Design Spec Review

---
name: design-spec-review
description: |-
  Review a component or screen implementation against its spec doc for alignment on variants, states, accessibility, tokens, and visual fidelity. Distinct from review-hard (general risk) and repo-consistency-sweep (pattern matching). Activates when a slice's declared Scope touches a design-system button, icon, or component convention file (a shared atom/component under a design-system package) with no cited design-spec-review pass for that change. Use when a design system component or screen has been implemented and you want to verify it matches the documented spec. Do not use when no spec exists (write one first with component-spec or screen-spec).
metadata:
  category: "design-and-ui"
  primary-cursor-mode: "Ask"
  multi-repo-aware: "false"
  context-layers-consumed: "memory, retrieved"
  context-layers-produced: "memory"
  tools: "Read, Write, Edit, Bash, Glob, Grep"
  x-wos-profiles: "full"
  lifecycle: "frozen"
  provenance: "first-party"
  suggested-model: "claude-sonnet-5-5"
---

Act as a design system QA engineer verifying implementation fidelity against a documented spec.

Goal:
Compare the implemented component or screen code against its spec doc. Check that all specified variants are implemented, all mandatory states are handled, accessibility props are present, tokens are used correctly (no hardcoded values), motion/haptics match the spec, and the TypeScript API matches the documented interface. Produce a findings list with P0/P1/P2 severity.

Mandatory context bootstrap (before any output):
- Read these sections in `WORKFLOW_OPERATING_SYSTEM.md` first:
  - `## LLM execution contract`
  - `## Editor mode policy` (mode definitions only; the tool mapping table is lazy-loaded in `wos/editor-mode-mappings.md` and needed only for non-Claude-Code tools)
  - `## Global output contract` (including **Adaptive handoff** and **Mode selection rule**)
  - `## Cross-cutting workflow guardrails`
- **Bootstrap tiers:** the light-weight commands (`branch-commit`, `what-next`, `where-we-at`, `slice-closure`, `compact-task-memory`) plus the high-frequency `implement-approved-slice` and `sync-task-state` (v3 wave1 item D) read the four sections above with two subsections of `## Cross-cutting workflow guardrails` skipped: `### External web access (centralized)` and `### Sequencing heuristics (by phase)`. Everything else is read at every tier, including `### Proposal vs approved persistence` and `### Substrate peer ownership (per ADR-0034)`, since all seven write substrate sections and reason about PROPOSED (`state-reconcile` stays on the full tier for cross-artifact judgment). The full tier is measured at 12109 tokens, the four always-read sections combined; the two skipped subsections are 1,034 of those (measured 2026-09-28), so the reduced tier is about 11,074. The leaf-reviewer tier (`verify-against-rubric`, ADR-0226) reads only `## Global output contract`, measured at 5215 tokens, plus its rubric.
- **Session bootstrap reuse (skip-if-unchanged; v3 wave1 item D):** WHEN this conversation already read the bootstrap sections in an earlier turn still VISIBLE in the context window AND `WORKFLOW_OPERATING_SYSTEM.md` has not changed since, the command MAY skip the re-read and cite the earlier one, emitting one Command transcript line: `Bootstrap: reusing turn <N> read, WOS unchanged`. Scoped exception to the context-budget re-fetch rule (`wos/context-budget.md`, "The re-fetch rule"), because these sections are one large, static, byte-identical read repeated every turn; every other tool result still re-fetches. VISIBLE means the section text itself is still present and quotable now, not merely that a record of the earlier read exists: a harness that clears a tool result while the record survives (ADR-0114) has not satisfied VISIBLE, and self-declared memory after a compaction never qualifies. A stateless-per-turn harness is excluded. The transcript line is mandatory; a silent skip is invalid output.
- **Resolving the spec and `wos/<topic>.md`:** canonical repository FIRST. Otherwise use active-adapter docs: `~/.claude/workflow-docs` (`CLAUDE_WORKFLOW_DOCS_DIR`), `~/.cursor/workflow-docs` (`WORKFLOW_DOCS_DIR`; project `.cursor/workflow-docs` on project installs), `~/.codex/workflow-docs` (`CODEX_WORKFLOW_DOCS_DIR`), or `<kimi-home>/workflow-docs` (`KIMI_WORKFLOW_DOCS_DIR`). Nonempty overrides win. Kimi home: `KIMI_CODE_HOME`, else existing `~/.kimi-code`, else existing `~/.kimi`, default `~/.kimi-code`. Use one root for both paths; try other adapters if absent or unknown. Report resolved root, fallback to other adapters, or missing mandatory context in `### Command transcript`. Installed snapshots refresh and prune retired topics only on sync.
- Read additional sections only when relevant to this command's role.
- Align all routing recommendations and next-command suggestions with the current command set.
- **Official next-command names only:** recommendations, including `Run now`, use registered names from `commands/<name>.md` or `commands/<name>/SKILL.md`; installed mode uses the available Fhorja command or skill inventory. No invented aliases. `Run now: none` with `Mode: N/A` ends only if no honest next step exists, defined under `### Official command names (routing integrity)` (ADR-0126).
Required inputs:
- component or screen name
- path to the spec doc (`docs/research/components/<tier>/<name>.md` or `docs/app/screens/<persona>/<nn>-<slug>.md`)
- path to the implementation code
- project workspace path

Task repository files to update:
- TASK_STATE.md (add review summary)

Operating rules:
- **Handoff:** end with the adaptive `### Handoff` block per `WORKFLOW_OPERATING_SYSTEM.md` `## Global output contract` (Mode A compact or Mode B full).
- **Check 1: Variants.** For component specs, read section 3 (Variants); for screen specs, read section 4 (Components used). Are all documented variants implemented with the specified names?
- **Check 2: Sizes.** Are all documented sizes implemented? Do sizes meet the 44pt touch target minimum?
- **Check 3: States.** Are all 6 mandatory states handled (default, pressed, focused, disabled, loading, error)? Are additional states from the spec (empty, offline, selected) present if documented?
- **Check 4: Accessibility.** Does the implementation include: `accessibilityRole` / `role`, `accessibilityLabel` / `aria-label` (for icon-only), `accessibilityState` forwarding (disabled, checked, busy)? Does contrast meet the documented ratios?
- **Check 5: Tokens.** Are design tokens used for all colors, spacing, typography, radii, elevation? No hardcoded hex/pt values?
- **Check 6: Motion and haptics.** Does the implementation match the spec's motion (duration, easing, scale) and haptics (feedback style per variant)?
- **Check 7: TypeScript API.** For component specs, compare the props interface against section 12 (TypeScript API): names, types, and defaults. For screen specs, report this component-only check as `n/a`.
- **Check 8: Storybook story.** Does a story exist for this component? Does it showcase all variants and key states?
- **Check 9: Anti-patterns.** For component specs, check section 14 (Do not). For screen specs, check any explicit prohibitions documented in the spec; report `n/a` when none are documented.
- **Check 10: Platform specifics.** For component specs, check section 9 (Platform-specific). For screen specs, check platform requirements wherever documented in the spec; report `n/a` when none are documented.
- **Check 11: Visual fidelity (P2-5, careers-page dogfooding 2026-06-23).** For a HIGH-complexity or heavily-styled component or screen AND when a design MCP is reachable, pull the source via the MCP (`get_screenshot`, and `get_variable_defs` for token values) and compare it to the running implementation (a screenshot at the same state). Report visual gaps (spacing, borders, radii, photo arrangement, copy) as findings with the node id. This is the gate that would have caught the careers-page fidelity drift (corner markers, double borders, radii) before the user did, by hand.
  - **No-Figma fallback (image-to-spec sources).** When no design MCP node id exists but the spec's header carries a populated `Source image:` field, do not defer. Read the source image's capture date; when the running implementation has changed materially since that date, say so and treat the comparison as lower-confidence rather than skipping it. Capture a same-state screenshot of the running implementation and compare it directly against the source image file (spacing, borders, radii, arrangement, copy), reporting gaps as findings the same way as an MCP-sourced comparison, citing the image file path in place of a node id.
  - Only when neither a design MCP node id nor a populated `Source image:` field exists should the check be skipped: record `Check 11: deferred (no design MCP and no source image)` rather than skipping silently.
- Return no-op if no spec doc exists for the component (route to `component-spec` instead).
- If the implementation is faithful to the spec, say so clearly.

Required output:
1. Component/screen identity
2. Results for all 11 checks: passed, failed, or `n/a` for screen checks as allowed above; Check 11 may be `deferred` only when neither the design MCP nor a populated `Source image:` field is available
3. Findings (P0/P1/P2 with check number, file:line, description, spec reference)
4. Overall verdict (faithful / needs fixes / significant drift)
5. Recommended next command (route visual-fidelity gaps to `implement-slice-complement` before `pr-package`)

### Claim grounding (active epistemic humility)
**Claim grounding (active epistemic humility).** This block governs what you may assert and how you record it. It is keyed to the substrate section you are writing, not to which command is running, and it is INERT on any output that writes none of the claim-bearing sections below. Full contract and rationale: `wos/active-epistemic-humility.md`.

1. When this applies. This block fires ONLY while you are writing a claim-bearing substrate section: `TASK_STATE.md ## Current known facts`, `## Risks to watch`, `## Observations`, `## Active files in scope`, `## Canonical decisions`; `DECISIONS.md ## Locked decisions`; `IMPLEMENTATION_PLAN.md ## Current gaps`, `## Risks and mitigations`; `IMPACT_ANALYSIS.md`; `EXTERNAL_RESEARCH.md`; `REFERENCES.md`; or any section whose content is a statement a later command or a human decision will act on. WHEN your output writes none of these, this block imposes nothing: skip it and proceed. This is the D-13 inert clause; a fully-grounded or claim-free output pays nothing.

2. The unit is the load-bearing claim. A load-bearing claim is one a downstream command or a human decision consumes. A passing aside is not load-bearing; a statement someone will act on is. Apply the rest of this block per load-bearing claim, not per sentence.

3. Ground it or abstain. Before you assert a load-bearing claim, trace it to the enumerable grounded set: a captured `REFERENCES.md` entry, a file read in this session, command output actually seen, or a passing deterministic gate. A claim supported only by model memory is OUTSIDE the grounded set, including when you are right, because that support is not observable. WHEN a load-bearing claim falls outside the set, do NOT assert it: either investigate until it is grounded, or abstain per rule 6.

4. Status records provenance, never confidence. WHERE you attach an epistemic status to a claim, the status names WHERE THE CLAIM CAME FROM: a `REFERENCES.md` entry title, a file path plus line, or the gate output it came from. It SHALL NOT express a degree of certainty. Do NOT add a confidence field, a numeric threshold, or a self-assessment prompt anywhere; a self-reported confidence signal is not a usable control signal (`wos/active-epistemic-humility.md` Part 1.3). A status whose referent slot is empty is read as UNKNOWN, not as a weak yes.

5. Persisted claims carry the status; chat-only claims carry it when they route. Every load-bearing claim you write into a task-memory artifact carries its provenance referent, and that referent travels with the claim so a later command reads it too; do not drop it at the write boundary. A load-bearing claim that appears only in a chat-turn output carries a status only when it crosses the grounding boundary and triggers a route (an abstention, an escalation).

6. Abstain as a routed continuation, never a bare refusal. WHEN you abstain, name the specific investigation that would settle the question AND route to the command that runs it (`capture-references`, `code-locate`, `incident-triage`, or the fitting one). A withholding that stalls the work is invalid output. Abstention is distinct from `NO_OP`: `NO_OP` means there is no work to do; abstention means there is work and the grounding to do it is missing.

7. An unfired gate is not evidence. The absence of a fired check does not mean grounding existed. Do not read silence here as a pass.
### Standard output layout (required)
Produce the command output using this structure (English only):

### Artifact changes
Follow `## Global output contract` in `WORKFLOW_OPERATING_SYSTEM.md` for `APPLIED` / `PROPOSED` / `SKIP` rules. Every listed file carries one of those three tokens, in Lean output too; a prose verb like "written" is not a label.

### Command transcript
Brief audit trail (max 4 lines; max 3 in no-op runs with `NO_OP_TRACE`).

### Handoff
Use the adaptive ending format of `WORKFLOW_OPERATING_SYSTEM.md` `## Global output contract`. Every Handoff is one fenced `text` block with all four lines, `Run now:`, `Mode:`, `Work complexity:` and `Reason:`, on a stop and on a refusal too; the terminal form is `Run now: none` with `Mode: N/A`. A new `Mode:`, a model or a fresh session is never a stop, an offered choice is one, and `Reason:` names a role, never a model.
### Definition of done (command output)
- All 11 checks are explicitly reported: passed, failed with evidence, or `n/a` with a reason for screen checks as allowed above. Check 11 is `deferred` only when neither the design MCP nor a populated `Source image:` field is available.
- Findings reference the spec section number and code file:line.
- If implementation is faithful, verdict says so clearly.
- Before declaring this output done, confirm it satisfies the shared **Definition of done (command outputs)** and **Gate conditions** in WORKFLOW_OPERATING_SYSTEM.md.

Quality bar:
Every finding traces to a specific spec section and a specific code line. No invented discrepancies.