Milestone review sweep — a strong model audits everything since the last sweep against the spec: requirement fulfillment, standards, simplification, risk. Use when a milestone's tickets are done, before opening the next milestone, or when asked to review/audit/validate completed work.
Scanned 9/6/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add AnmarHani/SwarmVault --skill swarm-review --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Swarm Review?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/anmarhani-swarm-review)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: swarm-review
description: Milestone review sweep — a strong model audits everything since the last sweep against the spec: requirement fulfillment, standards, simplification, risk. Use when a milestone's tickets are done, before opening the next milestone, or when asked to review/audit/validate completed work.
---
# swarm-review — the milestone gate
Reviews against the **spec**, not just the code — that is the difference between this and
a linter. Expect a top-tier model; warn if the session runs less. Milestone cadence only
(token economy): not per-commit.
**Scope:** the milestone's diff (git log since last sweep), its tickets, and its FR specs.
## The four lenses, in order
1. **Fulfillment** (the one that matters most): every Must-FR of the milestone,
individually — no sampling. Are the acceptance criteria actually met? Do the tests
*assert the criteria* (not just execute the code)? Is the FR → ticket → commit → test
chain intact?
2. **Standards:** naming, error handling (exceptions handled, not swallowed), comment
discipline (light, constraint-stating), test quality (behavior asserted, not
implementation), commit hygiene — audited against swarm-implement's
`references/clean-code.md` where available, **including its dogma traps**: fragment soup,
one-implementation abstractions, pattern theater, and SRP shrapnel are findings, not
compliance. **End-user text** shipped in the
milestone (UI strings, README, release notes, marketing) is audited against the project's
`voice.md` and the audience firewall — load swarm-write for the criteria.
3. **Simplification:** duplicated logic to merge, needless abstraction to delete, blocks
that could be simpler or generalized. If a fix is obvious and small, still ticket it —
see the rule below.
4. **Risk:** input validation gaps, security smells, and a devil's-advocate pass — "what
assumption, if wrong, hurts most?"
## Findings
One per issue, compact (machine lane): severity (`blocker/major/minor`), FR link,
`file:line` evidence, concrete suggested fix. Write the report to
`30 Plans/<P>/reviews/M<N>-sweep.md` (human-lane summary + machine-lane findings), then
**one ticket per accepted finding** — findings that stay chat messages die in scrollback.
**Never auto-fix.** Reporting and fixing in the same pass corrupts the review; fixes are
swarm-implement's job via the tickets.
## Closing the gate
- **Gated mode:** present the report; the user decides what's waived; milestone closes on
their word.
- **Auto mode:** the sweep IS the gate — `blocker`/fulfillment findings must be fixed and
re-swept before the next milestone opens; the user reads the report in the vault at
their leisure. Minor findings may carry forward as open tickets.
Update flow-state either way (J1).
---
*Influences: Pocock's code-review (two-axis); Jeffallan's code-reviewer &
security-reviewer & the-fool; superpowers verification-before-completion; euxx
code-simplifier — see CREDITS.md.*
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!