按源仓库内容呈现，保留标题、案例、代码、表格、链接以及原文引用的演示图片。
review
Read a plan or a diff. Report what is actually wrong. Do not invent work. The reviewer is one process. It does not dispatch workers.
When
- A plan is about to be executed and needs a severity pass.
- A diff is about to land and needs a P0/P1/P2 read.
- An adopt/skip or architecture call needs a written verdict.
Not for: inventorying a shipped product (quality-loop), draining a ticket queue (ralph-loop), or running parallel lanes (ralph-swarm).
Scope first
Name the artifact under review (plan path, diff range, PR, adopt/skip note). If scope is missing or two artifacts are tangled, stop:
BLOCKED: scope is ambiguous. Name one plan or one diff.Do not guess the target.
Severity
| Grade | Meaning | Action |
|---|---|---|
| P0 | Breaks the stated goal, a locked invariant, security, or data integrity | Must fix before land |
| P1 | Real defect or missing check that will bite the next session | Fix or explicitly waive |
| P2 | Taste, naming, future work | Optional |
No other grades. If it is not a finding, it is not in the report.
Rules
- Do not manufacture findings. Empty report with
No findings.is valid. - Cite the file, line, or plan section. No vibes.
- Do not rewrite the artifact. Review is read + report.
- Do not start a swarm, a loop, or a second agent from this skill.
- Do not commit, push, or merge the reviewed work.
- Inferred facts are candidates, not commits. Explicit "remember" may be
written. Speculation, generated summaries, and low-confidence guesses stay in the report (or an ADR candidate list) until the owner accepts.
ADR capture
A review dump that nobody reads is a graveyard. Findings that encode a decision become ADRs. See references/adr.md for file layout, supersede rules, drivers, and git immutability.
Capture test — write an ADR only when all of these are true:
- The finding changes a future call (architecture, adopt/skip, invariant,
process), not just this diff.
- A later agent could make the opposite call without this note.
- It is not already in
AGENTS.mdor an existing ADR.
Stay in the report (no ADR): typos, missing tests, off-by-ones, P2 taste, one-off fixes, restating a rule that already lives in the repo.
Incident note, not ADR: a run failed for operational reasons (lock, quota, provider). One paragraph in the project progress log. No docs/adr/ file.
List candidates under Decisions to capture first. Write files only after the owner accepts.
Report shape
# Review: <artifact>
**Scope** …
**Verdict** land / fix-P0 / fix-P1 / BLOCKED
## Findings
- P0 `path` — …
- P1 `path` — …
## Decisions to capture
- ADR candidate: <one-line decision> — why a later agent would miss this
(supersedes ADR-N / new)
## Out of scope
- …If there are no findings, write No findings. and stop.
Anti-patterns
- Inventing nits so the review looks thorough.
- Reviewing two diffs because they were "nearby."
- Embedding worker dispatch in the reviewer.
- Writing findings into
artifacts/and never capturing the decision. - An ADR per P2 nit.
- Relitigating taste as P0.
- Editing an Accepted ADR body instead of superseding.
- Promoting a guess to durable memory.
Related
quality-loop · ralph-loop · ralph-swarm · to-spec · handoff · steering-push-vs-point
