ln-312-review-findings-worker
Use when an evaluation coordinator needs normalized findings from target artifacts and research evidence.
What this skill does
> **Paths:** File paths (`references/`, `../ln-*`) are relative to this skill directory.
**Type:** L3 Worker
**Category:** 3XX Planning
# Review Findings Worker
## Mandatory Read
**MANDATORY READ:** Load `references/evaluation_worker_runtime_contract.md`, `references/evaluation_summary_contract.md`
**MANDATORY READ:** Load `../ln-310-multi-agent-validator/references/phase2_research_audit.md`, `../ln-310-multi-agent-validator/references/penalty_points.md`
**MANDATORY READ:** Load `../ln-310-multi-agent-validator/references/premortem_validation.md`, `../ln-310-multi-agent-validator/references/cross_reference_validation.md`
## Purpose
- analyze the target artifact or diff
- convert evidence into normalized findings
- for `mode=story`: calculate penalty points across 30 criteria per `phase2_research_audit.md`
- for `mode=plan_review`: evaluate criteria #5, #6, #21, #28 only (no penalty accumulation)
- avoid narrative-only review output
## Mode Gate
- `mode=story`: full pipeline — pre-mortem, cross-reference, penalty points across 30 criteria, build fix plan
- `mode=plan_review`: applicability check, stack detection, evaluate criteria #5 (standards), #6 (library versions), #21 (alternatives), #28 (library features) only, normalize findings without penalty accumulation
## Runtime
Runtime family:
- `evaluation-worker-runtime`
Required manifest fields:
- `identifier`
- `phase_order`
- `summary_kind=review-findings`
- `operation=findings`
Recommended `phase_order`:
1. `PHASE_0_CONFIG`
2. `PHASE_1_LOAD_TARGET`
3. `PHASE_2_PREMORTEM` (mode=story, complexity >= Medium)
4. `PHASE_3_CROSS_REFERENCE` (mode=story, multi-story Epic)
5. `PHASE_4_CRITERIA_AUDIT`
6. `PHASE_5_PENALTY_CALCULATION` (mode=story only)
7. `PHASE_6_NORMALIZE_FINDINGS`
8. `PHASE_7_WRITE_SUMMARY`
9. `PHASE_8_SELF_CHECK`
## Workflow
### Phase 0: Config
Load runtime manifest, target identifiers, and any linked research artifact paths.
### Phase 1: Load Target
Load only the target artifacts needed for the review scope.
### Phase 2: Pre-mortem (mode=story)
Execute pre-mortem analysis per `premortem_validation.md`:
1. Skip for trivial Stories (1-2 tasks, no external deps, known tech).
2. Execute for Stories with complexity >= Medium (3+ tasks, external deps, or unfamiliar tech).
3. Tigers (evidence-based risks) feed Risk criterion #20 — add to risk table BEFORE penalty calc.
4. Elephants (unstated assumptions) feed Assumptions criterion #24 — add with `[pre-mortem]` tag, Confidence=LOW.
5. Paper Tigers (fears without evidence) — document and dismiss.
6. Include pre-mortem table in audit report.
### Phase 3: Cross-Reference (mode=story)
Execute cross-reference analysis per `cross_reference_validation.md`:
1. Skip if Epic has only 1 Story or all siblings Done/Canceled.
2. Load sibling Stories via `list_issues(project=Epic.id)`.
3. Check AC overlap (#25): structured traceability first, keyword fallback advisory-only.
4. Check task duplication (#26): structured match primary.
5. Include cross-reference findings in audit report.
### Phase 4: Criteria Audit
1. `mode=story`: evaluate all 30 criteria against Story/Tasks per `phase2_research_audit.md` Auto-Fix Actions Reference.
2. `mode=plan_review`: evaluate criteria #5, #6, #21, #28 only (standards + solution groups).
3. Cross-check claims against provided research evidence when present.
### Phase 5: Penalty Calculation (mode=story)
1. Assign penalty points per violation using severity levels from `phase2_research_audit.md` (CRITICAL=10, HIGH=5, MEDIUM=3, LOW=1).
2. Apply multiple-violation rules per `penalty_points.md` Calculation Rules.
3. Calculate total penalty points.
4. Build fix plan for each violation.
5. Format penalty audit table per `penalty_points.md` Report Format.
### Phase 6: Normalize Findings
Each finding should prefer structured fields such as:
- `id`
- `severity`
- `category`
- `subject`
- `evidence`
- `recommendation`
### Phase 7: Write Summary
Emit `summary_kind=review-findings`.
Payload must include:
- `worker=ln-312`
- `status`
- `operation=findings`
- `warnings`
Prefer these fields when available:
- `findings`
- `metrics.penalty_total` (mode=story)
- `metrics.criteria_violated` (list of criterion numbers)
- `metrics.fix_plan` (array of {criterion, action, severity})
- `metrics.premortem_summary` (when executed)
- `metrics.cross_reference_summary` (when executed)
### Phase 8: Self-Check
1. Remove duplicates.
2. Remove unsupported claims.
3. Verify penalty calculation matches `penalty_points.md` rules (mode=story).
4. Record `pass=true` only after summary write.
## Definition of Done
- [ ] Target artifact loaded
- [ ] Pre-mortem executed or justified as skipped (mode=story)
- [ ] Cross-reference executed or justified as skipped (mode=story)
- [ ] Criteria audit completed (30 for story, #5/#6/#21/#28 for others)
- [ ] Penalty points calculated and fix plan built (mode=story)
- [ ] Findings normalized
- [ ] Unsupported claims removed
- [ ] `review-findings` summary written
- [ ] Self-check passed
**Version:** 1.0.0
**Last Updated:** 2026-04-10
Related in Code Review
gstack
IncludedFast headless browser for QA testing and site dogfooding. Navigate pages, interact with elements, verify state, diff before/after, take annotated screenshots, test responsive layouts, forms, uploads, dialogs, and capture bug evidence. Use when asked to open or test a site, verify a deployment, dogfood a user flow, or file a bug with screenshots. (gstack)
startup-due-diligence
IncludedLegal due diligence review for seed-stage and Series A startups (US, Delaware C-Corp focus). Supports both investor and founder perspectives. Capabilities include: (1) Interactive document review and issue spotting; (2) Document request list generation; (3) Cap table and SAFE/convertible note analysis; (4) Red flag identification with severity ratings; (5) Diligence report generation. TRIGGERS: due diligence, DD, startup investment, cap table review, Series A, seed round, investor diligence, legal review startup, SAFE analysis, convertible note, 409A, founder vesting.
interview-master
IncludedThis skill should be used when the user asks to "generate interview questions", "prepare for interview", "optimize resume", "conduct mock interview", "analyze git commits for resume", "generate resume from code", "review my resume", or mentions interview preparation, career assistance, or extracting project experience from git history. Provides comprehensive interview and career development guidance for both job seekers and interviewers.
fix-issue
IncludedFixes GitHub issues using parallel analysis agents for root cause investigation, code exploration, and regression detection. Reads issue context from gh CLI, searches codebase and memory for related patterns, generates a fix with tests, and links the resolution back to the issue via PR. Includes prevention analysis to avoid recurrence. Use when debugging errors, resolving regressions, fixing bugs, or triaging issues.
sf-apex
IncludedGenerates and reviews Salesforce Apex code with 150-point scoring. TRIGGER when: user writes, reviews, or fixes Apex classes, triggers, test classes, batch/queueable/schedulable jobs, or touches .cls/.trigger files. DO NOT TRIGGER when: LWC JavaScript (use sf-lwc), Flow XML (use sf-flow), SOQL-only queries (use sf-soql), or non-Salesforce code.
swift-development
IncludedComprehensive Swift development for building, testing, and deploying iOS/macOS applications. Use when Claude needs to: (1) Build Swift packages or Xcode projects from command line, (2) Run tests with XCTest or Swift Testing framework, (3) Manage iOS simulators with simctl, (4) Handle code signing, provisioning profiles, and app distribution, (5) Format or lint Swift code with SwiftFormat/SwiftLint, (6) Work with Swift Package Manager (SPM), (7) Implement Swift 6 concurrency patterns (async/await, actors, Sendable), (8) Create SwiftUI views with MVVM architecture, (9) Set up Core Data or SwiftData persistence, or any other Swift/iOS/macOS development tasks.