Hyraxknot Division — QA Review Checklist

Version: 1.0
Owner: Nei (maintainer) → Rei (review gate)
Applies to: All implementation tasks before transitioning to Done
Template reuse: Copy the checklist block into the task comment before reviewing

The Checklist

Before any implementation task may move to Done, the reviewing sister/agent must complete this checklist.

1. Original Task Contract Review

• Task description clearly states what was to be built/fixed
• Acceptance criteria are defined and verifiable
• Scope boundaries are clear (what’s in, what’s explicitly out)

2. Acceptance Criteria Verification

• Each AC is individually verified (pass/fail documented)
• ACs that block Done are all passing
• If any AC is partially met, document the gap

3. Evidence Required

• Changed files listed with absolute paths
• Runtime evidence captured (log snippet, terminal output, screenshot, or test report)
• Evidence is self-contained — doesn’t require the reviewer to re-run

4. Files Changed

• All modified files are listed
• No unintended modifications outside scope
• New files are justified in the task contract

5. Tests / Checks Run

• Syntax validation passed (py_compile, tsc, etc.)
• Unit tests run and pass (or documented why skipped)
• Integration/relevant tests run and pass
• Linting/style checks passed where applicable

6. Regression Risk

• Changes are backward-compatible
• Known side effects documented
• No silent data loss or state corruption risk

7. Scope Drift Check

• Implementation does not exceed original ACs without justification
• If scope grew, task description has been updated to match
• Drift is documented as a comment on the issue

8. Security / Safety Concerns

• No hardcoded secrets, tokens, or credentials
• API endpoints validate input
• File writes use safe paths (no path traversal)
• Network calls use HTTPS where applicable
• No unsafe eval(), exec(), or shell injection vectors
• Any new dependencies are vetted

9. Follow-Up Task Requirement

• Any deferred work or known gaps have a follow-up issue created
• Follow-up issue is linked in the review comment

10. Final Verdict

**QA Verdict:** [PASS | PASS WITH FOLLOW-UP | REWORK | BLOCKED]
**Reviewed by:** [Sister Name]
**Review date:** [Date]
**Evidence summary:** (1-2 sentence summary of what was verified)

Verdict Definitions

Usage Notes

• Agents should self-review using this checklist before requesting review
• The reviewing sister (default: Rei) runs the full checklist
• Checklist output should be posted as a comment on the Linear issue
• The agent-task label must be present before review begins
• If the task is a doc/spec task (type:doc), skip sections 5, 6, and 8

Template (Copy-Paste Block)

## QA Review Checklist

### 1. Task Contract Review
- [ ] Contract clear? 
- [ ] ACs defined?

### 2. Acceptance Criteria Verification
- [ ] All ACs passing?
- Gaps:

### 3. Evidence Required
- [ ] Evidence provided?

### 4. Files Changed
- [ ] Listed?
- [ ] No scope leaks?

### 5. Tests / Checks Run
- [ ] Syntax?
- [ ] Unit tests?
- [ ] Integration?

### 6. Regression Risk
- [ ] Backward-compatible?
- [ ] Side effects documented?

### 7. Scope Drift Check
- [ ] No drift?
- [ ] Drift documented?

### 8. Security / Safety
- [ ] No secrets?
- [ ] Safe I/O?

### 9. Follow-Up
- [ ] Gaps have follow-up issues?

### 10. Verdict
**QA Verdict:** 
**Reviewed by:** 
**Date:** 
**Evidence summary:**