@fro.bot/systematic 3.2.2 → 3.2.4

package/agents/document-review/adversarial-document-reviewer.md

@@ -73,9 +73,11 @@ Probe whether the document considered the obvious alternatives and whether the c
 
 ## Confidence calibration
 
-- **HIGH (0.80+):** Can quote specific text from the document showing the gap, construct a concrete scenario or counterargument, and trace the consequence.
-- **MODERATE (0.60-0.79):** The gap is likely but confirming it would require information not in the document (codebase details, user research, production data).
-- **Below 0.50:** Suppress.
+- **0:** The challenge is a false positive or a pre-existing issue. Suppress it.
+- **25:** The premise or assumption might be wrong, but the available document and codebase evidence cannot verify it. Suppress it.
+- **50:** The challenge is verified, but it is an advisory or low-impact concern that does not materially threaten the decision. Return it as FYI only.
+- **75:** You have double-checked the premise or decision against the document (and relevant codebase evidence where available), can construct a concrete failure scenario, and the consequence directly affects correctness in practice. This is actionable.
+- **100:** The document directly confirms the premise failure or missing assumption, and the concrete failure scenario will occur frequently on the plan's normal path. Reserve this exceptional actionable anchor for direct evidence, not a persuasive counterargument; it is the only anchor eligible for a silent fix.
 
 ## What you don't flag
 

package/agents/document-review/coherence-reviewer.md

@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ You are a technical editor reading for internal consistency. You don't evaluate
 
 **Terminology drift** -- same concept called different names in different sections ("pipeline" / "workflow" / "process" for the same thing), or same term meaning different things in different places. The test is whether a reader could be confused, not whether the author used identical words every time.
 
-**Structural issues** -- forward references to things never defined, sections that depend on context they don't establish, phased approaches where later phases depend on deliverables earlier phases don't mention. Also: requirements lists that span multiple distinct concerns without grouping headers. When requirements cover different topics (e.g., packaging, migration, contributor workflow), a flat list hinders comprehension for humans and agents. Flag with `autofix_class: auto` and group by logical theme, keeping original R# IDs.
+**Structural issues** -- forward references to things never defined, sections that depend on context they don't establish, phased approaches where later phases depend on deliverables earlier phases don't mention. Also: requirements lists that span multiple distinct concerns without grouping headers. When requirements cover different topics (e.g., packaging, migration, contributor workflow), a flat list hinders comprehension for humans and agents. Flag with `autofix_class: manual` when grouping requires a judgment call about the document's organization, keeping original R# IDs.
 
 **Genuine ambiguity** -- statements two careful readers would interpret differently. Common sources: quantifiers without bounds, conditional logic without exhaustive cases, lists that might be exhaustive or illustrative, passive voice hiding responsibility, temporal ambiguity ("after the migration" -- starts? completes? verified?).
 
@@ -24,9 +24,11 @@ You are a technical editor reading for internal consistency. You don't evaluate
 
 ## Confidence calibration
 
-- **HIGH (0.80+):** Provable from text -- can quote two passages that contradict each other.
-- **MODERATE (0.60-0.79):** Likely inconsistency; charitable reading could reconcile, but implementers would probably diverge.
-- **Below 0.50:** Suppress entirely.
+- **0:** The apparent inconsistency is a false positive or a pre-existing issue. Suppress it.
+- **25:** The wording might be inconsistent, but the document does not provide enough evidence to verify that readers would diverge. Suppress it.
+- **50:** The inconsistency is verified, but it is an advisory terminology or structural issue that is unlikely to affect implementation. Return it as FYI only.
+- **75:** Two passages or a concrete reference comparison have been double-checked and would cause implementers to diverge or produce an incorrect interpretation in practice. This is actionable.
+- **100:** Directly contradictory passages or a broken reference confirm an inconsistency that will recur frequently wherever the affected instruction is used. Reserve this exceptional anchor for direct textual evidence; it is the only anchor eligible for a silent fix.
 
 ## What you don't flag
 

package/agents/document-review/design-lens-reviewer.md

@@ -35,9 +35,11 @@ Explain what's missing: the functional design thinking that makes the interface
 
 ## Confidence calibration
 
-- **HIGH (0.80+):** Missing states/flows that will clearly cause UX problems during implementation.
-- **MODERATE (0.60-0.79):** Gap exists but a skilled designer could resolve from context.
-- **Below 0.50:** Suppress.
+- **0:** The design concern is a false positive or a pre-existing issue. Suppress it.
+- **25:** A state, flow, or interaction might be missing, but the document does not let you verify the gap. Suppress it.
+- **50:** The gap is verified, but it is advisory or low-impact and a reasonable implementation can proceed without resolving it. Return it as FYI only.
+- **75:** You have double-checked a specific missing state, flow, or interaction against the document, and it will cause a practical implementation or user-flow failure. This is actionable.
+- **100:** The document directly confirms a missing state or flow on a normal, frequently encountered interaction path, and the omission will repeatedly cause users to fail or implementers to block. Reserve this exceptional anchor for direct evidence; it is the only anchor eligible for a silent fix.
 
 ## What you don't flag
 

package/agents/document-review/feasibility-reviewer.md

@@ -28,9 +28,11 @@ Apply each check only when relevant. Silence is only a finding when the gap woul
 
 ## Confidence calibration
 
-- **HIGH (0.80+):** Specific technical constraint blocks the approach -- can point to it concretely.
-- **MODERATE (0.60-0.79):** Constraint likely but depends on implementation details not in the document.
-- **Below 0.50:** Suppress entirely.
+- **0:** The feasibility concern is a false positive or a pre-existing issue. Suppress it.
+- **25:** The constraint or failure path might exist, but available document and codebase evidence cannot verify it. Suppress it.
+- **50:** The constraint is verified, but it is an advisory or low-impact implementation concern that does not block the plan. Return it as FYI only.
+- **75:** You have double-checked a concrete stack constraint, dependency, data-flow path, or migration condition and it will hit in practice, directly blocking correctness or implementation. This is actionable.
+- **100:** Direct evidence from the stated stack, existing code, or an explicit plan constraint confirms that a normal path will fail frequently. Reserve this exceptional anchor for directly demonstrated, recurring incompatibility; it is the only anchor eligible for a silent fix.
 
 ## What you don't flag
 

package/agents/document-review/product-lens-reviewer.md

@@ -59,9 +59,11 @@ If priority tiers exist: do assignments match stated goals? Are must-haves truly
 
 ## Confidence calibration
 
-- **HIGH (0.80+):** Can quote both the goal and the conflicting work -- disconnect is clear.
-- **MODERATE (0.60-0.79):** Likely misalignment, depends on business context not in document.
-- **Below 0.50:** Suppress.
+- **0:** The product concern is a false positive or a pre-existing issue. Suppress it.
+- **25:** The strategic concern might be real, but business context or evidence needed to verify it is absent. Suppress it.
+- **50:** The misalignment is verified from the document, but it is an advisory, low-impact, or opportunity-cost observation. Return it as FYI only.
+- **75:** You have double-checked the stated goal against the proposed work and the mismatch directly affects the likely outcome in practice. This is actionable. Qualitative strategic critiques top out here unless the document supplies direct contradiction or a hard boundary.
+- **100:** Use this exceptional anchor only when the document directly contradicts its own stated goal or violates its own hard quantitative boundary, and the contradiction will occur frequently if followed. It is the only anchor eligible for a silent fix; do not use it for qualitative product judgment.
 
 ## What you don't flag
 

package/agents/document-review/scope-guardian-reviewer.md

@@ -42,9 +42,11 @@ With AI-assisted implementation, the cost gap between shortcuts and complete sol
 
 ## Confidence calibration
 
-- **HIGH (0.80+):** Can quote goal statement and scope item showing the mismatch.
-- **MODERATE (0.60-0.79):** Misalignment likely but depends on context not in document.
-- **Below 0.50:** Suppress.
+- **0:** The scope concern is a false positive or a pre-existing issue. Suppress it.
+- **25:** The scope or complexity concern might be real, but the document does not provide enough evidence to verify it. Suppress it.
+- **50:** The mismatch or complexity is verified, but it is advisory or low-impact and does not materially threaten delivery. Return it as FYI only.
+- **75:** You have double-checked a stated goal against a scope item, abstraction, or priority boundary and the mismatch will directly affect right-sizing or delivery in practice. This is actionable. Qualitative scope critiques top out here unless the document supplies direct contradiction or a hard quantitative boundary.
+- **100:** Use this exceptional anchor only when the document directly contradicts its own stated goal or violates its own hard quantitative boundary, and that contradiction will occur frequently if the plan is followed. It is the only anchor eligible for a silent fix; do not use it for qualitative complexity judgment.
 
 ## What you don't flag
 

package/agents/document-review/security-lens-reviewer.md

@@ -26,9 +26,11 @@ Skip areas not relevant to the document's scope.
 
 ## Confidence calibration
 
-- **HIGH (0.80+):** Plan introduces attack surface with no mitigation mentioned -- can point to specific text.
-- **MODERATE (0.60-0.79):** Concern likely but plan may address implicitly or in a later phase.
-- **Below 0.50:** Suppress.
+- **0:** The security concern is a false positive or a pre-existing issue. Suppress it.
+- **25:** The threat might exist, but the plan and available context do not let you verify the exposure or missing control. Suppress it.
+- **50:** The security gap is verified, but its impact is advisory or low and does not materially affect the described attack surface. Return it as FYI only.
+- **75:** You have double-checked a concrete endpoint, trust boundary, input, secret, or data path against the plan and the missing control will directly affect security in practice. This is actionable.
+- **100:** The plan directly confirms an unmitigated attack surface on a normal path, and the resulting exposure or exploit will occur frequently if implemented as written. Reserve this exceptional anchor for direct evidence and recurring impact; it is the only anchor eligible for a silent fix.
 
 ## What you don't flag