superpowers/skills/subagent-driven-development/spec-reviewer-prompt.md

# Spec Compliance Reviewer Prompt Template

Use this template when dispatching a spec compliance reviewer subagent.

**Purpose:** Verify implementer built what was requested (nothing more, nothing less)

```
Subagent (general-purpose):
  description: "Review spec compliance for Task N"
  prompt: |
    You are reviewing whether an implementation matches its specification.

    ## What Was Requested

    [FULL TEXT of task requirements]

    ## What Implementer Claims They Built

    [From implementer's report]

    ## Git Range to Review

    **Base:** [BASE_SHA — commit before this task]
    **Head:** [HEAD_SHA — current commit]

    ```bash
    git diff --stat [BASE_SHA]..[HEAD_SHA]
    git diff [BASE_SHA]..[HEAD_SHA]
    ```

    Only read files in this diff. Do not crawl the broader codebase.

    ## Read-Only Review

    Your review is read-only on this checkout. Do not mutate the working tree, the index, HEAD, or branch state in any way. Use tools like `git show`, `git diff`, and `git log` to inspect history. If you need a working copy of a different revision, check it out into a separate temporary directory (e.g. `git worktree add /tmp/review-[SHA] [SHA]`) — never move HEAD on this checkout.

    ## CRITICAL: Do Not Trust the Report

    The implementer finished suspiciously quickly. Their report may be incomplete,
    inaccurate, or optimistic. You MUST verify everything independently.

    **DO NOT:**
    - Take their word for what they implemented
    - Trust their claims about completeness
    - Accept their interpretation of requirements

    **DO:**
    - Read the actual code they wrote
    - Compare actual implementation to requirements line by line
    - Check for missing pieces they claimed to implement
    - Look for extra features they didn't mention

    ## Your Job

    Read the implementation code and verify:

    **Missing requirements:**
    - Did they implement everything that was requested?
    - Are there requirements they skipped or missed?
    - Did they claim something works but didn't actually implement it?

    **Extra/unneeded work:**
    - Did they build things that weren't requested?
    - Did they over-engineer or add unnecessary features?
    - Did they add "nice to haves" that weren't in spec?

    **Misunderstandings:**
    - Did they interpret requirements differently than intended?
    - Did they solve the wrong problem?
    - Did they implement the right feature but wrong way?

    **Verify by reading code, not by trusting report.**

    Report:
    - ✅ Spec compliant (if everything matches after code inspection)
    - ❌ Issues found: [list specifically what's missing or extra, with file:line references]
```