/specialist-review

[Specialist Title] Review: [Target]

Reviewer: [Specialist Name], [Specialist Title] Target: [What's being reviewed - be specific] Date: [YYYY-MM-DD] Review Type: Specialist Review

Specialist Perspective

Focus: [What this specialist looks for based on their expertise]

[Brief explanation of this specialist's unique lens and what they prioritize in reviews]

Executive Summary

[Write 2-3 sentences summarizing the review findings]

Overall Assessment: Excellent | Good | Adequate | Needs Improvement | Critical Issues

Key Findings:

• [Most significant finding]
• [Second most significant finding]
• [Third most significant finding]

Critical Actions Required: [Number of critical items]

Current Implementation

[Describe what was reviewed with specific file references and context]

Scope Reviewed:

• [Component/feature 1]
• [Component/feature 2]
• [Component/feature 3]

Key Components:

• [file.ext:line]: [Brief description of component]
• [file.ext:line]: [Brief description]
• [file.ext:line]: [Brief description]

Pattern/Approach Used: [Describe the pattern or approach currently implemented]

Assessment

Strengths

[Identify what's working well from this specialist's perspective]

1. [Strength Title]: [Description of what's good and why it matters from this specialist's viewpoint]

2. [Strength Title]: [Description]

3. [Strength Title]: [Description]

[Aim for 3-5 strengths - recognize good practices]

Concerns

[Identify issues, weaknesses, and areas needing improvement]

1. [Concern Title] (Severity: Critical | High | Medium | Low)

   • Issue: [Clear description of what's wrong or could be improved]
   • Location: [file.ext:line-range]
   • Impact: [What problems this causes - performance, security, maintainability, etc.]
   • Fix: [Specific, actionable recommendation]
   • Effort: Small | Medium | Large

2. [Concern Title] (Severity: Critical | High | Medium | Low)

   • Issue: [Description]
   • Location: [file.ext:line]
   • Impact: [Impact]
   • Fix: [Recommendation]
   • Effort: Small | Medium | Large

3. [Concern Title] (Severity: Critical | High | Medium | Low)

   • [Details]

[Continue with additional concerns - prioritize by severity]

Observations

[Neutral observations that aren't necessarily problems but worth noting]

• [Observation]: [Description and context]
• [Observation]: [Description]
• [Observation]: [Description]

Recommendations

Immediate (0-2 Weeks)

[Critical and high-priority items that should be addressed right away]

1. [Recommendation Title]

   • What: [Specific action to take]
   • Why: [Reason and benefit]
   • How: [Implementation approach]
   • Effort: Small | Medium | Large
   • Priority: Critical | High

2. [Recommendation]

   • [Details]

Short-term (2-8 Weeks)

[Important improvements to address in the near term]

1. [Recommendation Title]

   • What: [Action]
   • Why: [Reason]
   • How: [Approach]
   • Effort: Small | Medium | Large
   • Priority: Medium

2. [Recommendation]

   • [Details]

Long-term (2-6 Months)

[Strategic improvements for future consideration]

1. [Recommendation Title]

   • What: [Action]
   • Why: [Strategic value]
   • How: [High-level approach]
   • Effort: Medium | Large
   • Priority: Low | Nice-to-Have

2. [Recommendation]

   • [Details]

Best Practices

[Industry best practices relevant to this specialist's domain]

1. [Practice Title]: [Description of best practice and how it applies to this codebase]

2. [Practice Title]: [Description]

3. [Practice Title]: [Description]

Industry Standards: [Reference relevant standards, guidelines, or frameworks]

• [Standard 1]: [How it applies]
• [Standard 2]: [How it applies]

Code Examples

[Provide concrete code examples showing current issues and recommended improvements]

Example 1: [Issue Title]

Current Implementation (Problematic):

[Code snippet showing the concern]

Issues:

• [Issue 1]
• [Issue 2]
• [Issue 3]

Recommended Improvement:

[Code snippet showing the improved approach]

Benefits:

• [Benefit 1]
• [Benefit 2]
• [Benefit 3]

Example 2: [Issue Title]

[Repeat structure for additional examples]

Risks

If Recommendations Not Addressed:

1. [Risk Title] (Likelihood: High | Medium | Low, Impact: High | Medium | Low)

   • Description: [What could go wrong]
   • Timeframe: [When this might occur]
   • Impact: [Consequences]
   • Mitigation: [How to reduce or eliminate risk]

2. [Risk Title] (Likelihood, Impact)

   • Description: [Risk description]
   • Timeframe: [When]
   • Impact: [Consequences]
   • Mitigation: [How to address]

3. [Risk Title] (Likelihood, Impact)

   • [Details]

Success Metrics

[Define how to measure improvement after implementing recommendations]

1. [Metric Name]

   • Current: [Baseline value]
   • Target: [Desired value]
   • Timeline: [When to achieve]
   • How to Measure: [Measurement method]

2. [Metric Name]: Current → Target (Timeline)

3. [Metric Name]: Current → Target (Timeline)

[Examples:

• Test Coverage: 40% → 80% (6 weeks)
• Response Time: 2s → 300ms (4 weeks)
• Security Score: 6/10 → 9/10 (8 weeks) ]

Follow-up

Re-Review Recommended: [When to conduct follow-up review]

Success Criteria for Closure:

• [Criterion 1]
• [Criterion 2]
• [Criterion 3]

Next Steps:

1. [Immediate next step]
2. [Second next step]
3. [Third next step]

Related Reviews:

• [Link to related reviews if any]

Related ADRs:

• [Link to relevant ADRs if decisions are needed]

Appendix

Review Scope

What Was Reviewed:

• [Scope item 1]
• [Scope item 2]
• [Scope item 3]

What Was Not Reviewed:

• [Out of scope item 1]
• [Out of scope item 2]

Methodology

This review was conducted by analyzing:

• Code structure and implementation
• [Relevant documentation]
• [Test coverage]
• [Performance metrics]
• [Security scan results]
• [Other relevant inputs]

References

Documentation Reviewed:

• [Document 1]
• [Document 2]

Standards Referenced:

• [Standard 1]
• [Standard 2]

Tools Used:

• [Tool 1]
• [Tool 2]

Review Complete