Engineering review: choose the right policy

Routing page for engineering review policies: architecture review or implementation review against official guidance.

Choose the correct engineering review policy

Use this page when you know you need an engineering review but have not yet chosen the correct policy contract for the run.

Routing rule

Do not treat this page as the normative rule set for a concrete run. Choose one of the two policies below and use that policy as the active contract.

System shape
Choose Architecture Boundary Review
Use this when the main question is: “Is the system shape or boundary correct?”
This path is for architecture classification and structural diagnosis.
Implementation correctness
Choose Standards-Backed Implementation Review
Use this when the main question is: “Is this implementation correct according to official guidance?”
This path is for source-backed implementation findings and remediation.
When both are needed
Run them separately and in order
If both review types are needed, do not merge them into one run.
Order: 1) Architecture Boundary Review → 2) Standards-Backed Implementation Review.

Choose the exact policy contract

Each option maps to one policy, one procedure, and the matching prompt files.

Option 1
Architecture Boundary Review
Use this when the dominant question is about architecture classification, layering, dependency direction, boundary leakage, interface ownership, state ownership, or minimal structural remediation.
This path is for structural and architectural review, not for implementation-vs-docs checks.
Option 2
Standards-Backed Implementation Review
Use this when the dominant question is about code or configuration changes versus official docs, framework, library, runtime, or platform guidance, API misuse, version-sensitive implementation issues, or source-backed remediation steps.
This path is for implementation correctness against authoritative guidance.