---
docType: review
reviewType: tasks
slice: model-alias-registry
project: squadron
verdict: PASS
dateCreated: 20260321
dateUpdated: 20260321
---

# Review: tasks — slice 120

**Verdict:** PASS
**Model:** opus

## Findings

### [PASS] Success criteria coverage

Every functional and technical success criterion from the slice design maps to one or more tasks:
- Alias resolution → T6, T8
- User TOML loading/override/graceful missing → T6, T7
- `_infer_profile_from_model()` removal → T8
- Content injection (non-SDK) → T11
- Code review diff/files injection → T14
- `sq model list` → T17
- Rename `review arch` → `review slice` → T1-T3
- Backward-compat deprecated alias → T2, T4
- Slash command rename → T3
- Slash command documentation update → T20
- SDK regression → T21
- Size limits (100KB/500KB) → T11, T12
- Linting/typing/formatting → checked per task + T21

No success criterion is missing a corresponding task.

### [PASS] Sequencing and dependencies

Dependencies are correctly ordered: rename (T1-T5) → alias registry (T6-T10) → content injection (T11-T16) → CLI model list (T17-T19) → docs/validation (T20-T22). No circular dependencies. The rename comes first so subsequent tasks reference the correct `slice` naming.

### [PASS] Test-with pattern

Every implementation task is immediately followed by its test task: T1-T3/T4, T6/T7, T8/T9, T11/T12, T14/T15, T17/T18. This is correctly applied throughout.

### [PASS] Commit checkpoint distribution

Six commits (T5, T10, T13, T16, T19, T22) are evenly distributed after each logical unit of work. No batching at end.

### [PASS] Task granularity

Tasks are neither too large nor too granular. Each implementation task has a clear, bounded scope (single file or closely related files) with explicit sub-steps. A junior AI can complete any individual task without needing to understand the entire system.

### [CONCERN] T20 has no tests

T20 updates four slash command markdown files to document `--model` alias support, but there are no corresponding tests. While markdown documentation updates typically don't need unit tests, the install-commands test (`test_install_commands.py`) already validates expected files. If any slash command files gain new names or structural changes, this could break silently.

**Mitigation:** T21's full `uv run pytest` run covers this — the existing `test_install_commands.py` will catch file-level issues. Content accuracy is covered by the post-implementation manual tests. Severity is low.

### [CONCERN] No task explicitly tests `--model` flag end-to-end through `_run_non_sdk_review()`

T9 tests alias wiring in `_run_review_command()` (mocking `_execute_review`), and T12 tests `_inject_file_contents()` in isolation. However, no task explicitly tests the integration point where alias resolution feeds into non-SDK review which then injects content — the full path from `--model kimi25` through to an enriched prompt reaching the API call.

**Mitigation:** This is deferred to the post-implementation manual tests (live tests section), which is reasonable given that true end-to-end tests would require API keys. The unit-level coverage at each seam is adequate.

### [PASS] No scope creep

Every task traces directly to a success criterion or a supporting technical requirement from the slice design. No extraneous features or unrelated refactoring is included.
