Pwrl review report

pwrl-review-report — Report Generation & Approval

Purpose: Final phase of review workflow. Generates comprehensive, human-readable report from analysis findings, determines approval verdict, and collects user sign-off before code is ready to merge.

Interaction Method

• Display formatted report with clear visual hierarchy (sections, severity levels, counts).
• Ask user to approve, request changes, or clarify specific issues.
• Ask one question at a time: "Do you approve these changes for merge?"
• Provide context for each response option.
• If user requests changes, ask for specific action items.

Input: Analyze Artifact

Expects artifact from pwrl-review-analyze with:

analyze_id: YYYY-MM-DD-UNN-analyze
findings:
  code_quality: [list]
  security: [list]
  tests: [list]
  documentation: [list]
  integration: [list]
critical_issues: [count]
major_issues: [count]
minor_issues: [count]
recommendation: approved | request-changes | rejected

Output: Report Artifact

Emit report artifact. See artifact-schemas.md for the complete schema.

Artifact stored for merge/deployment workflow.

Workflow

Step 1: Verify Analyze Artifact

1. Check that input artifact has:

   • Valid analyze_id
   • All findings populated (even if empty lists)
   • Counts and severity breakdown
   • Recommendation present

2. If verification fails:

   • Return error: "Analyze artifact invalid. Return to pwrl-review-analyze."

Step 2: Generate Report Sections

Code Quality Section:

• Title: "Code Quality Analysis"
• Status badge: ✓/✗ based on issues
• Issue count with severity breakdown
• List top 5 issues with file:line
• Score: % of quality checks passed

Security Section:

• Title: "Security Review"
• Status badge: ✓/✗ based on issues
• Critical/major/minor counts
• List all CRITICAL findings first
• Score: % of security checks passed

Test Coverage Section:

• Title: "Test Coverage"
• Status badge: ✓/✗ based on threshold
• Coverage percentage vs. required
• List gaps (uncovered files/functions)
• Score: coverage % / required %

Documentation Section:

• Title: "Documentation Review"
• Status badge: ✓/✗ based on gaps
• List missing updates (README, types, comments)
• Score: % documentation complete

Integration Section:

• Title: "Integration Checks"
• Build: ✓ pass or ✗ [error]
• Tests: ✓ pass or ✗ [failures]
• Imports: ✓ valid or ✗ [list broken]
• Regressions: ✓ none or ✗ [list]

Step 3: Calculate Overall Score

Score formula:

Quality Score = (Quality% × 0.3) + (Security% × 0.3) + (Coverage% × 0.2) + (Docs% × 0.2)

• Weight code quality and security heavily
• Coverage and docs weighted lower but important
• Result: 0-100%

Interpretation:

• 90-100%: Excellent (approve)
• 75-89%: Good (approve with notes)
• 50-74%: Fair (request changes)
• <50%: Poor (reject)

Step 4: Determine Verdict

See verdict-criteria.md for the complete decision matrix, quality score formula, and verdict determination logic.

Step 5: Generate Rationale

Write clear explanation:

APPROVED Example:

This code change is well-structured and thoroughly tested. All security checks passed,
coverage meets required threshold (92% ≥ 80%), and documentation is complete.
Ready to merge.

REQUEST CHANGES Example:

The implementation is mostly solid, but has 4 major issues that should be addressed
before merging:
1. Test coverage (78%) is below required threshold (80%)
2. SQL query needs parameterization (security MAJOR)
3. README missing documentation for new API
4. One edge case not covered in tests

Please fix these items and resubmit for review.

REJECTED Example:

This code has critical blockers that must be addressed before proceeding:
1. Potential SQL injection vulnerability (CRITICAL security)
2. Build fails due to missing dependency

Please resolve these issues and discuss the approach with the team before resubmitting.

Step 6: Display Report to User

Format for clarity:

════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
                    CODE REVIEW REPORT
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

VERDICT: [APPROVED | REQUEST CHANGES | REJECTED]
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

📊 QUALITY METRICS
   Code Quality:        ████████░░ 85%
   Security:            ██████████ 100%
   Test Coverage:       ███████░░░ 75%
   Documentation:       █████████░ 90%
   ─────────────────────────────
   OVERALL SCORE:       ████████░░ 87%

🔴 Critical Issues:     1
🟠 Major Issues:        2
🟡 Minor Issues:        3
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

[Full findings sections with file:line details]

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
✓ APPROVED for merge

Ready to proceed!
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Step 7: Request User Approval

Ask user to sign off:

Question: Do you approve this code change for merge?

Options:
- Approve:  Code is good to go; proceed with merge
- Changes:  Request changes from implementer; explain issues
- Clarify:  Need more information before deciding

If Approve:

• Set user_approval: true
• Set ready_to_merge: true
• Generate artifact
• Done

If Changes:

• Ask: "What specific issues need to be fixed?"
• Display action items above
• Ask: "Should we notify the implementer?"
• Generate artifact with status request-changes
• Recommend return to implementation

If Clarify:

• Ask: "What clarification do you need?"
• Offer options: "Run more tests?", "Ask implementer?", "Schedule discussion?"
• Based on response, take appropriate action

Step 8: Generate Report Artifact

Create final report artifact with:

• Complete findings and recommendations
• User approval status
• Timestamp of review
• Ready-to-merge flag

Emit artifact for merge/deployment workflow.

Error Handling & Testing

See error-and-testing.md for comprehensive error recovery strategies, prevention tactics, and test coverage expectations for this phase.

• ✅ Verdict logic correct
• ✅ Metrics calculated correctly
• ✅ Rationale clear and actionable