Labsco
warpdotdev logo

check-impl-against-spec

★ 116

by warpdotdev · part of warpdotdev/common-skills

Compare a pull request's implementation against spec context in spec_context.md and feed any material mismatches into review.json. Use during PR review when approved or repository spec context is available.

🔥🔥🔥✓ VerifiedFreeQuick setup
#git
🧩 One of 7 skills in the warpdotdev/common-skills package — works on its own, and pairs well with its siblings.

Compare a pull request's implementation against spec context in spec_context.md and feed any material mismatches into review.json. Use during PR review when approved or repository spec context is available.

Inspect the full instructions your agent will receiveExpand

This is the exact playbook injected into your agent when the skill activates — shown here so you can audit it before installing. You don't need to read it to use the skill.

name: check-impl-against-spec description: Compare a pull request's implementation against spec context in spec_context.md and feed any material mismatches into review.json. Use during PR review when approved or repository spec context is available.

Check implementation against spec

Use this skill only when spec_context.md exists during PR review.

Goal

Determine whether the implementation in the checked-out PR materially matches the approved spec context. This is a supplement to the normal code review, not a separate output.

Inputs

  • spec_context.md contains the spec context to compare against. It may include both product spec content (intended behavior, acceptance criteria) and tech spec content (implementation details, file changes).
  • pr_diff.txt contains the annotated diff for the PR.
  • pr_description.md may contain additional scope or rationale.
  • The working tree contains the PR branch contents.

Process

  1. Read spec_context.md and extract the concrete commitments it makes:
    • required behaviors (from the product spec)
    • required files or subsystems to change (from the tech spec)
    • stated constraints
    • required follow-up steps, validation, or migrations
  2. Compare those commitments against the actual implementation in pr_diff.txt and the checked-out files.
  3. Treat small implementation-level adjustments as acceptable when they preserve the spec's intent. Do not flag harmless differences in naming, structure, or low-level technique.
  4. Flag a mismatch only when it is material, such as:
    • required behavior in the product spec is missing
    • the implementation contradicts a spec decision
    • the change introduces significant unplanned scope
    • a required validation, migration, or compatibility step from the tech spec is absent

Outputs

  • Do not create a separate report file.
  • Fold spec-alignment findings into review.json.
  • Put broad spec-drift concerns in the review summary.
  • Add inline comments only when the mismatch can be tied to changed lines in the diff.
  • Treat material spec drift as at least an important concern.
  • If the implementation matches the spec closely enough, do not add comments just to mention alignment.

Boundaries

  • Do not require literal one-to-one implementation of the spec when the PR achieves the same outcome safely.
  • Do not speculate about spec details that are not actually present in spec_context.md.
  • Do not post to GitHub directly.