roboco/docs/rag/workflows/qa-review.md

QA Review Workflow

Preconditions

• Task is in awaiting_qa status
• The developer's PR is open (the choreographer opened it during their open_pr(task_id) call)
• You are not the original developer of the task (self-review guard)

Steps

# 1. Pick up an awaiting-QA task
give_me_work()

# 2. Claim it for review (auto-checks-out the dev's branch in your
#    workspace; auto-records original_developer for the self-review
#    guard at pass/fail time)
claim_review(task_id="<task>")

# 3. Inspect the diff (project_slug is optional — omit it and your
#    own project is used)
roboco_git_diff()
roboco_git_log(branch="<dev's branch>")

# 4. Run the relevant suite
# Backend: uv run pytest && uv run ruff check . && uv run mypy roboco/
# Frontend: pnpm test && pnpm lint && pnpm typecheck

# 5. Capture evidence (survives compaction; PMs can audit later)
note(text="Verified AC #1 (429 on 101st req), #2 (TTL match), #3 "
          "(boundary tests). pytest 1635 passed; ruff clean; mypy clean.",
     scope="evidence",
     task_id="<task>")

There is no roboco_task_claim / _start / _qa_pass / _qa_fail and no roboco_git_checkout. The verbs above (claim_review, pass, fail) are the actual surface; branch checkout is a side-effect of claim_review.

You always claim the review yourself — the dispatcher spawns you against an awaiting_qa task without pre-claiming it. claim_review records your claim but keeps the status at awaiting_qa (there is no claimed detour), so pass/fail find the status they demand.

Review Checklist

Before deciding:

• Read the dev's notes and journal entries on the task
• Walk every acceptance criterion against the diff
• Tests pass on the dev's branch
• Lint / typecheck clean
• No layer-separation regressions (routes/ vs services/ etc.)
• No silenced rules (# noqa, # type: ignore, # pragma: no cover)
• Code matches project standards in CLAUDE.md

Passing QA

pass(
    task_id="<task>",
    notes=(
        "All 3 acceptance criteria verified against the diff. "
        "pytest 1635 passed; ruff and mypy clean. "
        "PR #123."
    ),
)

Result:

• Task advances to awaiting_documentation
• Documenter and the original dev work in parallel from here
• The PR stays open; it will be merged later by the Cell PM via complete(task_id, ...)

Failing QA

fail(
    task_id="<task>",
    findings=[
        {
            "file": "roboco/api/routes/rate_limit.py",
            "line": 88,
            "severity": "blocker",
            "expected": "429 on the 101st request in the window",
            "actual": "the 100th request also returns 429 — boundary off-by-one",
            "fix": "use > not >= when comparing against the window limit",
        },
        {
            "severity": "major",
            "criterion": "AC #3 — Redis-down failover path",
            "expected": "a test covering the Redis-down failover path",
            "actual": "no such test exists in this diff",
        },
    ],
)

Each finding is validated, persisted onto the task's append-only revision-findings ledger (origin=qa, round=revision_count+1), and rendered into qa_notes as [F-xxxxxxxx] file:line (severity) — expected → actual → fix. The old issues=[...] (plain strings) form still works this release but is deprecated — each becomes a file-less severity=major finding. A soft nudge fires above 5 findings in one call, a hard reject above 10.

Result:

• Task returns to needs_revision
• Re-assigned to the original developer (recorded at submit-for-qa time)
• Developer receives a notification, and the open findings arrive inline via evidence()'s revision_findings and the respawn prompt — see docs/rag/architecture/review-findings.md

Re-reviewing a bounced task (round ≥2)

If the task has failed before, claim_review returns prior_findings — the FULL ledger, every round, newest first — alongside the usual PR diff. Check each prior finding against the current diff one at a time before deciding: a finding still unaddressed is a fail, not a pass with a note. Passing (pass) bulk-verifies every addressed QA-origin finding in the same transaction — that verification IS the confirmation the fix landed.

Reflect (recommended)

After pass or fail, journal the review for future QA agents to learn from:

note(
    text=(
        "Reviewed task <id>. Pattern: rate-limiter boundary tests "
        "should always assert the off-by-one — caught it in this "
        "review and last week's. Worth a regression checklist item."
    ),
    scope="reflect",
    task_id="<task>",
)

Self-Review Prevention

The system blocks QA from reviewing their own dev work. The original developer is recorded in quick_context at submit-for-qa time. If qa_agent_id == original_developer_id, all QA actions on the task return not_authorized:

• claim_review — FORBIDDEN
• pass — FORBIDDEN (defence-in-depth even if claim somehow succeeded)
• fail — FORBIDDEN (same)

Enforced at the gateway layer in roboco/services/gateway/choreographer/_impl.py.