system-evolution-review

Original：🇺🇸 English

Translated

Performs a meta-level review of how well an implementation followed its plan, classifying divergences and recommending AI-Layer improvements. Use after an execution report exists to find bugs in the process, not the code.

2installs

Sourcecoleam00/skills

Added on2026-08-14

NPX Install

npx skill4agent add coleam00/skills system-evolution-review

SKILL.md Content

View Translation Comparison →

System Review

Perform a meta-level analysis of how well the implementation followed the plan and identify process improvements.

Purpose

System review is NOT code review. You're not looking for bugs in the code - you're looking for bugs in the process.

Your job:

Analyze plan adherence and divergence patterns
Identify which divergences were justified vs problematic
Surface process improvements that prevent future issues
Suggest updates to AI-Layer assets (CLAUDE.md, plan templates, skills)

Philosophy:

Good divergence reveals plan limitations → improve planning
Bad divergence reveals unclear requirements → improve communication
Repeated issues reveal missing automation → create skills

Context & Inputs

You will analyze four key artifacts:

Plan Skill: Read this to understand the planning process and what instructions guide plan creation.

.claude/skills/piv-plan-implementation/SKILL.md

Generated Plan: Read this to understand what the agent was SUPPOSED to do. Plan file: $plan

Execute Skill: Read this to understand the execution process and what instructions guide implementation.

.claude/skills/piv-implement/SKILL.md

Execution Report: Read this to understand what the agent ACTUALLY did and why. Execution report: $report

Analysis Workflow

Step 1: Understand the Planned Approach

Read the generated plan ($plan) and extract:

What features were planned?
What architecture was specified?
What validation steps were defined?
What patterns were referenced?

Step 2: Understand the Actual Implementation

Read the execution report ($report) and extract:

What was implemented?
What diverged from the plan?
What challenges were encountered?
What was skipped and why?

Step 3: Classify Each Divergence

For each divergence identified in the execution report, classify as:

Good Divergence ✅ (Justified):

Plan assumed something that didn't exist in the codebase
Better pattern discovered during implementation
Performance optimization needed
Security issue discovered that required different approach

Bad Divergence ❌ (Problematic):

Ignored explicit constraints in plan
Created new architecture instead of following existing patterns
Took shortcuts that introduce tech debt
Misunderstood requirements

Step 4: Trace Root Causes

For each problematic divergence, identify the root cause:

Was the plan unclear, where, why?
Was context missing, where, why?
Was validation missing, where, why?
Was manual step repeated, where, why?

Step 5: Generate Process Improvements

Based on patterns across divergences, suggest:

CLAUDE.md updates: Universal patterns or anti-patterns to document
Plan skill updates: Instructions that need clarification or missing steps
New skills: Manual processes that should be automated
Validation additions: Checks that would catch issues earlier

Output Format

Save your analysis to:

.claude/system-reviews/[feature-name]-review.md

Report Structure:

Meta Information

Plan reviewed: [path to $plan]
Execution report: [path to $report]
Date: [current date]

Overall Alignment Score: __/10

Scoring guide:

10: Perfect adherence, all divergences justified
7-9: Minor justified divergences
4-6: Mix of justified and problematic divergences
1-3: Major problematic divergences

Divergence Analysis

For each divergence from the execution report:

yaml

divergence: [what changed]
planned: [what plan specified]
actual: [what was implemented]
reason: [agent's stated reason from report]
classification: good ✅ | bad ❌
justified: yes/no
root_cause: [unclear plan | missing context | etc]

Pattern Compliance

Assess adherence to documented patterns:

Followed codebase architecture
Used documented patterns (from CLAUDE.md)
Applied testing patterns correctly
Met validation requirements

System Improvement Actions

Based on analysis, recommend specific actions:

Update CLAUDE.md:

Document [pattern X] discovered during implementation
Add anti-pattern warning for [Y]
Clarify [technology constraint Z]

Update Plan Skill ($plan):

Add instruction for [missing step]
Clarify [ambiguous instruction]
Add validation requirement for [X]

Create New Skill:

A new skill for [manual process repeated 3+ times]

Update Execute Skill:

Add [validation step] to execution checklist

Key Learnings

What worked well:

[specific things that went smoothly]

What needs improvement:

[specific process gaps identified]

For next implementation:

[concrete improvements to try]

Important

Be specific: Don't say "plan was unclear" - say "plan didn't specify which auth pattern to use"
Focus on patterns: One-off issues aren't actionable. Look for repeated problems.
Action-oriented: Every finding should have a concrete asset update suggestion
Suggest improvements: Don't just analyze - actually suggest the text to add to CLAUDE.md or skills