named in v0.2.11), "`/sq:run` full implementation" (deferred to slice 151), and "review template or pipeline changes." This prevents scope creep into the pipeline foundation work and keeps the slice focused on command surface unification. The fallback strategy for `run-slice.md` (port or deprecate) is sound.
