| name | review-implementation |
| description | Review an implementation against an authoritative local or Notion specification, then run the general coding and security review. Use for specification alignment, delivered-ticket validation, or detecting omissions, drift, and unsanctioned behavior before handoff. |
| model | opus |
| context | fork |
| allowed-tools | Task, Read, Grep, Glob, Bash, WebSearch, AskUserQuestion, TodoWrite, Skill |
| argument-hint | [specifier] [--area=alignment|test|documentation|code-quality|security|style|all] [--out=reviews] [--spec-path=./.code-spec] |
Review Implementation
Review delivered code against a concrete specification and the general review contract. ALIGNMENT.md owns specification conformance. coding:review-code owns semantic correctness, security, tests, documentation, and sibling consistency. This skill coordinates both and does not edit implementation files.
Boundaries
- Require an on-disk specification bundle or resolve a Notion source with
Skill(sync-spec) before alignment.
- Every alignment finding cites both a specification location and an implementation location.
- Do not duplicate the base review protocol or mechanical lint checks.
- Alignment failure changes the report and next-action plan, but never suppresses the general or security review.
Inputs and outputs
specifier accepts the same file, directory, package, PR, or range forms as coding:review-code. --spec-path defaults to ./.code-spec; --out defaults to reviews/. --area=all is the default. --area=alignment narrows the specification-specific artifact, but it still runs the mandatory general semantic and security areas from coding:review-code.
Write:
ALIGNMENT.md: requirements mapped to implementation, with ALIGN-P<n>-<seq> findings and a verdict;- all requested files from
coding:review-code (SECURITY.md, QUALITY.md, TESTING.md, DOCS.md, STYLE.md, and CORRECTNESS.md as applicable);
README.md: an index with per-area verdicts, counts, and skipped/refused reasons.
If the spec cannot be materialized, return without partial review files:
status: refused
reason: spec_not_found
resolved_spec_path: <absolute path>
Workflow
- Resolve the project root and
--spec-path. For a Notion URL or ID, invoke Skill(sync-spec) once to materialize .code-spec, then verify the bundle contains a readable root specification.
- Resolve the implementation file set with the same semantics as
coding:review-code.
- Run the alignment area first. Enumerate every requirement in the bundle (contracts, schemas, invariants, acceptance criteria, non-functional posture), then trace both directions: spec-to-code for omissions and drift, code-to-spec for unsanctioned additions. The specifier bounds only which code gets drift scrutiny — before flagging a requirement as missing, search the whole repository for an implementing site; a requirement implemented anywhere is satisfied. Treat every detection as a candidate: adversarially try to refute it (covered elsewhere, sanctioned by another spec section or an optional/future marker, drift within tolerance) and record only survivors. When scope warrants delegation, dispatch auditors blind — spec path, file set, template, and standards paths only, never the expected conclusion — and keep the verifier independent of the finder.
ALIGNMENT.md follows coding:review-code's references/review.template.md with prefix ALIGN, so finding IDs stay stable across re-runs per the base skill's rules.
- Always invoke
Skill(coding:review-code) for the requested non-alignment areas, including its general semantic review and security review, even when alignment has P0/P1 findings. Pass the target and output directory; tell the base skill that specification conformance belongs only in ALIGNMENT.md.
- Reconcile each alignment deviation with the user: update the spec, update code, accept with rationale, or defer. Do not silently choose a resolution. Batch the questions, but every deviation must receive a decision.
- Regenerate
ALIGNMENT.md and README.md, retaining the base review's findings and recording any refusal or skipped area. Follow references/deviation-lifecycle.md for the severity ladders, the three-state open/decided/resolved verdict model (only resolved clears; decided still counts as outstanding), how reconciliation decisions are woven into each issue block, re-run ID stability, and the read-only structural validation pass.
- Return a structured summary and the report's
## Next-Action Plan, then ask the user which branch to take. Approved implementation changes route to coding:fix or specification:implement-code; spec changes route to specification:spec-code plus a sync; continuation notes route to coding:handover. Flip each decided deviation to resolved as its close-the-gap action completes, and offer a re-detection round to confirm closure.
- Run the verification below; when a check fails, fix the cause and re-run that check. Repeat until every check passes or a concrete blocker remains, then report the blocker instead of looping.
Verification
- Every alignment finding cites both a specification location and an implementation location, and survived the adversarial refutation pass.
ALIGNMENT.md, the requested base review files, and the README.md index exist with per-area verdicts; the structural validation pass from references/deviation-lifecycle.md is clean.- Every deviation carries a recorded reconciliation decision; only
resolved deviations are counted as cleared.
- General and security review evidence is present even when alignment failed.
Alignment contract
For each requirement, record requirement, spec_location, implementation_location, status (satisfied, missing, drift, or unsanctioned), severity, evidence, and next action. Severity follows impact: a broken acceptance criterion or weakened invariant is P0; contract drift is P0 or P1 by blast radius; an unsanctioned addition is P1 minimum unless trivial (logging, internal helpers consistent with siblings); documentation-only divergence is P2 or P3. Keep spec-conformance findings out of the base review files. Semantic bugs that are wrong regardless of the specification remain in the base review's correctness area.
Alignment is a gate for the next action, not a gate for evidence collection: a failed alignment must still have general and security findings so the user can see the complete risk picture.
Completion report
status: success|partial|refused
specifier: <target>
spec_path: <absolute path>
alignment: pass|fail|refused
base_review: completed|partial|refused
general_review: completed|partial|refused
security_review: completed|partial|refused
open_findings: 0
reports: [ALIGNMENT.md, SECURITY.md, ...]
next_action: execute|handover|defer
success requires alignment plus general and security review to complete with no blocking finding. Use partial when any required area fails, is unavailable, or retains findings; use refused only when no authoritative specification can be materialized. Never label a run complete when general/security evidence is absent.
