Flagrare Implementation Review
Run this before every commit, after /flagrare:staleness-audit. The goal: what was planned is implemented, what is implemented is tested, and what is tested is correct.
Each of the seven checks is run by a dedicated subagent. Spawn all seven in parallel, collect their reports, then synthesise into the output format below.
REQUIRED BACKGROUND for Checks 2-4: the test-related checks apply /flagrare:testing-philosophy (behavior over implementation, the Testing Trophy, the e2e necessity floor). Pass that skill's content into the Check 2, 3, and 4 subagent briefs so they judge against the same definition of "good test" the planning side uses.
REQUIRED BACKGROUND for Check 7: the security check applies /flagrare:security-audit (threat taxonomy, three-phase methodology, confidence gate, false-positive precedents, generic dependency audit). Pass that skill's content into the Check 7 subagent brief so it judges against the same security discipline a standalone /flagrare:security-audit run uses.
Step 1: Gather inputs (main agent)
Before spawning subagents, collect in the main agent:
git diff --staged, full diff (the primary input for all subagents)git diff --staged --name-only, file list- The active plan: look in this order:
- Session context: did
/flagrare:atdd-planrun earlier in this conversation? Use that output. ~/.claude/plans/*.md, the most recently modified file, if the directory exists.- The project's decision log (
docs/decisions/,docs/adr/, RFCs, or equivalent), the foundational decision is always the mission/scope anchor. - README roadmap, checked/unchecked items define what is in scope.
- Session context: did
- Full content of test files touched or related to the staged changes.
- Full content of non-test source files in the staged diff.
If no plan is findable, say so explicitly and skip Checks 1-2 in the subagent briefs.
Step 2: Dispatch seven subagents in parallel
Spawn all seven subagents simultaneously using model: "sonnet". Each subagent receives the relevant slice of inputs (described in each brief below) and returns findings in the format Check N · [name]: ✓ clean | ⚠ [finding] | ✗ [blocking finding].
Do not run checks sequentially in the main agent. Spawn → collect → synthesise.
Subagent brief: Check 1: Plan gap analysis
Inputs: full git diff --staged, the active plan document.
Compare what the active plan said would be built against what the staged diff actually implements.
For each item in the plan's "Implementation Phases" or task list:
- Is it in the staged diff? → ✓ implemented
- Is it partially there? → ⚠ partial, what is missing
- Is it absent entirely? → ✗ gap, was it intentionally deferred, or forgotten?
Ask: would a reader of the plan consider this commit "phase complete"? If the plan defined a gate ("Phase N is done when ATs #1-4 pass"), does the commit satisfy it?
Flag every gap. A deferred item is not a gap, but it must be explicitly deferred, not silently absent.
Subagent brief: Check 2: Use-case coverage
Inputs: full git diff --staged, the project's foundational scope document (ADR-0001, RFC-001, mission doc, or equivalent, whichever anchors what this project is for), README feature description.
For every user-facing capability in scope for this commit:
- Is there at least one test that exercises it through the public API?
- Is there a code path that implements it?
- Is the critical happy path covered end-to-end through the real, assembled system? Per the e2e necessity floor in
/flagrare:testing-philosophy, a user-facing feature with unit + integration coverage but no e2e/full-stack proof that the layers connect is a gap. E2e generalizes by surface: a browser journey for a UI, running-service-over-HTTP-against-a-real-DB for a backend, a subprocess invocation for a CLI, public-API-as-a-consumer for a library. One or two critical paths suffice, but zero is a finding.
This is different from Check 1, use cases can be implicit in the product scope even if the plan did not spell them out. Ask: "what would a consumer of this code reasonably expect to be able to do?"
Flag any use case that has an implementation but no test, a test but no implementation, or a user-facing happy path with no end-to-end coverage.
Subagent brief: Check 3: Missing test scenarios
Inputs: full git diff --staged, full content of changed test files.
For every behavior introduced or changed in the staged diff, work through this scenario checklist:
| Scenario type | Question to ask |
|---|---|
| Happy path | Is the basic success case tested? |
| Empty / nil / zero | What happens when the input is empty, null, zero, or absent? |
| Boundary | First item, last item, exactly one item, max capacity? |
| Invalid input | Malformed, out-of-range, wrong type, is the rejection tested? |
| Error path | For every success path, is the corresponding failure path tested? |
| Idempotency | If the operation can be called twice, is that safe? Is it tested? |
| Order sensitivity | Does the result depend on call order? Is that documented and tested? |
| Concurrent access | If the code will be called from multiple threads/tasks, is that safe? Is it tested? (Only if relevant.) |
Flag missing scenarios. Not every category applies to every change, exercise judgment, but don't skip a category without a reason.
Subagent brief: Check 4: Test philosophy (Kent Dodds Testing Trophy)
Inputs: full content of changed test files only (do not check non-test files here).
For each test in the staged diff, check against the following rules. A violation is a finding. Apply the two acid tests from /flagrare:testing-philosophy to every test: (1) would it break under a behavior-preserving refactor (internal rename / restructure with the public contract unchanged)? (2) does it assert what a real user observes, or how the result was produced? A "yes" to (1) or a "no" to (2) is an implementation-detail test.
Behavior over implementation
- Does the test name describe a behavior ("rejects an out-of-range choice index with StoryChoiceRangeError") or an implementation detail ("calls ChooseChoiceIndex with the given index")?
- Does the test assert on the observable result or on how the result was produced?
Public API only
- Does the test access private fields,
_innerobjects, unexported functions, or internal state? → violation - Does the test assert that an internal function/method was called, a spy or mock-call-count on a collaborator the code owns? → violation (asserts the mechanism, not the behavior)
- Does the test mock types it owns (its own classes, its own modules)? → violation
- Does it mock only at genuine external boundaries (network, disk, clock, OS process, third-party API)? → ✓
Real collaborators where cheap
- Is anything mocked that could be a real instance without significant cost? → flag
- Does the test spin up real collaborators rather than mocks? → ✓
Refactor-proof
- Would this test break if you renamed an internal method while keeping the public contract identical? → violation
- Would it break if you changed the internal data structure while keeping the return value identical? → violation
Testing Trophy shape: check both directions (most reviews only catch overuse):
- Does the commit add more unit tests than integration tests for behavior that crosses multiple units? → flag
- Is anything tested only at E2E level that could be tested cheaper at integration level? → flag (overuse)
- Conversely, is a user-facing critical path missing any e2e/full-stack test entirely? → flag (the e2e necessity floor, this is the quieter, more common gap; coordinate with Check 2 which has the scope inputs to confirm the feature is user-facing).
- Does any test reach for a snapshot that will be rubber-stamped on update? → flag (it asserts "it changed," not "it's correct")
Test names
it("works"),it("test 1"),it("should work correctly"),it("handles the case")→ violationit("rejects a negative index with StoryChoiceRangeError carrying attempted=−1")→ ✓
Subagent brief: Check 5: SOLID violations
Inputs: non-test source files from the staged diff only (do not check test files here).
Scan for these patterns:
Single Responsibility
- Does any new class or module have more than one reason to change? Look for: a class that both validates and persists, a module that both formats and dispatches.
- Flag if a class's methods cluster into two distinct concern groups.
Open/Closed
- Does the new code require callers to modify existing files to add a new variant? A
switchorif/else ifchain on a type tag in the caller is often the smell. - Flag if extensibility requires modification of existing classes rather than addition of new ones.
Liskov
- Does any new subtype throw where its base doesn't? Does it silently ignore a method the base defines?
- Flag if a subtype's contract is narrower than the base type's.
Interface Segregation
- Does any new interface force its implementors to define methods they don't use?
- Flag fat interfaces.
Dependency Inversion
- Does new code
newa concrete dependency inside a class rather than receiving it? - Flag hardcoded
new ConcreteType()inside class bodies where an abstraction or injection would be natural.
Subagent brief: Check 6: Clean Code violations
Inputs: full git diff --staged (both test and non-test files).
Scan for:
| Issue | What to look for |
|---|---|
| Magic values | Bare literals with semantic meaning: if (index >= 99), setTimeout(fn, 3000), "choice:made" repeated in multiple files. Every meaningful literal must be a named constant. |
| Function does more than one thing | If "and" is required to describe what it does, it should be split. |
| Unqualified generic names | data, info, result, value, temp, manager, handler, helper without qualification. |
| What-comments | Comments that restate the code (// increment the index above index++). Only keep why comments: hidden constraints, workarounds, non-obvious invariants. |
| Half-finished surfaces | Any exported symbol with TODO, a stub body { return null; }, or "implement later". |
| Long parameter lists | More than 3-4 positional parameters, group into an options object. |
Subagent brief: Check 7: Security
Inputs: full git diff --staged, file list, the lockfile diff if a lockfile changed.
Pull in the full content of /flagrare:security-audit and apply it to the staged diff. That skill carries the threat taxonomy, the three-phase methodology (understand the repo's security model, compare the change against it, trace data flow from source to sink), the confidence gate, the false-positive precedents, and the generic dependency audit.
The one rule: only report a finding with a concrete exploit path, and only when over 80% confident it is actually exploitable. A security check that flags theoretical issues gets ignored; keep it to what a security engineer would confidently raise. Review what the change newly introduces, not pre-existing issues the diff sits near.
When a lockfile changed, run the repo's native dependency auditor (scoped to the changed packages so the gate stays fast) and degrade gracefully to an advisory flag if the auditor is not installed.
Return findings in the house line format. HIGH and MEDIUM severity block; LOW is advisory.
Step 3: Synthesise (main agent)
After all seven subagents return, merge their findings into this format:
Implementation review, [commit subject or staged file summary]
Check 1 · Plan gaps
✓ All phase items present | ✗ Gap: [item], [present/partial/absent]
Check 2 · Use-case coverage
✓ All use cases covered | ✗ [use case], no test / no implementation
Check 3 · Missing test scenarios
✓ Scenarios complete | ⚠ [behavior]: missing [scenario type]
Check 4 · Test philosophy
✓ Tests pass philosophy check | ✗ [test name]: [violation]
Check 5 · SOLID
✓ No violations | ✗ [file:line]: [principle], [finding]
Check 6 · Clean Code
✓ No violations | ✗ [file:line]: [issue]
Check 7 · Security
✓ No vulnerabilities in the diff | ✗ [file:line]: [category] ([severity]), [exploit in a phrase] + fix | ⚠ [lockfile moved / auditor unavailable]
Summary: [N findings, fix before committing / Clean, proceed]
If a finding is blocking (plan gap, philosophy violation on a public API test, SOLID violation that breaks extensibility, a HIGH or MEDIUM security vulnerability), fix it before committing unless the user explicitly overrides.
If a finding is advisory (a test name that could be clearer, a slightly long function), surface it but do not block.
Commit-flow position
[code changes complete]
↓
/flagrare:staleness-audit ← docs drift, TSDoc, export sync, stale markers
↓
/flagrare:implementation-review ← THIS SKILL (6 parallel subagents)
↓
git commit
↓
/flagrare:release-check ← is a release due?
Anti-patterns
- Don't skip a check because "the change is small", that's when violations sneak through.
- Don't invent a plan if none is findable, skip Checks 1-2 and say so.
- Don't treat every advisory finding as blocking, use judgment.
- Don't run Check 4 on non-test files, or Check 5 on test files.
- Don't report a Check 7 security finding without a concrete exploit path, theoretical vulnerabilities are noise that trains the reader to skip the whole report.
- Don't fail Check 7 when the dependency auditor is missing, degrade to an advisory flag.
- Don't report "✓ clean" without the subagent actually reading the diff.
- Don't run checks sequentially, the point of subagents is parallel execution.