Final Review

---
name: final-review
description: "Expert end-of-work review — catch errors/gaps/risks and propose optimizations before declaring done. Use when: final review, expert review, review everything, anything missing, make it better, optimize, simplify, sanity check, ship check, is it good."
license: CC-BY-SA-4.0
metadata:
  source: "agents/skills/core/final-review.skill.md"
  tags: "core"
  core: "true"
  context_cost: "medium"
---
# Final-Review Skill

## Goal
Before declaring any substantial piece of work "done", run a deliberate **expert
review** — the pass a senior engineer/architect does to catch what the
implementer missed, and to leave the system *better*, not just *working*. This
complements `integrity-check.skill` (which verifies pass/fail across 8 dimensions)
by adding a judgment layer: correctness risks, missing pieces, and concrete
optimizations/simplifications. Use an **independent perspective** — review as if
you did not write the code.

## Review dimensions (score each: OK / FIX / CONSIDER)
1. **Correctness & edge cases** — does it do what the spec says? Untested paths, off-by-one, error handling, concurrency, empty/huge/hostile inputs?
2. **Security** — input validation at boundaries, no secrets in code/logs/state, least privilege, path-traversal/egress on any external input, no weakened guardrails.
3. **Spec & golden thread** — every requirement maps to a test and to code (and back). Anything built that no requirement asked for? Anything asked for that's missing?
4. **Observability** — is the work traced (decisions/spans + token/cost)? Could a human debug it from the audit trail alone? (first-class — never a black box.)
5. **Collaboration (Purpose/Transparency/Control)** — scope/non-goals explicit; reasoning legible; the right human-in-the-loop gates fired for the autonomy level.
6. **Cost** — cheapest reliable path taken? Caching/context-budget/model-tier/batching applied? No expensive/SOTA call slipped in unapproved?
7. **Simplicity** — can anything be removed, merged, or made clearer? Premature abstraction, dead code, duplication, needless config?
8. **Consistency** — matches surrounding conventions, naming, style, error patterns; no broken internal references/links.
9. **All-agents / portability** — if the kit's emitted artifacts changed, do they still emit cleanly for every target (Claude Code, Cursor, Antigravity, OpenCode, Gemini, Copilot, …) and stay backward-compatible (golden additive)?
10. **Tests & gates** — tests exist for the new behavior; the backward-compat gates and validators are green; baselines regenerated + reviewed if intentionally changed.

## Method
- Re-read the diff with fresh eyes; assume nothing is correct until checked.
- Prefer **evidence over assertion** — run the test/command rather than claim it passes (`verify_all.sh`).
- Separate **must-fix** (correctness/security/regression) from **nice-to-have** (optimization/simplification); fix the former now, log the latter.
- For anything uncertain, ask (`clarify.skill`) rather than assume.

## Output Format
```markdown
## FINAL REVIEW — [scope]
- Verdict: SHIP | FIX-FIRST | NEEDS-DECISION
- Must-fix: [items or none]
- Optimizations/simplifications: [items or none]
- Missing/!: [gaps or none]
- Evidence: [commands run + results — gates/tests/validators green?]
```

## Constraints
- Never sign off on unverified claims — run the checks; cite the evidence.
- Must-fix items (correctness, security, regression) block "done"; nice-to-haves do not.
- Review independently — do not rubber-stamp your own implementation.
- Leave the system better than you found it, but scope improvements to the task (no opportunistic rewrites).

## Security & Guardrails

### 1. Skill Security (Final-Review)
- **Adversarial mindset:** actively try to break the change (hostile inputs, auth bypass, egress) — a review that only confirms the happy path is not a review.
- **No silent gate-weakening:** flag any change that lowers a quality/security gate, coverage threshold, or autonomy bound as must-fix.

### 2. System Integration Security
- **Regression focus:** confirm backward-compat (API/CLI/config/db/emitter gates) and that baselines were regenerated *and reviewed* (additive/content-only), not blindly overwritten.
- **Supply-chain:** any newly imported/external artifact must have passed validation; re-confirm provenance.

### 3. LLM & Agent Guardrails
- **Evidence over confidence:** a confident "looks good" is not proof; attach the actual command output.
- **Independence:** resist anchoring on the implementer's intent; review what the code *does*, not what it was *meant* to do.