---
docType: review
layer: project
reviewType: tasks
slice: m1-polish-and-publish
project: squadron
verdict: CONCERNS
sourceDocument: project-documents/user/tasks/106-tasks.m1-polish-and-publish.md
aiModel: claude-haiku-4-5-20251001
status: complete
dateCreated: 20260327
dateUpdated: 20260327
---

# Review: tasks — slice 106

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

## Findings

### [CONCERN] Test-With Pattern Partially Violated

**Issue**: Multiple implementation tasks complete before their corresponding tests, violating the strict test-with pattern:

- T2 (keys.py) → T3 (manager.py) → **T4 (tests)** — Implementation spans two tasks before testing
- T8 (verbosity) → T9 (colors) → **T10 (tests)** — Same pattern

**Impact**: While these are grouped by feature (config system, display improvements) and reasonably scoped for commits, they deviate from the stated pattern of "test tasks immediately follow their implementation tasks."

**Severity reasoning**: This is a pattern deviation, not a blocking issue. The tests are run before proceeding to the next feature, so code quality verification is maintained. However, it increases risk if T2 or T3 (or T8 or T9) has bugs—T4's tests won't catch them immediately.

---

### [CONCERN] Subjective Success Criteria for Documentation

**Issue**: Task T17's success criterion states "README enables a new user to install and run their first review in under 5 minutes." This is:
- **Not objectively testable** — completion depends on subjective assessment or requires user testing
- **Not easily verifiable by automated tooling** — unlike the config and verbosity criteria which can be tested programmatically

**Context**: The slice design correctly identifies the README as critical for adoption, but the success criterion lacks measurable specificity. A new user might take 4 minutes or 6 minutes depending on their environment.

---

### [PASS] All Success Criteria Mapped

Every functional and technical requirement from the slice design has one or more corresponding tasks with clear acceptance criteria. No gaps identified.

---

### [PASS] Appropriate Task Scope & Completability

Each task is sized for a junior AI with explicit success criteria (SC:). The largest task (T17, README) is estimated at 2/5 effort in the slice design and includes detailed scope (hero, quickstart, command reference, config section, architecture). No task is too large or too granular.

---

### [PASS] Commit Checkpoints Well-Distributed

Four commit checkpoints (T7, T11, T15, T20) are distributed logically:
- T7: Config system (complete feature)
- T11: Display improvements (complete feature)
- T15: Rules and integration (complete feature)
- T20: Documentation (complete deliverable)

Not batched at the end.

---

### [PASS] No Scope Creep

Tasks T18 (COMMANDS.md) and T19 (TEMPLATES.md) appear in the slice design's "Package Structure" section and are explicitly part of the technical scope. T22 (DEVLOG) follows project guidance per the task description. All tasks trace to slice deliverables.

---

### [PASS] No Blocking Dependencies or Circular Issues

T1 (dependencies) is first; all feature tasks respect implementation → test ordering; commits happen at logical boundaries.

---

### [CONCERN] Test-With Pattern Partially Violated

**Issue**: Multiple implementation tasks complete before their corresponding tests, violating the strict test-with pattern:

- T2 (keys.py) → T3 (manager.py) → **T4 (tests)** — Implementation spans two tasks before testing
- T8 (verbosity) → T9 (colors) → **T10 (tests)** — Same pattern

**Impact**: While these are grouped by feature (config system, display improvements) and reasonably scoped for commits, they deviate from the stated pattern of "test tasks immediately follow their implementation tasks."

**Severity reasoning**: This is a pattern deviation, not a blocking issue. The tests are run before proceeding to the next feature, so code quality verification is maintained. However, it increases risk if T2 or T3 (or T8 or T9) has bugs—T4's tests won't catch them immediately.

---

### [CONCERN] Subjective Success Criteria for Documentation

**Issue**: Task T17's success criterion states "README enables a new user to install and run their first review in under 5 minutes." This is:
- **Not objectively testable** — completion depends on subjective assessment or requires user testing
- **Not easily verifiable by automated tooling** — unlike the config and verbosity criteria which can be tested programmatically

**Context**: The slice design correctly identifies the README as critical for adoption, but the success criterion lacks measurable specificity. A new user might take 4 minutes or 6 minutes depending on their environment.

---

### [PASS] All Success Criteria Mapped

Every functional and technical requirement from the slice design has one or more corresponding tasks with clear acceptance criteria. No gaps identified.

---

### [PASS] Appropriate Task Scope & Completability

Each task is sized for a junior AI with explicit success criteria (SC:). The largest task (T17, README) is estimated at 2/5 effort in the slice design and includes detailed scope (hero, quickstart, command reference, config section, architecture). No task is too large or too granular.

---

### [PASS] Commit Checkpoints Well-Distributed

Four commit checkpoints (T7, T11, T15, T20) are distributed logically:
- T7: Config system (complete feature)
- T11: Display improvements (complete feature)
- T15: Rules and integration (complete feature)
- T20: Documentation (complete deliverable)

Not batched at the end.

---

### [PASS] No Scope Creep

Tasks T18 (COMMANDS.md) and T19 (TEMPLATES.md) appear in the slice design's "Package Structure" section and are explicitly part of the technical scope. T22 (DEVLOG) follows project guidance per the task description. All tasks trace to slice deliverables.

---

### [PASS] No Blocking Dependencies or Circular Issues

T1 (dependencies) is first; all feature tasks respect implementation → test ordering; commits happen at logical boundaries.

---
