roboco/.tasks/templates/qa-review.md

QA Review: TASK-{ID}

Reviewer: {qa agent-id} Date: YYYY-MM-DD Verdict: {PASSED / NEEDS_REVISION / BLOCKED}

---

Review Summary

Aspect	Status	Notes
Functionality	✅ / ❌	{notes}
Code Quality	✅ / ❌	{notes}
Tests	✅ / ❌	{notes}
Security	✅ / ❌	{notes}
Documentation	✅ / ❌	{notes}

Overall Verdict: {PASSED / NEEDS_REVISION}

---

Acceptance Criteria Verification

#	Criterion	Status	Evidence
1	{criterion from task}	✅ / ❌	{how verified}
2	{criterion from task}	✅ / ❌	{how verified}
3	{criterion from task}	✅ / ❌	{how verified}

---

Functionality Testing

Happy Path

Test Case	Expected	Actual	Status
{test case 1}	{expected}	{actual}	✅ / ❌
{test case 2}	{expected}	{actual}	✅ / ❌

Edge Cases

Test Case	Expected	Actual	Status
{edge case 1}	{expected}	{actual}	✅ / ❌
{edge case 2}	{expected}	{actual}	✅ / ❌

Error Handling

Scenario	Expected	Actual	Status
{error scenario 1}	{expected}	{actual}	✅ / ❌
{error scenario 2}	{expected}	{actual}	✅ / ❌

---

Code Quality Review

Code Review Checklist

• Follows project conventions
• No code duplication
• Functions are focused (single responsibility)
• Naming is clear and consistent
• No dead code or commented-out code
• Error handling is appropriate
• Logging is adequate

Type Safety

• All types properly defined
• No any types (TS) or missing hints (Python)
• Null/undefined handled properly

Observations

{Any code quality observations}

---

Test Coverage

Automated Tests

Category	Before	After	Delta
Unit Tests	X	X	+X
Integration Tests	X	X	+X
Coverage %	X%	X%	+X%

Test Quality

• Tests cover happy path
• Tests cover error cases
• Tests are readable
• Tests don't have false positives

Test Output

{Paste test run output}

---

Security Review

Checklist

• Input validation present
• No sensitive data exposed
• Authentication/authorization correct
• No injection vulnerabilities (SQL, command, etc.)
• No XSS vulnerabilities
• Secrets not hardcoded

Findings

{Any security observations}

---

Performance Review

• No obvious performance issues
• Database queries optimized
• No N+1 query problems
• Appropriate caching considered

Observations

{Any performance observations}

---

Issues Found

Blocking Issues

Issue 1: {Title}

Severity: {Critical / High} Location: {file:line}

Description: {What's wrong}

Steps to Reproduce:

1. {Step 1}
2. {Step 2}

Expected: {What should happen} Actual: {What happens}

Suggested Fix: {How to fix, if known}

---

Issue 2: {Title}

{Same format}

---

Non-Blocking Issues

Issue 3: {Title}

Severity: {Medium / Low} Location: {file:line}

Description: {What's wrong}

Suggestion: {How to improve}

---

Positive Observations

{What was done well - positive feedback matters!}

• {Good thing 1}
• {Good thing 2}

---

Suggestions for Future

{Non-blocking suggestions for improvement}

• {Suggestion 1}
• {Suggestion 2}

---

Verdict Details

If PASSED

• All acceptance criteria met
• No blocking issues
• Code quality acceptable
• Tests adequate
• Ready for documentation

If NEEDS_REVISION

Required changes before re-review:

1. {Required change 1}
2. {Required change 2}

Re-review scope: {What will be re-checked}

---

Review Log

Date	Action	Reviewer
YYYY-MM-DD	Initial review	{agent}
YYYY-MM-DD	Re-review after fixes	{agent}