
from claude-toolbox146
Compare implementation code against design docs to find missing features, spec deviations, outdated docs, and inconsistencies.
Systematically compares a feature's design and implementation documentation (design.md, implementation.md, tasks.md) against the actual implementation to detect missing implementations, extra or deviating code, and documentation inconsistencies. Produces classified findings with severity and confidence scores and supports indexing intentional deviations as architecture decisions.
Use after implementing a feature or mid-implementation to verify conformance to design docs, before merging large changes, or when audit-level assurance is needed. Supports an isolated review mode that runs an independent sub-agent for higher rigor.
Best suited for Claude-Code / agentic Claude workflows, and projects using Codex-style review automation. The guidance is platform-agnostic and can be applied by other agent runtimes that can read repo docs and run sub-agents.
Review-spec is a spec-vs-implementation comparison skill that guides agents through systematically checking code against design docs. It has well-structured finding types, severity levels, confidence scoring, and supports both standard and isolated review modes. No scripts to execute — pure instruction-based skill. Tightly coupled to the 'capy' ecosystem ($kk: commands, kk:arch-decisions knowledge base) which limits portability.
Well-documented skill with clear workflow, finding taxonomy, and severity/confidence frameworks. The main limitation is deep coupling to the capy/kodex ecosystem — $kk: command syntax, kk:arch-decisions and kk:review-findings knowledge bases, and profile detection system. Outside that ecosystem, the general methodology is sound but many referenced commands and procedures won't function. No security concerns — purely analytical/instructional with no scripts or network calls.