matthew-a-carr/review-implementation
Repo-aware review of an implementation PR (the `ai:done` PR) against the SPEC it implements, the constitution, the ADRs, and the doc-staleness rules. Use when a routine fires on a PR labelled `ai:done`, when a human says "review impl PR #NNN" / "review the implementation for SPEC-NNN", or as a self-review step inside `implement-spec` before the PR is opened. Read-only — produces a structured report and never edits code or merges.
85
90%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
69%
1.06xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Advisory
Suggest reviewing before use
task.mdevals/scenario-3/
Implementation PR Review: Payment Processing Feature
Problem/Feature Description
Your team has been using a spec-driven development workflow where engineers implement features based on formal SPEC documents. A pull request implementing SPEC-042 (a new payment processing feature) has just been labelled ai:done and is waiting for review.
The diff adds a new domain service for processing refunds, a repository class, a server action, and supporting unit tests. However, the branch was submitted in a hurry and there are some concerns about code quality and completeness.
You have been given a set of files representing the current state of the repository (the diff contents, the SPEC, and the implementation notes). Your job is to perform a thorough implementation review and produce a structured report.
Output Specification
Produce a file called review-report.md in your working directory containing your full review report.
The report should cover all relevant review dimensions: SPEC fidelity, architecture, naming conventions, tests, ADR obligations, documentation staleness, and simplicity.
Use the files provided in inputs/ as the source material:
inputs/SPEC-042-refund-processing.md— the SPEC documentinputs/impl-notes-042.md— the implementation notes fileinputs/diff.patch— the code changes being reviewed