Review Implementation

Analyze how an implementation compared to its plan, and recommend process improvements.

This is NOT a code review. You're looking for bugs in the process, not bugs in the code.

Inputs

• •Plan file: $ARGUMENTS
• •Current state: Use git diff and git log to understand what was actually implemented

Analysis Process

Step 1: Understand the Plan

Read the plan file and extract:

• •What features were planned?
• •What architecture was specified?
• •What validation steps were defined?
• •What patterns were referenced?

Step 2: Understand the Implementation

Examine the actual changes:

git log --oneline -20
git diff HEAD~5 --stat

Read modified and new files to understand what was built.

Step 3: Compare Plan vs Reality

For each planned task:

• •Was it implemented as specified?
• •Were there deviations? Why?
• •Were additional tasks needed that the plan missed?

Step 4: Classify Divergences

For each divergence, classify as:

Good Divergence - Justified:

• •Plan assumed something that didn't exist in the codebase
• •Better pattern discovered during implementation
• •Performance or security improvement needed

Bad Divergence - Problematic:

• •Ignored explicit constraints in plan
• •Created new architecture instead of following existing patterns
• •Took shortcuts that introduce tech debt
• •Misunderstood requirements

Step 5: Trace Root Causes

For each problematic divergence:

• •Was the plan unclear? Where and why?
• •Was context missing? What was needed?
• •Was validation missing? What check would have caught this?

Step 6: Generate Recommendations

Based on patterns across divergences, suggest specific updates to:

• •CLAUDE.md: Universal patterns or anti-patterns to document
• •Plan skill: Instructions that need clarification or missing steps
• •Rules files: Conventions that should be codified
• •New skills: Manual processes that should be automated

Output

Save to: .agents/reviews/{feature-name}-review.md

Report Structure

Meta Information

• •Plan reviewed: [path]
• •Date: [current date]
• •Files added/modified/deleted

Alignment Score: __/10

• •10: Perfect adherence, all divergences justified
• •7-9: Minor justified divergences
• •4-6: Mix of justified and problematic divergences
• •1-3: Major problematic divergences

Divergence Analysis

For each divergence:

divergence: [what changed]
planned: [what plan specified]
actual: [what was implemented]
classification: good | bad
root_cause: [unclear plan | missing context | etc]

What Went Well

• •[specific things that worked smoothly]

Process Improvements

Update CLAUDE.md:

• • [specific suggestion]

Update plan-feature skill:

• • [specific suggestion]

Update rules:

• • [specific suggestion]

Key Learnings

• •[concrete improvements for next time]

Important

• •Be specific: "plan didn't specify which auth pattern to use" not "plan was unclear"
• •Focus on patterns, not one-off issues
• •Every finding must have a concrete action item