review

You are executing the Review phase (5/6) of CocoBrew.

Before proceeding, verify that .cocoplus/ exists. If not: output "CocoPlus not initialized in this directory. Run $pod init to begin." Then stop.

Read .cocoplus/lifecycle/meta.json. Verify phases_completed contains "test". If not: output "The Test phase must be completed before review. Run $test first." Then stop.

Aggregate Findings

Collect from these sources:

1. Code Quality Findings Look for files matching .cocoplus/quality-findings-*.md. Read all and extract critical and high severity findings.

2. CocoCupper Findings Read .cocoplus/grove/cupper-findings.md. Extract the most recent 5 findings.

3. Spec Compliance Check Read .cocoplus/lifecycle/spec.md (Success Criteria, Deliverables) and .cocoplus/lifecycle/test.md. For each success criterion: was it tested? Did it pass? For each deliverable: does the file/table/artifact exist?

4. Test Summary Read .cocoplus/lifecycle/test.md. Extract pass/fail summary.

5. Decision Coverage Check

Extract key decisions from plan.md (and discuss.md if it exists): evaluation target, data source, accuracy threshold, model to use, warehouse assignment, production safety requirements.

For each extracted decision, scan implementation artifacts — SQL functions, evaluation configurations, flow.json stage definitions, prompt files — for evidence that the decision is honored in the implementation.

A decision is honored if the artifact reflects the stated value or approach. A decision is a Coverage Gap if it is present in plan/discuss but absent or contradicted in the implementation.

Coverage Gaps are severity-equivalent to must-fix. $ship is blocked until all Coverage Gaps are resolved or explicitly acknowledged with a documented rationale written into review.md.

Write Review Document

Write .cocoplus/lifecycle/review.md:

# Review Report

**Date:** [ISO 8601 timestamp]
**Phase:** Review (5/6)
**Phase ID:** review-YYYYMMDD-001

## Quality Findings
[Critical and high severity findings from Code Quality Advisor]
If none: "No critical quality findings."

## Intelligence Insights
[CocoCupper findings — top 5]
If none: "No CocoCupper analysis available."

## Spec Compliance
| Criterion | Tested | Result |
|-----------|--------|--------|
[Table of success criteria vs test results]

## Deliverable Checklist
| Deliverable | Present | Notes |
|-------------|---------|-------|
[Table of deliverables vs existence check]

## Test Summary
Passed: [N] / [Total]

## Decision Coverage
| Decision | Source | Honored | Notes |
|----------|--------|---------|-------|
[Table of plan/discuss decisions vs implementation evidence]
Coverage Gaps (if any): [list — each blocks $ship until resolved or acknowledged with rationale]

## Decision Points
[List any items requiring developer decision before shipping]

## Approval Status
PENDING DEVELOPER APPROVAL

Request Developer Approval

Present the review summary and ask: "Review complete. Do you approve this review and want to proceed to Ship? (yes/no/revise)"

• If yes: update review.md ## Approval Status to APPROVED — [timestamp]
• If no: output "Review rejected. Rework required. Re-run phases as needed."
• If revise: output "Which section needs revision? (quality/compliance/test)"

Update State

Only if approved: Update lifecycle/meta.json — add review to phases_completed. Append to AGENTS.md (≤200 lines): Phase: Review (5/6) — APPROVED

Git Commit (only if approved)

git add .cocoplus/lifecycle/review.md .cocoplus/lifecycle/meta.json .cocoplus/AGENTS.md
git commit -m "docs(review): quality and compliance review approved"

Output: "Review approved. Commit created. You may now proceed to $ship."

Anti-Rationalization

Shortcut / Temptation	Why It Fails
Approve the review automatically if no critical findings exist	Developer must explicitly approve — auto-approval bypasses the mandatory human gate
Skip spec compliance check if tests all passed	Tests passing does not mean spec criteria are covered; compliance check verifies mapping, not just pass rate
Write review.md before aggregating all sources	Missing a source (CocoCupper, quality findings, decision coverage) produces an incomplete review that under-reports problems
Treat Coverage Gaps as advisory	Coverage Gaps block $ship the same as must-fix findings — tests verify what code does; coverage verifies what it was meant to do

Exit Criteria

• .cocoplus/lifecycle/review.md exists with ## Spec Compliance, ## Decision Coverage, and ## Approval Status sections
• ## Decision Coverage table lists every key decision from plan.md and discuss.md (if present) with honored/gap status
• ## Approval Status contains APPROVED (not just PENDING)
• .cocoplus/lifecycle/meta.json phases_completed array contains "review"
• Git commit with message docs(review): quality and compliance review approved exists in log