---
id: TASK-REV-7D5B
title: Review autobuild implementation effectiveness
status: completed
created: 2026-03-10T08:30:00Z
updated: 2026-03-10T08:30:00Z
priority: high
tags: [review, autobuild, assessment, quality]
task_type: review
complexity: 5
test_results:
  status: not_applicable
  coverage: null
  last_run: null
review_results:
  mode: architectural
  depth: standard
  score: 82
  findings_count: 11
  recommendations_count: 10
  decision: accepted
  report_path: .claude/reviews/TASK-REV-7D5B-review-report.md
  completed_at: 2026-03-10T09:00:00Z
---

# Task: Review Autobuild Implementation Effectiveness

## Description

Review the implementation of all features built via the autobuild workflow and assess the quality of the review documents in `docs/reviews/autobuild/`. The goal is to evaluate how well the autobuild process is working end-to-end, including:

- Code quality of implemented features
- Completeness of implementations vs. feature specifications
- Quality and usefulness of generated review documents
- Player/Coach adversarial cooperation effectiveness
- Test coverage and pass rates across features
- Turn efficiency (how many turns needed to complete tasks)
- Consistency of output quality across different features

## Scope

### Features to Review
1. **FEAT-SKEL-001** - Basic MCP Server (project scaffolding, FastMCP server, tests, config)
2. **FEAT-2AAA** - Video Info Tool (yt-dlp dependency, YouTube client, MCP tool, tests)
3. **FEAT-6F80** - Transcript Tools (transcript API, client service, tools, tests)
4. **FEAT-87A6** - Insight Extraction (Pydantic models, extraction service, MCP tools, tests)
5. **FEAT-6CE9** - CLI Wrapper (CLI module, entry point, unit tests, integration tests)

### Review Documents to Assess
- `docs/reviews/autobuild/anthropic_feat-001.md`
- `docs/reviews/autobuild/anthropic_feat-2AAA.md_run_1.md`
- `docs/reviews/autobuild/anthropic_feat-2AAA_run_2.md`
- `docs/reviews/autobuild/anthropic-feat-87A6.md`
- `docs/reviews/autobuild/anthropic-feat-6CE9.md`

### Autobuild Artifacts to Examine
- `.guardkit/autobuild/` - Player/Coach turn data, checkpoints, work state
- `.guardkit/features/*.yaml` - Feature specifications and status

## Acceptance Criteria

- [x] All 5 features reviewed for code quality and completeness
- [x] All review documents in docs/reviews/autobuild/ assessed for quality
- [x] Player/Coach interaction patterns analyzed across features
- [x] Turn efficiency metrics gathered (turns per task, single-turn vs multi-turn)
- [x] Test pass rates and coverage summarized per feature
- [x] Strengths and weaknesses of autobuild process identified
- [x] Recommendations for autobuild process improvements documented
- [x] Overall assessment score/rating provided

## Review Dimensions

### 1. Code Quality Assessment
- Does the code follow project conventions (CLAUDE.md patterns)?
- Are MCP patterns correctly implemented (stdio, async, Pydantic, error handling)?
- Is the code well-structured and maintainable?

### 2. Feature Completeness
- Were all tasks in each feature completed?
- Do implementations match the feature specifications?
- Are there any gaps or missing functionality?

### 3. Review Document Quality
- Are the review documents comprehensive and useful?
- Do they accurately reflect the implementation quality?
- Are they consistent in format and depth?

### 4. Autobuild Process Effectiveness
- How many turns did tasks typically require?
- Did the Coach provide valuable feedback?
- Were Player implementations high quality on first attempt?
- How did the adversarial cooperation model work in practice?

### 5. Test Quality
- Are tests meaningful and not just boilerplate?
- Do they cover edge cases and error scenarios?
- Are protocol compliance tests included?

## Implementation Notes

This is a review/analysis task. Use `/task-review TASK-REV-7D5B` to execute the review.
