---
name: harness-review
description: "Use when reviewing this C#/.NET Harness repository: local changes, generated phase files, step outputs, implementation diffs, missing tests, dotnet validation readiness, 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 the repository's persistent rules, architecture docs, C#/.NET SDK constraints, TDD guard policy, and executable verification requirements. Prioritize bugs, regressions, missing tests, and rule violations.

## Review Process

1. Read `/AGENTS.md`, `/docs/ARCHITECTURE.md`, and `/docs/ADR.md`.
2. Inspect the changed files with `git status --short` and `git diff`.
3. Check architecture, C#/.NET stack choices, related C# test coverage, critical rules, and `dotnet` validation readiness.
4. Run Python Harness self-tests when relevant and use `python scripts/validate_workspace.py` for the default build/test review. If a command cannot be run, report that as residual risk.
5. Lead with actionable findings. Keep summaries secondary.

## Checklist

| Item | Question |
| --- | --- |
| Architecture | Does the change follow `docs/ARCHITECTURE.md` ownership boundaries? |
| Stack | Does the change stay within the C#/.NET SDK and `dotnet` CLI decisions documented in `docs/ADR.md`, using the installed `dotnet` without SDK installation or `global.json` pinning? |
| Tests | Are new or changed behaviors covered by Python Harness tests or related C# tests? |
| TDD Guard | Would C# production `.cs` edits be blocked without a related C# test file? |
| Critical Rules | Does the change violate any `AGENTS.md` CRITICAL rule? |
| Build | Does `python scripts/validate_workspace.py` honor `HARNESS_VALIDATION_COMMANDS`, otherwise prefer one root `.sln` and fall back to one root `.csproj`, then run the documented `dotnet` validation sequence? Do the Python self-tests and workspace validation pass? |

When no root `.sln` or `.csproj` exists, treat the C#/.NET guidance messages `No C#/.NET validation target found.` and `Add a root .sln or .csproj, or set HARNESS_VALIDATION_COMMANDS.` with a successful exit as the expected no-project path, not a build-readiness failure.

## Output Format

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

| 항목 | 결과 | 비고 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 아키텍처 준수 | PASS/FAIL | {상세} |
| 기술 스택 준수 | PASS/FAIL | {상세} |
| 테스트 존재 | PASS/FAIL | {상세} |
| TDD Guard | PASS/FAIL | {상세} |
| CRITICAL 규칙 | PASS/FAIL | {상세} |
| 빌드/검증 가능 | PASS/FAIL | {상세} |

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