Claude-Code-Game-Studios/.claude/skills/architecture-review/references/7-report.md

/architecture-review — Phase 7: Output the Review Report

Part of /architecture-review. SKILL.md names when to read this file; the settings it resolved and the rules under its later headings still apply here.

Phase 7: Output the Review Report

## Architecture Review Report
Date: [date]
Engine: [name + version]
GDDs Reviewed: [N]
ADRs Reviewed: [M]

[output of: Bash: bash .claude/scripts/review-receipts.sh hash docs/architecture/adr-*.md design/gdd/*.md
 — one Reviewed-Content-Hash line per file reviewed; Phase 1a's freshness
 check reads these on the next run to skip or scope an unchanged re-review]

---

### Traceability Summary
Total requirements: [N]
✅ Covered: [X]
⚠️ Partial: [Y]
❌ Gaps: [Z]

### Coverage Gaps (no ADR exists)
For each gap:
  ❌ TR-[id]: [GDD] → [system] → [requirement]
     Suggested ADR: "/architecture-decision [suggested title]"
     Domain: [Physics/Rendering/etc]
     Engine Risk: [LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH]

### Cross-ADR Conflicts
[List all conflicts from Phase 4]

### ADR Dependency Order
[Topologically sorted implementation order from Phase 4 — dependency ordering section]
[Unresolved dependencies and cycles if any]

### GDD Revision Flags
[GDD assumptions that conflict with verified engine behaviour — from Phase 5b]
[Or: "None — all GDD assumptions consistent with verified engine behaviour"]

### Engine Compatibility Issues
[List all engine issues from Phase 5]

### Architecture Document Coverage
[List missing systems and orphaned architecture from Phase 6]

---

### Verdict: [PASS / NOT ASSESSED / CONCERNS / FAIL]

PASS: All requirements covered by **Accepted** ADRs, no conflicts, engine consistent
NOT ASSESSED: The review could not be performed over its stated scope — name why
CONCERNS: Some gaps, partial coverage, or coverage resting on `Proposed` ADRs,
      but no blocking conflicts
FAIL: Critical gaps (Foundation/Core layer requirements uncovered),
      or blocking cross-ADR conflicts detected

**`NOT ASSESSED` ranks above PASS and below CONCERNS and FAIL.** Emit it when:

- **No ADRs exist, or none could be read.** Zero requirements traced is not full
  coverage — it is an untraced architecture, and a matrix of `❌ Gap` rows at
  least says so while an empty matrix says nothing.
- **The requirement source is missing** — no `tr-registry.yaml` and no GDD
  requirements to trace *from*. A review with no left-hand column cannot report
  coverage; it can only report that it had nothing to compare.
- **An ADR is unreadable or has no `## Status`**, so its rows are `❓` and their
  coverage is unknown rather than absent.
- **Phase 6 could not run** — no `docs/architecture/architecture.md`. It must
  appear as a named `NOT ASSESSED` **line item** in the report rather than as
  absent findings. ADR traceability can still be complete, so a CONCERNS or FAIL
  finding elsewhere still stands; but in `full` mode, whose scope includes
  Phase 6, the verdict cannot be PASS — a review that could not look at part of
  its scope has not shown that part is sound, so it is NOT ASSESSED.
- **No engine is configured** (`full` and `engine` modes) — Phase 5 has no pinned
  engine reference to audit the ADRs against, and the specialist consultation was
  skipped. Record the `Engine validation: NOT ASSESSED` line item; like Phase 6
  above, it keeps the verdict from PASS.

Do not resolve any of these to PASS on the grounds that no gap was *found*. No
gap was looked for.

### Blocking Issues (must resolve before PASS)
[List items that must be resolved — FAIL verdict only]

### Required ADRs
[Prioritised list of ADRs to create, most foundational first]

---