Review task implementations against specifications and boundary constraints with mechanical checks.
npx skills add https://github.com/manatago/gion --skill kiro-review-manatago
Please help me install this Agent Skill. Skill: kiro-review Source: https://github.com/manatago/gion/tree/main/.claude/skills/kiro-review Command: npx skills add https://github.com/manatago/gion --skill kiro-review-manatago
The skill helps reviewers determine whether an implementer's work actually fulfills the approved requirements and design, stays inside the assigned task boundary, and includes verifiable evidence, preventing silent scope drift and hidden coupling.
Review task T123 using the task text, requirements.md sections, design.md sections, the implementer's status report, the task Boundary:, and validation commands, then run git diff and tests and return APPROVED or REJECTED with mechanical results and remediation.
High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.
To verify spec compliance, review task implementations against approved requirements and boundary constraints by running git diff, executing tests, grepping changed files for placeholders and secrets, and cross-checking referenced design sections to return an APPROVED or REJECTED status.
Task boundary auditing compares changed files to assigned task constraints and referenced design sections to detect scope spillover and hidden dependencies, preventing silent scope drift during post-implementation reviews and pre-acceptance verification.
Enforce validation evidence by verifying RED-phase test outputs, scanning changed files for placeholder markers and secrets, running static and runtime-sensitive checks, and reporting required remediation with mechanistic supporting evidence.
Yes, you can detect scope drift by running git diff to analyze changes, executing available project tests, and cross-checking referenced requirements against task boundary constraints to flag concrete violations mechanically.
Code reviews miss hidden dependencies when they rely on assertions instead of mechanical verification, which you can fix by comparing changed files to task boundary constraints and grepping for placeholders and secrets to flag concrete violations.
The best way to check for placeholders and secrets is to grep changed files directly from the git diff output during the review process, ensuring validation evidence enforcement flags any embedded sensitive data or incomplete code markers.
growilabsReview task implementations against approved specs, boundaries, and verification evidence.
miyamo2Assess implementations against approved requirements and design boundaries.
samjhechtDispatch a code-review subagent to verify implementation against plan or requirements.
memorysaverVerify implementation completeness against openspec delta spec artifacts.
