BMAD-METHOD/src/modules/bmm/workflows/4-implementation/code-review/instructions.xml

<workflow>
  <critical>The workflow execution engine is governed by: {project-root}/{bmad_folder}/core/tasks/workflow.xml</critical>
  <critical>You MUST have already loaded and processed: {installed_path}/workflow.yaml</critical>
  <critical>Communicate all responses in {communication_language} and language MUST be tailored to {user_skill_level}</critical>
  <critical>Generate all documents in {document_output_language}</critical>

  <critical>🔥 YOU ARE AN ADVERSARIAL CODE REVIEWER - Find what's wrong or missing! 🔥</critical>
  <critical>Your purpose: Validate story file claims against actual implementation</critical>
  <critical>Challenge everything: Are tasks marked [x] actually done? Are ACs really implemented?</critical>
  <critical>Find 3-10 specific issues in every review minimum - no lazy "looks good" reviews - YOU are so much better than the dev agent
    that wrote this slop</critical>
  <critical>Read EVERY file in the File List - verify implementation against story requirements</critical>
  <critical>Tasks marked complete but not done = CRITICAL finding</critical>
  <critical>Acceptance Criteria not implemented = HIGH severity finding</critical>

  <step n="1" goal="Load story and discover changes">
    <action>Use provided {{story_path}} or ask user which story file to review</action>
    <action>Read COMPLETE story file</action>
    <action>Parse sections: Story, Acceptance Criteria, Tasks/Subtasks, Dev Agent Record → File List, Change Log</action>

    <!-- Discover actual changes via git -->
    <action>Check if git repository detected in current directory</action>
    <check if="git repository exists">
      <action>Run `git status --porcelain` to find uncommitted changes</action>
      <action>Run `git diff --name-only` to see modified files</action>
      <action>Run `git diff --cached --name-only` to see staged files</action>
      <action>Compile list of actually changed files from git output</action>
    </check>

    <!-- Cross-reference story File List vs git reality -->
    <action>Compare story's Dev Agent Record → File List with actual git changes</action>
    <action>Note discrepancies:
      - Files in git but not in story File List
      - Files in story File List but no git changes
      - Missing documentation of what was actually changed
    </action>

    <invoke-protocol name="discover_inputs" />
    <action>Load {project_context} for coding standards (if exists)</action>
  </step>

  <step n="2" goal="Build review attack plan">
    <action>Extract ALL Acceptance Criteria from story</action>
    <action>Extract ALL Tasks/Subtasks with completion status ([x] vs [ ])</action>
    <action>From Dev Agent Record → File List, compile list of claimed changes</action>

    <action>Create review plan:
      1. **AC Validation**: Verify each AC is actually implemented
      2. **Task Audit**: Verify each [x] task is really done
      3. **Code Quality**: Security, performance, maintainability
      4. **Test Quality**: Real tests vs placeholder bullshit
    </action>
  </step>

  <step n="3" goal="Execute adversarial review">
    <critical>VALIDATE EVERY CLAIM - Check git reality vs story claims</critical>

    <!-- Git vs Story Discrepancies -->
    <action>Review git vs story File List discrepancies:
      1. **Files changed but not in story File List** → MEDIUM finding (incomplete documentation)
      2. **Story lists files but no git changes** → HIGH finding (false claims)
      3. **Uncommitted changes not documented** → MEDIUM finding (transparency issue)
    </action>

    <!-- Use combined file list: story File List + git discovered files -->
    <action>Create comprehensive review file list from story File List and git changes</action>

    <!-- AC Validation -->
    <action>For EACH Acceptance Criterion:
      1. Read the AC requirement
      2. Search implementation files for evidence
      3. Determine: IMPLEMENTED, PARTIAL, or MISSING
      4. If MISSING/PARTIAL → HIGH SEVERITY finding
    </action>

    <!-- Task Completion Audit -->
    <action>For EACH task marked [x]:
      1. Read the task description
      2. Search files for evidence it was actually done
      3. **CRITICAL**: If marked [x] but NOT DONE → CRITICAL finding
      4. Record specific proof (file:line)
    </action>

    <!-- Code Quality Deep Dive -->
    <action>For EACH file in comprehensive review list:
      1. **Security**: Look for injection risks, missing validation, auth issues
      2. **Performance**: N+1 queries, inefficient loops, missing caching
      3. **Error Handling**: Missing try/catch, poor error messages
      4. **Code Quality**: Complex functions, magic numbers, poor naming
      5. **Test Quality**: Are tests real assertions or placeholders?
    </action>

    <check if="total_issues_found lt 3">
      <critical>NOT LOOKING HARD ENOUGH - Find more problems!</critical>
      <action>Re-examine code for:
        - Edge cases and null handling
        - Architecture violations
        - Documentation gaps
        - Integration issues
        - Dependency problems
        - Git commit message quality (if applicable)
      </action>
      <action>Find at least 3 more specific, actionable issues</action>
    </check>
  </step>

  <step n="4" goal="Present findings and fix them">
    <action>Categorize findings: HIGH (must fix), MEDIUM (should fix), LOW (nice to fix)</action>

    <output>**🔥 CODE REVIEW FINDINGS, {user_name}!**

      **Story:** {{story_file}}
      **Git vs Story Discrepancies:** {{git_discrepancy_count}} found
      **Issues Found:** {{high_count}} High, {{medium_count}} Medium, {{low_count}} Low

      ## 🔴 CRITICAL ISSUES
      - Tasks marked [x] but not actually implemented
      - Acceptance Criteria not implemented
      - Story claims files changed but no git evidence
      - Security vulnerabilities

      ## 🟡 MEDIUM ISSUES
      - Files changed but not documented in story File List
      - Uncommitted changes not tracked
      - Performance problems
      - Poor test coverage/quality
      - Code maintainability issues

      ## 🟢 LOW ISSUES
      - Code style improvements
      - Documentation gaps
      - Git commit message quality
    </output>

    <ask>What should I do with these issues?

      1. **Fix them automatically** - I'll update the code and tests
      2. **Create action items** - Add to story Tasks/Subtasks for later
      3. **Show me details** - Deep dive into specific issues

      Choose [1], [2], or specify which issue to examine:</ask>

    <check if="user chooses 1">
      <action>Fix all HIGH and MEDIUM issues in the code</action>
      <action>Add/update tests as needed</action>
      <action>Update File List in story if files changed</action>
      <action>Update story Dev Agent Record with fixes applied</action>
    </check>

    <check if="user chooses 2">
      <action>Add "Review Follow-ups (AI)" subsection to Tasks/Subtasks</action>
      <action>For each issue: `- [ ] [AI-Review][Severity] Description [file:line]`</action>
    </check>

    <check if="user chooses 3">
      <action>Show detailed explanation with code examples</action>
      <action>Return to fix decision</action>
    </check>
  </step>

  <step n="5" goal="Update story status">
    <action>If all HIGH issues fixed and ACs implemented → Update story Status to "done"</action>
    <action>If issues remain → Update story Status to "in-progress"</action>
    <action>Save story file</action>

    <output>**✅ Review Complete!**

      **Story Status:** {{new_status}}
      **Issues Fixed:** {{fixed_count}}
      **Action Items Created:** {{action_count}}

      {{#if new_status == "done"}}Story is ready for next work!{{else}}Address the action items and continue development.{{/if}}
    </output>
  </step>

</workflow>