---
docType: review
layer: project
reviewType: slice
slice: review-and-checkpoint-actions
project: squadron
verdict: PASS
sourceDocument: project-documents/user/slices/146-slice.review-and-checkpoint-actions.md
aiModel: claude-haiku-4-5-20251001
status: complete
dateCreated: 20260331
dateUpdated: 20260331
---

# Review: slice — slice 146

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

## Findings

### [PASS] Core action implementations follow architecture protocol

The slice correctly implements two core action types (`review` and `checkpoint`) as specified in the architecture's action registry (arch §102-110). Both classes satisfy the `Action` protocol with proper `action_type`, `execute()`, and `validate()` implementations. Registration pattern matches the architecture's extensibility design (arch §114-116).

### [PASS] Responsibility decomposition aligns with architectural guidance

The checkpoint action's design—returning data for the executor to serialize and CLI to present—directly aligns with the architecture's risk mitigation strategy (arch §574-581), which explicitly states: "checkpoint action defines what data the executor needs to pause and resume" and recommends keeping the action "simple and data-oriented." Design decision #4 (§177-182) provides sound justification for this separation.

### [PASS] Model resolution correctly implements cascade chain

Both actions use `context.resolver.resolve()` following the architecture's 5-level cascade pattern (arch §120-130). The review action's model resolution (§235-246) mirrors the dispatch action's pattern (slice 145), ensuring consistency across pipeline actions.

### [PASS] Structured findings integration properly scoped

The review action correctly depends on slice 143 (Structured Review Findings, confirmed complete) and produces `ActionResult.verdict` and `ActionResult.findings` as required by the architecture (arch §371-410). The slice preserves structured findings for convergence loop consumption (160 scope, arch §689-707), properly deferring convergence logic per architectural 140/160 split.

### [PASS] Dependencies and integration points are explicit and correct

The slice declares dependencies [143, 145, 142] and interface consumers [147, 149, 150, 160], all of which match expected architecture relationships:
- Provides to **147** (Step Types): Phase steps compose review and checkpoint actions (arch §241-244)
- Provides to **149** (Executor): Checkpoint `outputs["checkpoint"]` is interpreted by executor (arch §574-576)
- Provides to **150** (State & Resume): Checkpoint results feed state persistence
- Provides to **160** (Convergence): Structured findings enable cross-iteration matching

### [PASS] Review persistence ownership correctly identified

The architecture's core action types table (arch §102-110) explicitly lists `review` action as owning "file persistence, output format." The slice's design decision #3 (§173-176) correctly identifies this responsibility and plans extraction of persistence logic from CLI to a shared module, maintaining clean separation between pipeline actions and CLI concerns.

### [PASS] Error handling follows established action patterns

All error scenarios (template not found, model resolution failure, review execution error, file persistence failure) return `ActionResult(success=False)` without raising exceptions, matching the dispatch action pattern and enabling proper error handling in the executor layer. Non-fatal errors (file persistence) are explicitly logged but don't block the action result.

### [PASS] Validation requirements are complete and testable

Both actions define clear validation rules with concrete error cases:
- Review: `template` required, `cwd` required
- Checkpoint: `trigger` optional with enum validation
Success criteria (§463-517) are specific, testable, and include verification walkthroughs with executable code snippets.

---

## Debug: Prompt & Response

### System Prompt

You are an architectural reviewer. Your task is to evaluate whether a design
document aligns with a parent architecture document and its stated goals.

Evaluation criteria:
- Alignment with stated architectural goals and principles
- Violations of architectural boundaries or layer responsibilities
- Scope creep beyond what the architecture defines
- Dependency directions are correct
- Integration points match what consuming/providing slices expect
- Common antipatterns: over-engineering, under-specification, hidden dependencies

Important context:
- The `parent` field in slice frontmatter refers to the slice plan document,
  not the architecture document. Do not flag this as an error.

CRITICAL: Your verdict and findings MUST be consistent.
- If verdict is CONCERNS or FAIL, include at least one finding with that severity.
- If no CONCERN or FAIL findings exist, verdict MUST be PASS.
- Every finding MUST use the exact format: ### [SEVERITY] Title

Report your findings using severity levels:

## Summary
[overall assessment: PASS | CONCERNS | FAIL]

## Findings

### [PASS|CONCERN|FAIL] Finding title
Description with specific references.


### User Prompt

Review the following document for architectural alignment:

**Input document:** project-documents/user/slices/146-slice.review-and-checkpoint-actions.md
**Architecture document:** project-documents/user/architecture/140-arch.pipeline-foundation.md

Read both documents, then evaluate the input against the architecture.
Follow referenced files as needed to understand dependencies and integration points.
Report your findings using the severity format described in your instructions.


### Rules Injected

None

### Raw Response

I'll review the slice document against the architecture document. Let me start by reading both files.Using tool: ReadUsing tool: ReadLet me check the correct paths:Using tool: BashUsing tool: ReadUsing tool: ReadNow let me examine the referenced dependencies and integration points to ensure full alignment:Using tool: ReadUsing tool: ReadExcellent. The dependencies are confirmed—both 143 and 145 are complete, and 143 explicitly lists 146 as an interface consumer. Let me now compile my findings:

## Summary
**PASS**

## Findings

### [PASS] Core action implementations follow architecture protocol
The slice correctly implements two core action types (`review` and `checkpoint`) as specified in the architecture's action registry (arch §102-110). Both classes satisfy the `Action` protocol with proper `action_type`, `execute()`, and `validate()` implementations. Registration pattern matches the architecture's extensibility design (arch §114-116).

### [PASS] Responsibility decomposition aligns with architectural guidance
The checkpoint action's design—returning data for the executor to serialize and CLI to present—directly aligns with the architecture's risk mitigation strategy (arch §574-581), which explicitly states: "checkpoint action defines what data the executor needs to pause and resume" and recommends keeping the action "simple and data-oriented." Design decision #4 (§177-182) provides sound justification for this separation.

### [PASS] Model resolution correctly implements cascade chain
Both actions use `context.resolver.resolve()` following the architecture's 5-level cascade pattern (arch §120-130). The review action's model resolution (§235-246) mirrors the dispatch action's pattern (slice 145), ensuring consistency across pipeline actions.

### [PASS] Structured findings integration properly scoped
The review action correctly depends on slice 143 (Structured Review Findings, confirmed complete) and produces `ActionResult.verdict` and `ActionResult.findings` as required by the architecture (arch §371-410). The slice preserves structured findings for convergence loop consumption (160 scope, arch §689-707), properly deferring convergence logic per architectural 140/160 split.

### [PASS] Dependencies and integration points are explicit and correct
The slice declares dependencies [143, 145, 142] and interface consumers [147, 149, 150, 160], all of which match expected architecture relationships:
- Provides to **147** (Step Types): Phase steps compose review and checkpoint actions (arch §241-244)
- Provides to **149** (Executor): Checkpoint `outputs["checkpoint"]` is interpreted by executor (arch §574-576)
- Provides to **150** (State & Resume): Checkpoint results feed state persistence
- Provides to **160** (Convergence): Structured findings enable cross-iteration matching

### [PASS] Review persistence ownership correctly identified
The architecture's core action types table (arch §102-110) explicitly lists `review` action as owning "file persistence, output format." The slice's design decision #3 (§173-176) correctly identifies this responsibility and plans extraction of persistence logic from CLI to a shared module, maintaining clean separation between pipeline actions and CLI concerns.

### [PASS] Error handling follows established action patterns
All error scenarios (template not found, model resolution failure, review execution error, file persistence failure) return `ActionResult(success=False)` without raising exceptions, matching the dispatch action pattern and enabling proper error handling in the executor layer. Non-fatal errors (file persistence) are explicitly logged but don't block the action result.

### [PASS] Validation requirements are complete and testable
Both actions define clear validation rules with concrete error cases:
- Review: `template` required, `cwd` required
- Checkpoint: `trigger` optional with enum validation
Success criteria (§463-517) are specific, testable, and include verification walkthroughs with executable code snippets.
