Mode d’emploi
- Copiez la commande et examinez le paquet avant de l’installer dans votre environnement agent.
- Consultez le document original pour les outils, identifiants et environnements requis.
- Décrivez les entrées et le livrable souhaité ; comparez la sortie aux sources.
npx skills add https://github.com/warpdotdev/common-skills --skill check-impl-against-specAvant de commencer
- L’installation n’inclut ni abonnement au modèle, ni quota API, ni accès aux fichiers.
- Étoiles et installations reflètent l’activité, pas un test indépendant de qualité ou de sécurité.
Document Skill original
Rendu depuis le dépôt source en conservant titres, exemples, code, tableaux, liens et images.
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.mdcontains 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.txtcontains the annotated diff for the PR.pr_description.mdmay contain additional scope or rationale.- The working tree contains the PR branch contents.
Process
- Read
spec_context.mdand 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
- Compare those commitments against the actual implementation in
pr_diff.txtand the checked-out files. - 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.
- 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.
