Spec Compliance Review

• Performance requirements (ratings, values, thresholds)
• Material/product specifications
• Reference standards (AS, NCC, BCA, Green Star, etc.)
• Tables of required ratings per building element
• Appendices and their stated contents
• Cross-references to drawing numbers

Phase 2: Cross-Reference

Build a mental ledger matching every spec requirement to its drawing(s).

For each spec requirement, determine one of four statuses:

Pay attention to these common issues:

• Rating mismatches — spec says Rw 50, drawing says Rw 45
• Metric inconsistencies — spec uses one test standard, drawing uses another (e.g. lab vs field ratings) without a bridging statement
• Percentage/coverage discrepancies — spec says 70%, drawing says 60-70%
• Blank or placeholder appendices — title page exists but content is missing
• Draft/preliminary markings on drawings that should be finalised
• Missing seal/threshold/accessory callouts that spec requires
• Coordination risks — where one drawing's scope borders another discipline

Phase 3: Apartment/Unit Breakdown (if applicable)

If architectural drawings are available, extract:

• Total apartments per level
• Breakdown by bedroom count (1BR, 2BR, 3BR, etc.)
• Unit type identifiers if shown

Present this as a table in the report.

Phase 4: Generate the Report

The deliverable is always a .docx file. Use the docx skill's approach (docx-js via Node.js) to generate it.

Report structure:

1. Cover Page

   • Report title: "[DISCIPLINE] SPECIFICATION COMPLIANCE REVIEW REPORT"
   • Building/project name and address
   • Spec document number, revision, date
   • Consultant name
   • Prepared date
   • Client name

2. Executive Summary

   • One paragraph overview
   • Summary stats table: requirements checked, PASS count, FAIL count, FLAG count, MISSING count

3. Document Details

   • Table with spec metadata: document number, revision, consultant, authors, client, page count, appendix breakdown

4. Compliant Items (PASS)

   • Grouped by building element type (walls, floors, services, doors, glazing, etc.)
   • Table format: Spec Requirement | Drawing # | Spec Rating | Drawing Rating | Status
   • Green "PASS" status cells

5. Issues & Non-Compliances

   • Critical (FAIL) — missing content, contradictions
   • Discrepancies (FLAG) — ambiguities, preliminary items, metric mismatches
   • Missing Drawings — spec requirements with no corresponding drawing
   • Minor Items — callout omissions, coordination risks
   • Each issue gets a heading, description paragraph, impact/recommendation line

6. Apartment/Unit Breakdown (if architectural drawings present)

   • Table: Level | Total Units | 1BR | 2BR | 3BR | etc.

7. Priority Actions

   • Table: # | Priority (CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW) | Action | Owner
   • Sorted by priority

8. Overall Assessment

   • 2-3 paragraphs: overall quality, critical gaps, what needs resolution, and whether the package is adequate for construction subject to listed items

Styling:

• A4 page size (11906 x 16838 DXA)
• Arial font throughout
• Blue headers (#2E5090)
• Status cells colour-coded: PASS=green, FAIL=red, FLAG=amber
• Header with report title, footer with page numbers
• Professional table formatting with borders and cell padding
• Page breaks before major sections

Phase 5: Verify & Deliver

After generating the .docx:

1. Validate with the docx validator if available
2. Clean up any temp files (JS scripts, node_modules, package.json)
3. Open the file for the user
4. Summarise key findings in chat: X passes, Y fails, Z flags, and the top priority actions

Multi-Agent Review (Swarm)

If the user asks for a "double check", "swarm", or "multiple agents", use the swarm skill to spawn parallel review agents. Each agent independently reviews a section of the spec (e.g. walls, floors, services, glazing) and reports back. Reconcile their findings before generating the final report.

Tips for Accurate Review

• Construction specs often have requirements scattered across multiple sections and tables. Don't just read the obvious table — check notes, appendices, and cross-references.
• Appendices that exist as title pages but contain no content are a FAIL, not a minor issue — contractors rely on them.
• "Preliminary" or "Draft" markings on drawings that should be finalised for construction issue are a FLAG.
• When ratings use different metrics (lab vs field, weighted vs adapted), check whether the document provides a reconciliation. If not, FLAG it.
• Products specified by brand name in the spec but shown generically on drawings (or vice versa) should be noted but are typically acceptable if performance requirements match.

Dependencies

• pdf skill (for reading PDF specs and drawings)
• docx skill (for generating the Word report)
• swarm skill (optional, for multi-agent review)