implementation-review

Architecture validation checks the delivered code shape against the plan's approved design boundaries. Security and QA lenses assess authn/authz issues, unsafe defaults, secrets handling risks, regressions, and insufficient test coverage to ensure safe implementation.

Run the implementation review after implement-plan by asking your orchestrator to execute it. The process generates a zero-padded round artifact at ./docs/workflows/{slug}/reviews/implementation/round-XX.md, links prior rounds, and produces a constrained recommendation.

The recommendation gate decides whether to revise the implement-plan or proceed to final-review. This decision is based on material reviewer findings from the architecture, security, and QA product-correctness assessments recorded in the workflow artifacts.

Yes, post-implementation gating evaluates QA readiness by flagging regressions and insufficient test realism. It enforces evidence-based review against the approved idea, spec, and plan to prevent weak or unsafe implementations from advancing within the workflow.

Diff validation for code review gating should not be used when there is no approved plan or spec to validate against. The process requires deriving a workflow slug, preserving source artifacts, and linking prior implementation review rounds to function correctly.