Review

Review

Review one draft PR produced by the task workflow. Output: PR comments plus a single verdict. Reviewers never push fixes — they report.

Order matters: tools before opinions

1. Gather deterministic signal first (in the PR's worktree or a fresh checkout of the branch):
   • vendor/bin/pint --test — style
   • vendor/bin/phpstan analyse — types/bugs (if installed)
   • php artisan test — behavior
   • gh pr diff <number> — the actual change Any gate failure is an automatic fail verdict; report the output, done.
2. LLM review only for what tools can't catch, anchored to diff lines:
   • does the change do what the task + approved plan say, nothing more?
   • missing test cases for the changed behavior (not style preferences)
   • security at trust boundaries: validation, authorization, mass assignment, query injection
   • N+1 queries, unbounded queries, missing indexes for new query paths
   • conventions: follows Laravel Boost guidelines, docs/conventions.md, and the code-standards skill (cite CS-n in findings)
3. Skip entirely: style nits Pint already enforces, hypothetical refactors, scope expansion ("while you're here…"), praise padding.

Report

Post one PR comment via gh pr comment (or reply inline where supported):

task-agent review — TASK-<n>

Gates: pint ✓ / phpstan ✓ / tests ✓
Findings:
1. <file:line> — <problem> — <required fix>   (only real findings; empty is fine)

Verdict: PASS | FAIL — <one-line reason>

Verdict → board

• PASS → task status: done. Note "ready for human merge" in the comment — the reviewer never marks the PR ready and never merges.
• FAIL → task status: blocked with the findings summary as an indented board comment. Fixes are a new run's job (human resets status after triage).