Execution Steps

1. Gather Context:
   • Read {{KIRO_DIR}}/specs/$1/spec.json for language and metadata
   • Read {{KIRO_DIR}}/specs/$1/requirements.md for requirements
   • Read {{KIRO_DIR}}/specs/$1/design.md for design document
   • Core steering context: product.md, tech.md, structure.md
   • Additional steering files only when directly relevant to architecture boundaries, integrations, runtime prerequisites, domain rules, security/performance constraints, or team conventions that affect implementation readiness
   • Relevant local agent skills or playbooks only when they clearly match the feature's host environment or use case and provide review-relevant context

Parallel Research

The following research areas are independent and can be executed in parallel:

1. Context & rules loading: Spec documents, core steering, task-relevant extra steering, relevant local agent skills/playbooks, and rules/design-review.md from this skill's directory for review criteria
2. Codebase pattern survey: Gather existing architecture patterns, naming conventions, and component structure from the codebase to use as reference during review

If multi-agent is enabled, spawn sub-agents for each area above. Otherwise execute sequentially.

After all parallel research completes, synthesize findings for review.

2. Execute Design Review:

   • Reference conversation history when available: leverage prior requirements discussion and user's stated design intent
   • Follow design-review.md process: Analysis → Critical Issues → Strengths → GO/NO-GO
   • Limit to 3 most important concerns
   • Engage interactively with user — ask clarifying questions, propose alternatives
   • Use language specified in spec.json for output

3. Decision and Next Steps:

   • Clear GO/NO-GO decision with rationale
   • Provide specific actionable next steps (see Next Phase below)

Important Constraints

• Quality assurance, not perfection seeking: Accept acceptable risk
• Critical focus only: Maximum 3 issues, only those significantly impacting success
• Conversation-aware: Leverage discussion history for requirements context and user intent when available
• Interactive approach: Engage in dialogue, ask clarifying questions, propose alternatives
• Balanced assessment: Recognize both strengths and weaknesses
• Actionable feedback: All suggestions must be implementable
• Context Discipline: Start with core steering and expand only with review-relevant steering or use-case-aligned local agent skills/playbooks

Tool Guidance

• Read first: Load spec, core steering, relevant local playbooks/agent skills, and rules before review
• Grep if needed: Search codebase for pattern validation or integration checks
• Interactive: Engage with user throughout the review process

Output Description

Provide output in the language specified in spec.json with:

1. Review Summary: Brief overview (2-3 sentences) of design quality and readiness
2. Critical Issues: Maximum 3, following design-review.md format
3. Design Strengths: 1-2 positive aspects
4. Final Assessment: GO/NO-GO decision with rationale and next steps

Format Requirements:

• Use Markdown headings for clarity
• Follow design-review.md output format
• Keep summary concise

Safety & Fallback

Error Scenarios

• Missing Design: If design.md doesn't exist, stop with message: "Run /kiro-spec-design $1 first to generate design document"
• Design Not Generated: If design phase not marked as generated in spec.json, warn but proceed with review
• Empty Steering Directory: Warn user that project context is missing and may affect review quality
• Language Undefined: Default to English (en) if spec.json doesn't specify language

Next Phase: Task Generation

If Design Passes Validation (GO Decision):

• Review feedback and apply changes if needed
• Run /kiro-spec-tasks $1 to generate implementation tasks
• Or /kiro-spec-tasks $1 -y to auto-approve and proceed directly

If Design Needs Revision (NO-GO Decision):

• Address critical issues identified
• Re-run /kiro-spec-design $1 with improvements
• Re-validate with /kiro-validate-design $1

Note: Design validation is recommended but optional. Quality review helps catch issues early.