Agent skill

implementation-review

Verify implemented code matches design and implementation documentation. Detects spec deviations, missing implementations, doc inconsistencies, and outdated docs. Use after implementing tasks or mid-way through a feature to ensure code and docs are in sync.

Stars 163
Forks 31

Install this agent skill to your Project

npx add-skill https://github.com/majiayu000/claude-skill-registry/tree/main/skills/other/other/implementation-review-serpro69-claude-toolbox-2

SKILL.md

Implementation Review

Overview

Systematically compare implemented code against a feature's design.md, implementation.md, and tasks.md in /docs/wip/[feature]/. Works both mid-implementation (reviewing completed tasks only) and post-implementation (full feature review).

Findings go in both directions — code that deviates from spec AND spec that is wrong or outdated given the code.

Finding Types

Each finding is classified by type (what kind of mismatch) and severity (how urgent).

Type Code Description Example
Missing Implementation MISSING_IMPL Spec describes something that was not implemented Design says "rate limiting on /api/auth" but no rate limiter exists
Extra Implementation EXTRA_IMPL Code implements something not in the spec A caching layer was added that design docs don't mention
Spec Deviation SPEC_DEV Code implements the feature but differently than specified Design says "bcrypt cost 12" but code uses cost 10
Doc Inconsistency DOC_INCON Documentation contradicts itself or is internally inconsistent design.md says JWT tokens, implementation.md says session cookies
Outdated Doc OUTDATED_DOC Code is correct but docs haven't been updated to reflect reality Endpoint was renamed during implementation but docs still reference old name
Ambiguous Spec AMBIGUOUS Spec is unclear enough that multiple interpretations are valid "Support pagination" without specifying cursor vs offset

Severity Levels

Same P0–P3 scale as solid-code-review, adapted for spec conformance:

Level Name Description Action
P0 Critical Missing core functionality, security spec violated, data model mismatch Must fix before merge
P1 High Significant behavioral deviation from spec, missing error handling that spec requires Should fix before merge
P2 Medium Minor deviation, doc inconsistency, partial implementation of a spec requirement Fix or create follow-up
P3 Low Naming mismatch, doc typo, cosmetic deviation from spec Optional

Confidence Levels

Each finding gets a confidence score (1–10) with mandatory reasoning explaining what was checked, what evidence supports the finding, and what uncertainty remains.

Score Meaning
9–10 Certain — direct, unambiguous contradiction between spec and code
7–8 Strong — clear evidence but minor room for interpretation
5–6 Moderate — likely issue but spec is somewhat vague or code has plausible alternative reading
3–4 Uncertain — possible issue, needs human judgment
1–2 Speculative — gut feeling, very ambiguous spec or indirect evidence

Workflow

See review-process.md for the detailed step-by-step process.

Phases:

  1. Load feature documents
  2. Determine review scope (mid-implementation vs post-implementation)
  3. Per-task verification against spec
  4. Cross-cutting concern check
  5. Self-check and confidence assessment
  6. Present findings

Invocation

Use the /implementation-review [feature-name] command, or invoke naturally when a user asks to verify implementation against docs.

Expand your agent's capabilities with these related and highly-rated skills.

Didn't find tool you were looking for?

Be as detailed as possible for better results