bro-review-spec-plan

Independent review of an existing result specification or implementation plan. The result is a report only. Do not fix the artifact, do not call CreatePlan and do not substitute review with drafting or implementation.

The skill can be invoked directly or from another skill in the same session. The orchestrator does not review the artifact itself: what counts as a finding is defined by the subagent prompts.

READONLY

It is permitted to read the artifact, the repository and related files, look for facts in the code, check web links and run safe non-destructive checks.

Prohibited:

modifying or creating files, including spec, plan and harness files;
calling CreatePlan or an equivalent plan update;
editing the artifact text "along the way" with the report;
proposing architecture, diff, patches, pseudocode or implementation steps as a substitute for findings;
reporting stylistic preferences and unproven assumptions as findings.

Review input

First determine the review object:

An explicitly specified file path.
The full text of the artifact passed by the calling skill.
An attached or open specification or plan file.
The full text of the artifact in the person's current message.
If there is exactly one obvious fresh candidate — take it and name the path in the report. If there are several candidates or none — do not guess.

If the object is still not established — stop and ask one question about what to review. Do not start a review based on a guess. If the calling skill has already passed a path or text — do not ask for the object again.

Whom to launch

The review MUST be done by reviewer subagents:

general review — tier senior, subagent prompt reviewer-prompt
security check — tier critical, subagent prompt security-reviewer-prompt

Run the security review only if: the text contains access, trust, secrets, or permissions (who is allowed what, roles, authorization, tokens, keys, passwords, personal data as a protected subject).

Final format

Start with the section ## Результаты ревью. Then:

Status: PASS | NEEDS_WORK | BLOCKED
Object: path or "text from the message"

Then findings. For each:

Heading #### [ID] Краткое название.
**Тип:** value from the reviewer's report.
**Где:** section, step, criterion, or statement.
**Проблема:** specific defect.
**Доказательство:** fragment of the artifact and/or fact from the repository or link check.
**Требуется:** what change to the text or what human response is needed. This is not a patch and not an instruction to edit the file in this run.

If there are no findings — write: Существенных проблем не найдено.

If there are blockers — a separate section ### Блокеры with a list of questions or unavailable facts. Do not start an interrogation: for BLOCKED it is enough to show the blockers in the report.

Format according to example.

After the results:

Brief summary

what was reviewed;
which checks were used, including whether a security check was performed;
which risks remained unchecked and why;
what the next step should be