---
name: harness-review
description: "Use when reviewing this Abaqus User Subroutine Harness repository: local changes, generated phase files, implementation diffs, missing tests, Fortran validation readiness, reference artifact contracts, or compliance with AGENTS.md, docs/ARCHITECTURE.md, docs/ADR.md, and Harness acceptance criteria."
---

# Harness Review

## Overview

Use this skill to review Harness work against repository rules, Abaqus User Subroutine workflow, Fortran TDD, no-Abaqus validation, reference artifact contracts, and externally generated extracted CSV validation requirements. Prioritize bugs, regressions, missing tests, and rule violations.

## Review Process

1. Read `/AGENTS.md`, `/docs/ABAQUS_SUBROUTINE_AGENT_DESIGN.md`, `/docs/ARCHITECTURE.md`, and `/docs/ADR.md`.
2. Inspect changed files with `git status --short` and `git diff`.
3. Check architecture, Fortran test coverage, reference artifact contracts, critical rules, and validation readiness.
4. Run relevant commands when feasible:
   - `python -m unittest discover -s scripts -p "test_*.py"`
   - `python scripts/validate_fortran.py`
   - `python scripts/validate_reference_artifacts.py`
   - `python scripts/validate_workspace.py`
5. Lead with actionable findings. Keep summaries secondary.

## Checklist

| Item | Question |
| --- | --- |
| Workflow | Does the change fit the seven-step Abaqus User Subroutine process? |
| Architecture | Does the change follow `docs/ARCHITECTURE.md` ownership boundaries? |
| Tests | Are new or changed Fortran behaviors covered by no-Abaqus Fortran/Python tests or harness tests? |
| TDD Guard | Would Fortran production edits be blocked without related tests? |
| References | Do reference artifacts include `.inp`, source hash, Abaqus version, compiler version, msg/dat/log tail, and extracted CSV contracts when required? |
| External Results | Are solver-result checks based on externally generated ODB-extracted CSV artifacts rather than local solver runs? |
| Build | Do the Python, Fortran, reference artifact, and workspace validation commands pass or report expected skips? |

## Output Format

If there are findings, list them first in severity order with file and line references when possible. Then include this table:

| Item | Result | Notes |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Workflow | PASS/FAIL | {detail} |
| Architecture | PASS/FAIL | {detail} |
| Tests | PASS/FAIL | {detail} |
| TDD Guard | PASS/FAIL | {detail} |
| Reference Artifacts | PASS/FAIL | {detail} |
| External Results | PASS/FAIL | {detail} |
| Validation | PASS/FAIL | {detail} |

When there are no findings, say that clearly, then mention commands not run or remaining risk.
