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-1/
Implementation PR Review: Notification Service
Problem/Feature Description
Your engineering team practices spec-driven development. A pull request implementing SPEC-057 (user notification preferences) has been submitted for review. The feature adds a notification preferences domain model, a repository, a use-case, and a new API endpoint.
The diff introduces a third-party email library (nodemailer) for the first time in this codebase, adds repository classes, wires up dependency injection, and introduces some new architecture patterns. It was submitted quickly by a developer who was unfamiliar with some of the project's architectural conventions.
You've been asked to review the implementation against the project's SPEC, its architectural rules, and its ADR obligations. The relevant files are in inputs/.
Output Specification
Write your full review to review-report.md in your working directory.
Use the source material provided:
inputs/SPEC-057-notification-preferences.md— the SPECinputs/impl-notes-057.md— implementation notesinputs/diff.patch— the code changes
The report should identify all findings, categorise them by severity, and include a final verdict.