Skip to content
Back to skills

Sdd Review Code

ASecurity

SDD review when implementation must be audited against PRD, TechSpec, and tasks, in a session or fresh-context subagent that did not write that code; does not correct findings.

  • 3 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 1 view
  • Added September 19, 2026
ai-agentsgoc#testinggitsecurity

Security analysis

A100/100

Pro scans all 2 files and shows the line behind each finding

Scanned September 29, 2026

npx -y skills add dougcunha/TokenHound --skill sdd-review-code --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Sdd Review Code?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Sdd Review Code
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/dougcunha-sdd-review-code/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/dougcunha-sdd-review-code)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
name: sdd-review-code
description: SDD review when implementation must be audited against PRD, TechSpec, and tasks, in a session or fresh-context subagent that did not write that code; does not correct findings.
argument-hint: --prd feature-name [--base git-reference]
---

# Review SDD code

Run in a session that did not write or change the code under review, or as a delegated reviewer: a fresh-context subagent the authoring session launches under the protocol in [references/delegated-review.md](references/delegated-review.md), whose contract applies together with this skill. This session consolidates the matrix and writes the report; its subagents are read-only explorers for disjoint inspections. If this session authored any of that code, stop before step 1 and apply the independence rule from `.agents/skills/sdd-orchestrate-tasks/references/session-continuity.md`, which delegates the review or recommends ending the session; if the user continues in the authoring session anyway, record the missing independence under the report's limitations.

1. Require `prd.md`, `techspec.md`, and `tasks.md` under `tasks/prd-[slug]/`. When `context-snapshot.md` exists, load it through the Load branch of `.agents/skills/sdd-snapshot/SKILL.md` as an independent stage. Read PRD and TechSpec once per version; then manifest, tasks, and handoffs. Check every link, extra file, ID, state, and dependency.
   **Output:** every task has proven location and state; a missing source blocks review with the exact path.
2. Bound the implementation by `--base` resolved to a commit, including relevant committed, staged, unstaged, and new files. Without a base, use handoffs and worktree; state the scope limitation. In a re-review, include correction reports and handoffs without altering history.
   **Output:** reviewable set identified. An invalid base requests correction and never silently changes scope.
3. Build a matrix of every obligation: origin, implementation, test, state, and evidence. Reuse IDs; read each task's details according to its criteria without transcribing sources. Mark `conformant`, `non-conformant`, `pending`, or `not verifiable`. Disjoint slices of the matrix may go to parallel read-only explorers that return states with `path:line` evidence; verify the evidence a finding will rest on, and do not treat a slice without findings as approval of the whole.
   **Output:** no orphan obligation; incomplete tasks, broken links, and acceptance without evidence remain gaps.
4. Trace callers, effects, contracts, errors, and risks in changed paths, sending explorers only for sweeps across many files; consult `AGENTS.md` and relevant skills. Check commands and results; reuse execution proven for the same code, configuration, and environment, running missing or invalidated checks in this session and serializing those that share `bin/`, `obj/`, or `TestResults/`.
   Run all TechSpec quality profile commands over the reviewable set, blocking and reservation, and subtract the Terrain baseline: debt that existed before the feature is not a finding of this review, and treating it as one hides what the implementation actually introduced. Conformance with acceptance and tests does not replace the profile: a diff that meets every obligation and still carries a new, unjustified blocking hit has a defect. A TechSpec without a quality profile or without a baseline is a gap recorded in limitations, not an empty profile or a zeroed baseline.
   In desktop C#/.NET, omit E2E and record the policy, including for inherited commands. Omission is neither a defect nor approved testing; check unit, integration, and manual acceptance evidence required by the TechSpec. Unexecuted essential manual work is `not verifiable`.
   **Output:** states supported by evidence or an explicit limitation; zero tests do not prove acceptance.
5. Number findings `CR-01`, `CR-02` within this review. Record origin, fact, file, symbol, and line, impact, severity, and evidence. Recommend a correction only with a proven cause. Identify a prior finding by review path + ID and mark it resolved, persistent, or not verifiable.
   A blocking profile hit becomes a finding with the `QA-NN` rule as its origin; a reservation hit becomes an optional improvement with the same traceability. Count the feature's reservations and, when a profile trigger fires, record in the escalation section the relevant skill and the number that justifies it — as a suggestion to the HIL, never executed in this review.
   **Output:** actionable findings distinct from optional improvements; all verifiable without conversation history; escalation suggested only with a counted trigger.
6. Read [references/TEMPLATE.md](references/TEMPLATE.md) in full when issuing the report. Reserve the next free numeric suffix under `codereview_[num]/`, considering all existing folders. Write a new `codereview.md`; preserve code, tasks, and previous reports.
   As a delegated reviewer, write into the folder the caller reserved instead of reserving another, record the execution as `delegated reviewer`, and return under the contract, without a session pause. In standalone use, run the session pause; a snapshot written then records stage `review`, the report in `covers_through`, `authored_code: no`, and the status as an open thread. Because this session changed no code, it may continue into `sdd-plan-corrections`.
   **Output:** immutable report with matrix, findings, validations, limitations, and status below; report path and blocks.

## Status

- `APPROVED`: all obligations conformant, tasks complete, links intact, required validations proven, and no unjustified blocking quality profile hit.
- `APPROVED WITH RESERVATIONS`: only optional improvements, including profile reservation hits, with no requirement, security, or essential evidence pending.
- `REJECTED`: any non-conformant or incomplete obligation, inconsistent state, failing mandatory test, missing essential evidence, or blocking profile hit not covered by `DEC-NN`.

If sources or code change during review, revalidate the affected part before the opinion. A missing environment records command, error, and affected IDs, without turning missing evidence into approval.

Files in this skill

  • SKILL.md4.3 KB
  • references/TEMPLATE.md2.7 KB

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…

Newsletter

Get the weekly list of safe new skills, and the ones we pulled.