---
docType: review
layer: project
reviewType: slice
slice: dispatch-action
project: squadron
verdict: CONCERNS
sourceDocument: project-documents/user/slices/145-slice.dispatch-action.md
aiModel: claude-haiku-4-5-20251001
status: complete
dateCreated: 20260331
dateUpdated: 20260331
---

# Review: slice — slice 145

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

## Findings

### [CONCERN] Interface list inconsistent with stated consumers

The slice metadata declares `interfaces: [146, 147]`, but the "Provides to Other Slices" section (line 275–280) explicitly lists three consumers:
- Slice 146 (Review and Checkpoint)
- Slice 147 (Step Types)  
- **Slice 149 (Pipeline Executor)**

The architecture (lines 496–517) clearly shows the Pipeline Executor invoking actions from the Action Registry. Dispatch is a core action that the executor will invoke. Therefore, slice 149 depends on slice 145 and **should be listed in the `interfaces` field**.

**Impact:** The missing interface declaration could cause:
- Incomplete dependency tracking during implementation
- Missed coordination points when slice 149 is implemented
- Ambiguity about dispatch's full scope of consumers

**Recommendation:** Update the `interfaces` field from `[146, 147]` to `[146, 147, 149]` to align with the explicit "Provides to Other Slices" section.

---

### [CONCERN] Ambiguous statement about Review consuming Dispatch

Line 279 states: "Review action will use dispatch **internally or alongside** it in step sequences."

The phrase "internally" suggests the Review action might directly invoke Dispatch, but the architecture (line 265–268) shows Review as a **standalone action** without inherent dependency on Dispatch. Both are separate actions composed together by step types (line 243: `dispatch(model) → review(template) → checkpoint(trigger)`).

**Impact:** The "internally or" phrasing could mislead implementers about the actual coupling between Review and Dispatch. Per the architecture, they are independently testable actions that step types combine, not a direct internal dependency.

**Recommendation:** Clarify the statement to explicitly describe the relationship: "Slice 147 (Step Types) composes dispatch and review actions together in step sequences. The Review action itself does not depend on Dispatch."

---

### [PASS] Core dispatch implementation aligns with architecture

The technical design correctly implements the dispatch action as specified in the architecture:

- ✓ One-shot agent lifecycle (create → dispatch → shutdown) matches the review system pattern and architecture expectations
- ✓ Model resolution via 5-level cascade (lines 169–182) correctly uses `context.resolver.resolve()` with action-level and step-level parameters
- ✓ Profile resolution with explicit override support aligns with ProfileName handling
- ✓ Message dispatch through `agent.handle_message()` and response collection match the Agent protocol
- ✓ Error handling (never raises, returns `ActionResult.success=False`) follows the architecture's fail-safe pattern
- ✓ Metadata capture (model ID, profile, token counts) fulfills the "token tracking" responsibility assigned to dispatch (arch line 104)
- ✓ SDK response deduplication (skipping `sdk_type="result"` duplicates) is a reasonable implementation detail
- ✓ Dependencies on Slice 142 (models/protocol), Slice 102 (Agent Registry), and the provider system are appropriate and complete
- ✓ Package structure (`src/squadron/pipeline/actions/dispatch.py`) follows the architecture's prescribed layout
- ✓ Auto-registration via `register_action()` maintains consistency with the action registry pattern

The extraction of `_ensure_provider_loaded()` to a shared location (`src/squadron/providers/loader.py`) is a reasonable refactoring of an existing private function, not scope creep.

---
