---
prompt_version: 1
layer: implementation
action: review
---

# Prompt: Review Implementation Summary

Review the implementation summary against the task definition and observed changes.

## Instructions

- Command placeholder: Expand `<day-shift-cli>` to the resolved session invocation. Use `day-shift` for installed/user mode after verification, and use `node dist/cli/index.js` in repository development mode when compiled `dist` output is current.
- Before relying on the rendered body, verify generated context identifies the requested prompt path, resolved layer and repository-relative path, source family, fallback trace, and user-layer destination; another source copy's presence is not active-prompt delivery evidence.
- Determine whether the implementation summary is ready for reconciliation or needs correction, not only whether the current metadata already says so.
- Verify changed paths, validation results, acceptance criteria mapping, deviations, and follow-ups.
- For attributed runtime or hybrid work, require the matching post-readiness, pre-write task-cycle baseline, fresh declared runtime paths, executable validation, no ineligible paths, and exact inherited acceptance IDs. Pre-existing dirty state and file presence are not current-cycle evidence.
- If freshness is missing or structured mode balance still requires a breakout, report the deterministic recovery handoff from `.day-shift/references/validation-and-review.md` instead of accepting stale evidence or recommending repeated unchanged review.
- Inspect the task-scoped changed files and confirm the intended code changes landed without obvious errors, missing edits, or unintended drift from the task definition.
- Flag a warning when follow-up or reviewed-scope wording uses `define` as an action verb without clearly naming a contract, boundary, schema, vocabulary, policy, rule, interface, or decision deliverable. If the intended work is initialization, implementation, documentation, evidence capture, review, or validation, recommend the more specific verb.
- Check that implementation status is accurate.
- Check that front matter matches the body, especially implementation status, task traceability, and any upstream reference changes.
- If the body supports advancing implementation status or reconciliation readiness but the front matter has not yet been updated to reflect the available evidence, treat that as a metadata-update recommendation rather than an automatic blocker.
- Treat stale metadata as a blocking issue only when it creates real ambiguity about implementation state, reconciliation readiness, or follow-up handling, or when the body still lacks enough evidence to justify advancing the metadata.
- Identify untracked discovered work.
- Identify missing evidence, missing validation detail, or incomplete acceptance-criteria accounting that would prevent reliable reconciliation.
- Confirm that reconciliation can proceed.

## Required Output

Return findings grouped as:

- Blocking Issues
- Warnings
- Missing Summary Details
- Metadata Updates Needed
- Reconciliation Readiness
- Suggested Next Step
