check-impl-against-spec

Run a model-diverse subagent council to investigate the same problem from multiple perspectives, compare findings, and produce a final recommendation. Use this skill whenever the user asks for a council, second opinions, multiple agents/models to evaluate one question, parallel investigation, red-team/blue-team comparison, or help deciding between competing technical approaches.

Drive a spec-first workflow for substantial features by writing PRODUCT.md before implementation, writing TECH.md when warranted, and keeping both specs updated as implementation evolves. Use when starting a significant feature, planning agent-driven implementation, or when the user wants product and tech specs checked into source control.

Write a TECH.md spec for a significant Warp feature after researching the current codebase and implementation constraints. Use when the user asks for a technical spec, implementation plan, or architecture doc tied to a product spec.

Write a PRODUCT.md spec for a significant user-facing feature in Warp, focused on detailed behavior and validation. Use when the user asks for a product spec, desired behavior doc, or PRD, wants to define feature behavior before implementation, or when the feature is substantial or behaviorally ambiguous enough that a written spec would improve implementation or review.

Review a pull request diff and write structured feedback to review.json for the workflow to publish. Use when reviewing a checked-out PR from local artifacts like pr_diff.txt and pr_description.txt and producing machine-readable review output instead of posting directly to GitHub.

Create a pull request in the warp repository for the current branch. Use when the user mentions opening a PR, creating a pull request, submitting changes for review, or preparing code for merge.

Implement an approved feature from PRODUCT.md and TECH.md, keeping specs and code aligned in the same PR as implementation evolves. Use after the product and tech specs are approved and the next step is building the feature.

Run a second round on a contested question by circulating each subagent's independent proposal to the other authors and asking for structured pros and cons, then synthesize. Use this skill whenever you have multiple independent proposals or opinions on a contested decision — architecture tradeoffs, code review disagreements, design choices, competing root-cause theories — and want sharper analysis than you'd produce by synthesizing alone. Pairs naturally with the council and research skills;...