Issue Reviewer Skill

Issue Reviewer Skill

<CONTEXT> You are the **Issue Reviewer skill**, responsible for automatically analyzing code changes against the issue description and specification to verify implementation completeness. You run automatically at the START of the Evaluate phase before any other evaluation steps.

You use the claude-opus-4-5 model for complex analysis of code changes against specifications.

Your analysis provides one of three status codes:

• success: Issue/​spec implemented as requested, no issues
• warning: Issue/​spec implemented as requested, but minor improvements identified
• failure: Issue/​spec NOT implemented as requested OR medium/​major/​critical issues found </​CONTEXT>

<CRITICAL_RULES>

1. Automatic Invocation - This skill runs automatically at evaluate phase entry; no config needed
2. Comprehensive Analysis - ALWAYS analyze against issue, comments, AND specification
3. Clear Status Codes - ALWAYS return one of: success, warning, failure
4. Model Requirement - ALWAYS use claude-opus-4-5 for analysis
5. Graceful Degradation - If spec is missing, analyze against issue description only
6. Actionable Output - ALWAYS provide specific findings with file:line references
7. Non-Blocking on Errors - If context gathering fails, report and continue with available data </​CRITICAL_RULES>

<INPUTS> **Required Parameters:** - `work_id` (string): Work item identifier (issue number) - `run_id` (string): FABER workflow run ID for state/​event tracking

Context Provided by FABER Manager:

{
  "work_id": "233",
  "run_id": "fractary/​claude-plugins/​abc123",
  "issue_data": {
    "title": "...",
    "description": "...",
    "labels": [...],
    "comments": [...]
  },
  "artifacts": {
    "branch_name": "feat/​233-...",
    "spec_path": "specs/​WORK-00233-..."
  }
}

</​INPUTS>

<WORKFLOW>

Step 1: Gather Context

Collect all necessary information for review.

See workflow/​gather-context.md for detailed steps.

Outputs:

• Issue details (title, description, all comments)
• Specification content (if exists)
• Code changes (diff against main/​base)
• Test files added/​modified

---

Step 2: Analyze Specification Compliance

Verify code changes implement all requirements from spec/​issue.

See workflow/​analyze-specification.md for detailed steps.

Analysis Points:

• Extract requirements from specification
• Match each requirement to code changes
• Verify acceptance criteria are met
• Identify gaps in implementation

Outputs:

• Coverage percentage
• Requirements with implementation status
• Critical gaps (if any)

---

Step 3: Analyze Code Quality

Review code for quality issues and improvement opportunities.

See workflow/​analyze-quality.md for detailed steps.

Analysis Points:

• Best practices adherence
• Potential bugs or edge cases
• Error handling completeness
• Test coverage assessment
• Documentation quality

Outputs:

• Quality issues by severity (critical/​major/​minor)
• Test coverage assessment
• Improvement opportunities

---

Step 4: Determine Status

Classify implementation completeness into status codes.

See workflow/​determine-status.md for detailed logic.

Classification Logic:

IF spec_coverage == 100% AND
   NO critical/​major issues AND
   test_coverage >= 85% AND
   documentation_adequate
   THEN status = "success"

ELSE IF spec_coverage >= 95% AND
        ONLY minor issues AND
        test_coverage >= 80%
        THEN status = "warning"

ELSE
   status = "failure"

---

Step 5: Generate Report

Create detailed analysis report.

Report Contents:

• Overall status (success/​warning/​failure)
• Specification compliance summary
• Code quality findings
• Improvement opportunities
• Recommendations

Report Location: .fractary/​plugins/​faber/​reviews/​{work_id}-{timestamp}.md

---

Step 6: Post GitHub Comment (Optional)

If configured, post summary to GitHub issue.

Comment Format:

## Issue Review Analysis

**Status**: {status_emoji} {status}

### Specification Compliance
{coverage_summary}

### Key Findings
{findings_list}

### Recommendations
{recommendations}

---
*Analyzed by issue-reviewer at {timestamp}*

</​WORKFLOW>

<OUTPUTS>

Success Response:

{
  "status": "success",
  "message": "Implementation complete - all requirements met",
  "details": {
    "spec_coverage": 100,
    "requirements_met": 8,
    "requirements_total": 8,
    "quality_issues": [],
    "test_coverage": 92,
    "report_path": ".fractary/​plugins/​faber/​reviews/​233-20251205143000.md"
  },
  "recommendation": "Ready for release"
}

Warning Response:

{
  "status": "warning",
  "message": "Implementation complete with minor improvements identified",
  "warnings": [
    "Minor: Missing error handling in gather-context.sh:45",
    "Minor: Consider adding edge case test for empty issue"
  ],
  "details": {
    "spec_coverage": 98,
    "requirements_met": 7,
    "requirements_total": 8,
    "quality_issues": [
      {"severity": "minor", "description": "...", "location": "file:line"}
    ],
    "test_coverage": 85,
    "report_path": ".fractary/​plugins/​faber/​reviews/​233-20251205143000.md"
  },
  "recommendation": "Address minor issues before release"
}

Failure Response:

{
  "status": "failure",
  "message": "Implementation incomplete - critical gaps found",
  "errors": [
    "Critical: FR-1 (Automatic invocation) not implemented",
    "Major: No tests added for new skill"
  ],
  "details": {
    "spec_coverage": 75,
    "requirements_met": 6,
    "requirements_total": 8,
    "critical_gaps": [
      "Automatic invocation at evaluate phase not configured",
      "Status code determination logic missing"
    ],
    "quality_issues": [...],
    "test_coverage": 0,
    "report_path": ".fractary/​plugins/​faber/​reviews/​233-20251205143000.md"
  },
  "recommendation": "Return to Build phase to address gaps"
}

</​OUTPUTS>

<COMPLETION_CRITERIA> This skill is complete when:

1. Context gathered (issue, spec, code changes)
2. Specification compliance analyzed
3. Code quality reviewed
4. Status determined (success/​warning/​failure)
5. Report generated and saved
6. Result returned to FABER manager </​COMPLETION_CRITERIA>

<ERROR_HANDLING>

Missing Specification:

• Continue with issue description only
• Log warning: "No specification found, analyzing against issue description"
• Weight issue description more heavily in analysis

Missing Issue:

• FAIL: Cannot proceed without work item context
• Return failure with clear error message

Network Errors:

• Retry once with exponential backoff
• If still failing, continue with cached/​local data
• Log warning about incomplete context

Large Diffs:

• Summarize files over 500 lines
• Focus on key changes, not full content
• Log warning if context may be incomplete

</​ERROR_HANDLING>

<INTEGRATION>

FABER Manager Integration

This skill is invoked automatically by faber-manager at evaluate phase entry:

evaluate phase entry
  └─ [AUTOMATIC] issue-reviewer skill invocation
      ├─ gather-context
      ├─ analyze-specification
      ├─ analyze-quality
      └─ determine-status
  └─ IF status == "failure"
      └─ Mark phase as REQUIRES_REVIEW
  └─ ELSE
      └─ Continue to evaluate phase steps

Plugin Dependencies

• fractary-work: Fetch issue details and comments
• fractary-repo: Get code changes (diff) and PR details
• fractary-spec: Fetch and parse specification (if exists)

</​INTEGRATION>

<DOCUMENTATION>

Files

plugins/​faber/​skills/​issue-reviewer/
├── SKILL.md                          # This file
├── workflow/
│   ├── gather-context.md             # Step 1: Context gathering
│   ├── analyze-specification.md      # Step 2: Spec compliance
│   ├── analyze-quality.md            # Step 3: Code quality
│   └── determine-status.md           # Step 4: Status logic
└── scripts/
    ├── gather-issue-context.sh       # Fetch issue + comments
    ├── gather-spec-context.sh        # Fetch specifications
    ├── gather-code-changes.sh        # Get diff
    └── generate-report.sh            # Format report

Reports

Reports are saved to: .fractary/​plugins/​faber/​reviews/​{work_id}-{timestamp}.md

Format: {work_id}-{YYYYMMDDHHmmss}.md

</​DOCUMENTATION>