Enhance code review workflow with a two-phase approach:
- Context-aware review (step 3): Uses story knowledge to check implementation
- Asymmetric adversarial review (step 4): Cynical reviewer with no story context
judges changes purely on technical merit
Key additions:
- Cynical reviewer persona that expects to find problems
- Execution hierarchy: Task tool > CLI fresh context > inline fallback
- Findings consolidation with deduplication across both review phases
- Improved severity assessment (CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW)
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Change "Story is ready for next work!" to "Code review complete!"
The original phrasing was misleading - when a code review finishes
with status "done", it means the review itself is complete and the
story is marked done in tracking. However, the user may choose to
do additional reviews or the story may genuinely be finished.
"Code review complete" more accurately describes what actually
happened without implying next steps.
- Fix checklist to only accept 'review' status (not 'ready-for-review')
- Include MEDIUM issues in done/in-progress status determination
- Initialize and track fixed_count/action_count variables for summary
- Add sprint-status.yaml sync when story status changes
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
Alex Verkhovsky
Brian Madison