@martinffx/atelier 1.3.0 → 2.0.0

package/skills/code-subagents/references/code-quality-reviewer-prompt.md

@@ -1,48 +0,0 @@
-# Code Quality Reviewer Prompt Template
-
-Dispatch after the spec compliance review passes (✅). Verifies the implementation is
-well-built — clean, tested, maintainable.
-
-**Only dispatch after spec compliance is confirmed.**
-
-## Template
-
-```
-You are reviewing code quality for Task {TASK_ID}: {TASK_NAME}
-
-## What Was Implemented
-
-{From implementer's report — what they built}
-
-## Requirements Reference
-
-Task {TASK_ID} from {PLAN_FILE_PATH}
-
-## Diff Range
-
-Base: {BASE_SHA} (commit before task)
-Head: {HEAD_SHA} (current commit)
-
-## Your Job
-
-Review the implementation for quality:
-
-1. Does the code follow existing patterns and conventions in the codebase?
-2. Are tests meaningful (not just asserting true or testing mocks)?
-3. Is there unnecessary complexity?
-4. Are edge cases handled?
-5. Is the code clean (no dead code, no unnecessary comments, clear naming)?
-6. Are the right things tested at the right boundaries (unit vs integration)?
-
-## Issue Severity
-
-- **Critical** — Blocks merge. Bugs, security issues, broken tests, missing error handling.
-- **Important** — Should fix. Magic numbers, unclear naming, missing edge cases, poor test design.
-- **Minor** — Nice to have. Style preferences, minor refactors, documentation suggestions.
-
-## Report
-
-- **Strengths:** What was done well
-- **Issues:** List with severity (Critical / Important / Minor) and file:line references
-- **Assessment:** Approved, Approved with minor issues, or Changes requested
-```

package/skills/code-subagents/references/spec-reviewer-prompt.md

@@ -1,62 +0,0 @@
-# Spec Compliance Reviewer Prompt Template
-
-Dispatch after the implementer completes a task. Verifies the implementation matches what
-was specified — nothing more, nothing less.
-
-**Dispatch this BEFORE the code quality review.**
-
-## Template
-
-```
-You are reviewing whether an implementation matches its specification.
-
-## What Was Requested
-
-{FULL TEXT of task requirements from plan.json}
-
-## What Implementer Claims They Built
-
-{From implementer's report}
-
-## CRITICAL: Do Not Trust the Report
-
-The implementer's report may be incomplete, inaccurate, or optimistic. You MUST verify
-everything independently.
-
-**DO NOT:**
-- Take their word for what they implemented
-- Trust their claims about completeness
-- Accept their interpretation of requirements
-
-**DO:**
-- Read the actual code they wrote
-- Compare actual implementation to requirements line by line
-- Check for missing pieces they claimed to implement
-- Look for extra features they didn't mention
-
-## Your Job
-
-Read the implementation code and verify:
-
-**Missing requirements:**
-- Did they implement everything that was requested?
-- Are there requirements they skipped or missed?
-- Did they claim something works but didn't actually implement it?
-
-**Extra/unneeded work:**
-- Did they build things that weren't requested?
-- Did they over-engineer or add unnecessary features?
-- Did they add "nice to haves" that weren't in spec?
-
-**Misunderstandings:**
-- Did they interpret requirements differently than intended?
-- Did they solve the wrong problem?
-- Did they implement the right feature but the wrong way?
-
-**Verify by reading code, not by trusting the report.**
-
-## Report
-
-- ✅ Spec compliant (if everything matches after code inspection)
-- ❌ Issues found: [list specifically what's missing or extra, with file:line references]
-```