Use when reviewing existing test code for DAA compliance, identifying anti-patterns, or suggesting improvements to automation test architecture

DAA Code Reviewer

REQUIRED BACKGROUND: You MUST understand daa:daa-core before using this skill.

Overview

Review automation test code against DAA principles. Classify each violation by severity and provide actionable fix suggestions.

Review Process

digraph review {
    rankdir=TB;
    "Read the code" [shape=box];
    "Classify into layers" [shape=box];
    "Check Test Layer rules" [shape=box];
    "Check Action Layer rules" [shape=box];
    "Check Physical Layer rules" [shape=box];
    "Check cross-layer boundaries" [shape=box];
    "Assign severity" [shape=box];
    "Report findings" [shape=doublecircle];

    "Read the code" -> "Classify into layers";
    "Classify into layers" -> "Check Test Layer rules";
    "Check Test Layer rules" -> "Check Action Layer rules";
    "Check Action Layer rules" -> "Check Physical Layer rules";
    "Check Physical Layer rules" -> "Check cross-layer boundaries";
    "Check cross-layer boundaries" -> "Assign severity";
    "Assign severity" -> "Report findings";
}

Quick Review Checklist (Top 10)

Run through these checks in order. Stop and flag immediately on any CRITICAL finding.

Test Layer

[CRITICAL] Does any test method contain if, for, while, or try/catch?
[CRITICAL] Does any test method make direct API/UI/DB calls (bypassing Action Layer)?
[WARNING] Does any test method contain assert statements (should be in Action Layer)?

Action Layer

[CRITICAL] Does any action method lack self-verification (no assertion after operation)?
[CRITICAL] Does any action method call the underlying library directly (bypassing Physical Layer)?
[WARNING] Are there Composite Actions that call Physical Layer directly instead of composing Atomics?
[WARNING] Do action names follow the verb_object_and_verify_outcome pattern?

Physical Layer

[CRITICAL] Does the Physical Layer contain any assertions or business logic?
[WARNING] Does any Physical Layer method perform multiple operations instead of one?

Cross-Layer

[CRITICAL] Does any layer skip the adjacent layer (e.g., Test → Physical directly)?

→ Full detailed checklist: checklist.md

Severity Classification

Level	Meaning	Action Required
CRITICAL	Breaks DAA fundamentals — causes false positives or destroys test trust	Must fix before merge
WARNING	Hurts maintainability or violates DAA best practices	Should fix; acceptable to defer with justification
SUGGESTION	Improvement opportunity for readability or consistency	Nice to have; fix when convenient

→ Full severity guide with examples: severity-guide.md

Report Format

Every report MUST start with a DAA Score (1-10, where 10 = full compliance). Score is calculated by deducting from 10 based on findings severity.

→ Full scoring rubric, rules, and report template: scoring.md

Common Patterns to Watch For

"It works so it's fine": Code that passes tests but violates DAA is technical debt that will cause false positives later
Gradual erosion: One if in a test method → two → tests become procedural scripts
"Just this once": Direct Physical Layer calls in tests "just for this special case" — there are no exceptions
Assertion-free actions: Methods named click_save() without _and_verify_* suffix — likely missing verification

daa-review