# Implementation Review

> Dispatches an independent technical reviewer to inspect the technical aspects of a completed implementation, then requires the implementer to resolve every substantive finding. Use after a substantive code change and before accepting or shipping it.

- Skill: `joaorrios/implementation-review` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add joaorrios/implementation-review`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/joaorrios/implementation-review/raw
- Safety review: pending (external: skill-scanner PASS, skillspector PASS)
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- License: MIT
- Author: joaorrios (https://skillmd.com/u/joaorrios)
- Updated: 2026-09-22
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/joaorrios/implementation-review

---


# Implementation Review

Review the technical implementation through an independent context before it ships.

## Implementer

You are the **implementer**. Do not perform the review yourself.

Dispatch a fresh isolated subagent with strong software-reasoning capability and use `agents/reviewer.md` as its reviewer instructions. Prefer a different model family from the implementer when a comparably capable one is available. Keep the reviewer read-only when the runtime supports that boundary.

Keep the briefing unprimed. Give the reviewer the implementation itself: the relevant change range or modified files, the repository or worktree, and enough coordinates to inspect surrounding code. Let the code speak for itself: keep the implementer's rationale, suspected bugs, defenses, and expected conclusions out of the briefing.

The reviewer owns investigation and may inspect the surrounding system as needed.

## Resolve

Consume every substantive finding individually.

- **fix** — change the implementation to address the finding.
- **disagree** — leave it unchanged and give a specific technical reason supported by evidence.

A missing requirement is not a reason to dismiss a technical defect. Written intent and prior technical decisions are context, not authority over correctness.

Do not defer, rank away, or silently drop substantive findings. After material fixes, use judgment about whether the changed implementation needs another independent pass.

## Done

The review is complete when an independent reviewer has inspected the implementation and every substantive finding has an explicit `fix` or evidenced `disagree` disposition.