Reviewing Implementation Progress
Primary Responsibilities
You are provided with:
- Feature specification
- Implementation plan with tasks
- Previously completed task (baseline)
- In-progress task (current work)
Your job is to review all changes between the previously completed task and the in-progress one. Review the full git diff and explore the codebase to ensure:
- Implementation adheres to specification and implementation plan
- Code is high quality, maintainable, follows best practices
- No obvious bugs, security vulnerabilities, or performance issues
- Adequate tests cover new functionality and edge cases
- Tests actually test functionality (not just mocked behavior)
- Outstanding tasks/steps tracked appropriately
Expected Output
Provide findings in structured JSON report:
{
"compliant": false,
"issues": [
{
"type": "specification_mismatch",
"description": "The implementation does not fully adhere to specification. Specifically, it does not support JSON format for structured data exchange as required.",
"location": {
"file": "src/cli/index.ts",
"line": 45
}
},
{
"type": "code_quality",
"description": "Code duplication in agent management module that could be refactored for better maintainability.",
"location": {
"file": "src/agents/agentManager.ts",
"line": 123
}
},
{
"type": "testing_deficiency",
"description": "Unit tests only cover happy path scenarios and do not include edge cases or error handling paths.",
"location": {
"file": "tests/workflowEngine.test.ts",
"line": 67
}
},
{
"type": "performance_issue",
"description": "Synchronous operations in workflow engine have potential bottlenecks that could be optimized with async patterns.",
"location": {
"file": "src/workflowEngine/stateMachine.ts",
"line": 234
}
}
]
}
Issue Types
specification_mismatch
Implementation doesn't match what specification requires. Critical to fix.
plan_deviation
Implementation differs from plan without justification. May or may not be problematic.
code_quality
Maintainability issues, duplication, unclear naming, poor organization.
testing_deficiency
Missing tests, inadequate coverage, tests that don't actually verify behavior.
security_vulnerability
Potential security issues (injection, XSS, auth bypass, etc.).
performance_issue
Obvious performance problems, inefficient algorithms, resource leaks.
missing_error_handling
Errors not caught or handled properly.
incomplete_implementation
Feature partially implemented, missing parts.
Review Process
1. Read Specification and Plan
- Understand what should be implemented
- Note key requirements and acceptance criteria
- Identify critical constraints
2. Identify Baseline (Previous Task)
- Find git commit/SHA for previously completed task
- This is the baseline to compare against
3. Review Current Changes
- Get git diff from baseline to current state
- Read all modified files
- Understand what changed and why
4. Check Against Requirements
For each requirement in spec/plan:
- Is it implemented?
- Is it implemented correctly?
- Are there tests?
- Do tests actually verify the behavior?
5. Evaluate Code Quality
- Readability and maintainability
- Proper error handling
- Security considerations
- Performance considerations
- Test quality
6. Generate Report
- Set
compliant: trueonly if no issues found - Categorize each issue by type
- Provide specific file:line locations
- Write clear, actionable descriptions
Integration with Workflows
With executing-plans
Add optional checkpoint between batches:
Execute Task 1
Execute Task 2
Execute Task 3
→ Review progress (this skill)
→ Fix issues if any
→ Continue with Task 4-6
With subagent-driven-development
Review after each task to catch issues early:
Task 1 → Review → Fix → Task 2 → Review → Fix → ...
Use Cases
Mid-Feature Checkpoint
Scenario: Implementing large feature across 10 tasks, currently on task 5 Use: Review tasks 1-5 against spec to ensure on track before continuing
Quality Gate
Scenario: Before marking phase complete, verify all work meets standards Use: Review all changes in phase against requirements
Catching Drift Early
Scenario: Implementation may be diverging from plan Use: Early review catches drift before too much work is done wrong
Important Notes
Only Report Real Issues
- Don't report style preferences
- Don't suggest improvements unless actual problems
- Don't be overly pedantic
- Focus on things that matter
Be Specific
Bad: "Code quality issues in auth module" Good: "Duplicate password validation logic in auth/login.ts:45 and auth/register.ts:67"
Provide Context
For each issue, explain:
- What's wrong
- Why it matters
- Where it is (file:line)
- Implicitly, what should be done to fix it (through description)
Compliance Determination
Set compliant: true only when:
- All spec requirements met
- All plan tasks completed as described
- Code quality acceptable
- Tests adequate and passing
- No security issues
- No critical bugs
Set compliant: false when:
- Any requirement missing
- Tests inadequate
- Security concerns
- Code quality poor
- Functionality broken
Example Report
{
"compliant": false,
"issues": [
{
"type": "specification_mismatch",
"description": "Specification requires rate limiting of 100 req/min for anonymous users. Implementation at src/middleware/rateLimit.ts:23 sets limit to 50 req/min.",
"location": {
"file": "src/middleware/rateLimit.ts",
"line": 23
}
},
{
"type": "testing_deficiency",
"description": "No tests verify rate limit enforcement. Tests at tests/middleware/rateLimit.test.ts:15-45 only mock the rate limiter and don't test actual limiting behavior.",
"location": {
"file": "tests/middleware/rateLimit.test.ts",
"line": 15
}
}
]
}
Related Skills
reviewing-code- Comprehensive review framework (use for completed work)executing-plans- Execute plans in batches (integrate reviews between batches)debugging-systematically- Debug issues found in reviewavoiding-testing-anti-patterns- Avoid common testing mistakes