@hassangameryt/freeflow 0.5.0 → 0.7.0

package/skills/review-artifact/SKILL.md

@@ -1,126 +1,189 @@
 ---
 name: review-artifact
-description: Use when reviewing a Working Record, spec, PRD, issue, API contract, technical design, migration contract, plan, decision record, ADR, handoff, or other durable artifact for fitness to guide its intended use.
+description: Use when judging whether a durable artifact is aligned, sufficient, and fit to guide its intended use through self-review, independent review, or adjudication of a returned artifact review.
 ---
 
 # Review Artifact
 
-Judge whether an artifact is aligned, sufficient, and fit to guide its intended use.
+Judge whether a durable artifact is aligned, sufficient, and fit to guide a named intended use.
 
-## Choose The Review Role
+Review provides judgment. [Verify Work](../../skills/verify-work/SKILL.md) establishes what direct evidence proves when factual claims require active verification. Review may find evidence insufficient, but it does not replace verification, settle owner decisions, or authorize revision.
 
-Choose the role before reviewing:
+## Select One Route
 
-- **Self-review:** you produced the artifact. Inspect it silently using the relevant boundary and lenses below. Correct clear local issues within existing authority. Create no formal review items, judgment, number, or cycle. Return unresolved material issues to [Workflow](../workflow/SKILL.md).
-- **Independent review:** you did not produce the reviewed state. Inspect and report without editing. Use the formal item, judgment, and report method below. The receiving active agent adjudicates and routes the result.
+Choose the route before reviewing:
 
-Reading this skill does not create independence. If you produced the artifact, do not present your own judgment as independent review. Read [the reviewer prompt](references/reviewer-prompt.md) when preparing or performing a separately selected independent review.
+- **Self-review:** you produced the reviewed artifact state.
+- **Independent review:** you did not produce the reviewed state and are reviewing from a separate context.
+- **Adjudication:** an independent reviewer returned a report and you are deciding what its findings establish and what follows.
+
+Self-review and independent review use the same artifact review kernel below. Adjudication consumes a completed review; it is not another review.
+
+Do not cross roles inside an independent reviewer context. The independent reviewer reports and stops. The receiving agent may then enter adjudication.
 
 ## Establish The Boundary
 
-Understand:
+Identify only what the judgment needs:
 
-- artifact type, current state, and intended use;
-- accepted outcome, requirements, and non-goals;
-- owner decisions and unresolved questions;
+- artifact path, type, exact reviewed state, and intended use;
+- accepted outcome, requirements, non-goals, and owner decisions;
+- unresolved questions and known evidence gaps;
+- the artifact's job and any governing schema or format contract;
 - relevant code, tests, policies, ADRs, and established behavior;
-- upstream and downstream artifacts;
-- evidence gaps and prior review when applicable.
+- upstream and downstream artifacts in dependency order;
+- risks capable of changing whether the artifact may guide its intended use.
 
-Review the complete current artifact, not only its summary, change description, or author's reasoning. Review upstream authority before dependent artifacts. If an upstream issue invalidates downstream assumptions, mark affected material contingent instead of generating exhaustive findings against an unresolved basis.
+Review the complete current artifact and source truth directly. Do not judge only its summary, change description, or producer reasoning.
 
-When reviewing a Working Record, read [Track Work](../track-work/SKILL.md), which owns its format and lifecycle.
+Review upstream authority before dependent artifacts. When an upstream problem invalidates downstream assumptions, mark affected material contingent instead of generating exhaustive downstream findings against an unsettled basis.
 
-## Judge The Artifact By Its Job
+When reviewing a Working Record, first read [Track Work](../../skills/track-work/SKILL.md), which owns its format and lifecycle.
 
-- **Working Record:** living task memory with accurate current state, recoverable slices and decisions, compact evidence pointers, and one next useful action.
-- **Spec or durable content artifact:** accepted content, behavior, boundaries, evidence, and uncertainty needed for its stated use.
-- **Plan:** an inspectable ordered strategy with scope, dependencies, assumptions, checks, and stop conditions.
-- **Decision record or ADR:** decision, owner, alternatives, rationale, consequences, and revisit or supersession conditions.
-- **Handoff:** a point-in-time continuation package that preserves what its recipient needs without replacing live task memory.
-- **Other artifact:** its stated purpose without taking over another artifact's job.
+When inspection could branch broadly among several useful sources or dependencies, use [Action Selection](../../skills/action-selection/SKILL.md). Skip it for an obvious artifact, schema, dependency, or source-truth read.
 
-## Review Proportionately
+## Apply The Shared Artifact Review Kernel
 
-Apply only lenses that can materially change fitness:
+Use only lenses capable of changing fitness for the intended use:
 
 - **Source alignment:** agrees with accepted requirements, owner decisions, and live facts.
 - **Fitness and sufficiency:** contains enough for its intended use without pretending every future question is settled.
 - **Decision clarity:** required, tentative, open, deferred, and superseded information cannot be confused.
 - **Evidence and acceptance:** load-bearing claims and acceptance conditions have suitable supporting or falsifying mechanisms.
 - **Behavior and failure contract:** consequential states, forbidden outcomes, observers, and recovery are explicit where required.
-- **Dependency integrity:** upstream and downstream artifacts remain consistent; provisional work is identified honestly.
+- **Dependency integrity:** upstream and downstream artifacts remain consistent; provisional or contingent work is identified honestly.
 - **Scope and minimality:** avoids speculative design, unnecessary process, and hypothetical completeness.
 - **Clarity and continuity:** a future reader can use it without transcript memory or volatile copied context.
 
-A pass is valid. Do not invent items, require exhaustive edge cases, report wording or filename preferences, reopen intentional deferrals, or demand evidence needed only for a later boundary.
+Review the artifact's resulting state, not the producer's intention. Use a high evidence bar, not a high item count. Finding no material issue is valid.
+
+### Judge The Artifact By Its Job
+
+- **Working Record:** accurate living task memory with recoverable slices and decisions, compact evidence pointers, and one next useful action.
+- **Spec or durable content artifact:** accepted content, behavior, boundaries, evidence, and uncertainty needed for its stated use.
+- **Plan:** an inspectable ordered strategy with scope, dependencies, assumptions, checks, and stop conditions.
+- **Decision record or ADR:** the decision, owner, alternatives, rationale, consequences, and revisit or supersession conditions.
+- **Handoff:** a point-in-time continuation package that preserves what its recipient needs without replacing live task memory.
+- **Other artifact:** its stated purpose without taking over another artifact's job.
+
+Do not require one artifact to perform another artifact's job.
+
+### Classify Before Calling Something An Issue
+
+Ask in order:
+
+1. **Does fitness for the intended use depend on content, source truth, or an owner decision that remains unsettled?**
+   - Yes: **Question**.
+2. **Does fitness depend on a load-bearing claim or condition that available evidence cannot establish?**
+   - Yes: **Needs evidence**.
+3. **Is there a supported artifact defect that requires revision for the intended use?**
+   - Yes, and the artifact cannot safely guide that use: **Blocking Issue**.
+   - Yes, but revision can be deferred safely: **Non-blocking Issue**.
+4. **Would the change merely make the artifact more useful beyond its intended use?**
+   - Omit it by default.
+   - Use **Improvement** only when materially relevant or explicitly requested.
+
+A material **Needs evidence** observation must name the load-bearing claim or condition, required observing boundary, available evidence and its limit, why the gap affects intended-use fitness, and the smallest evidence that could disagree.
+
+Do not turn wording preferences, exhaustive edge cases, intentional deferrals, polished presentation, or hypothetical completeness into Issues.
 
-## Classify Independent Review Items
+An Issue must identify:
 
-- **Blocking Issue:** a supported defect, inconsistency, omission, or risk that must be resolved before the artifact guides its intended use.
-- **Non-blocking Issue:** a real issue that can be deferred safely for this boundary.
-- **Question:** material intent, requirements, or an owner decision is unclear.
-- **Needs evidence:** a load-bearing claim or condition cannot be established.
-- **Improvement:** a materially useful enhancement not required by this boundary. It does not affect judgment or authorize revision.
+- the exact location or affected dependency;
+- the violated source truth or artifact responsibility;
+- supporting evidence;
+- the concrete consequence for the intended use.
 
-A Blocking Issue must name the exact location, violated source truth or artifact responsibility, evidence, concrete consequence for intended use, and smallest safe revision or owning activity to re-enter.
+For a Blocking Issue, state why the artifact cannot safely guide its intended use. Describe revision constraints or the owning activity to re-enter. Recommend a specific revision only when source intent and dependency effects support it rather than one of several material alternatives.
 
-1. **Blocking:** one or more Blocking Issues exist.
+## Self-Review
+
+Apply the complete shared kernel to an artifact you produced. Self-review uses the same substantive scrutiny as independent review but does not create independence.
+
+When evidence supports a clear local artifact defect, the revision basis is settled, and existing authority covers the revision:
+
+1. return to the artifact's owning activity;
+2. revise the defect without changing accepted intent;
+3. reconcile affected dependencies;
+4. re-verify affected load-bearing factual claims at their required observing boundaries;
+5. re-check source alignment and the affected review lenses once.
+
+Do not create formal review items, a judgment, a review number, or a review cycle for self-review. Do not label it independent.
+
+Do not settle an owner decision, revise upstream authority, or change accepted content merely to make the artifact internally consistent. Return unresolved material issues to [Workflow](../../skills/workflow/SKILL.md). Use [Discuss](../../skills/discuss/SKILL.md) when accepted content or strategy needs reconsideration, [Decision Gate](../../skills/decision-gate/SKILL.md) for a user-owned choice or source conflict, and [Diagnose Failure](../../skills/diagnose-failure/SKILL.md) when an artifact relies on an unsupported or repeated failure cause.
+
+## Independent Review
+
+Before preparing or performing a separately selected independent review, read the [Independent Artifact Reviewer Contract](references/independent-artifact-reviewer-contract.md).
+
+Use supplied and already available evidence. Do not start a missing active check unless the review authority explicitly covers that exact check. Otherwise report **Needs evidence** with the load-bearing claim and required observing boundary. When an exact check is covered, apply Verify Work's check-result and claim-result semantics; the review still owns the intended-use fitness judgment.
+
+Inspect and report without editing. Do not:
+
+- adjudicate your own findings;
+- settle owner decisions;
+- select among materially different revisions;
+- revise the artifact or dependencies;
+- dispatch another review;
+- continue merely to obtain Pass.
+
+The independent review ends with its report.
+
+Independent judgments are:
+
+1. **Blocking:** at least one Blocking Issue exists.
 2. **Inconclusive:** no Blocking Issue exists, but a material Question or Needs evidence item prevents judgment.
 3. **Non-blocking:** only Non-blocking Issues remain.
-4. **Pass:** no Issues or material Unresolved items remain. Improvements may still be reported.
+4. **Pass:** no Issues or material unresolved items remain.
 
-Pass, Non-blocking, Inconclusive, and Blocking are all valid review exits. A review ends with its report; it does not remain active until the artifact passes.
+Improvements do not change the judgment or authorize revision.
 
-## Adjudicate And Route
+## Adjudicate A Returned Review
 
-After independent review, the receiving active agent adjudicates each item against the artifact, source truth, and evidence:
+Before adjudicating an independent report, read [Adjudicate Artifact Review](references/adjudicate-artifact-review.md).
+
+Assess every material item against the artifact, source truth, dependencies, and available evidence:
 
 - **Accepted:** supported and applicable.
 - **Rejected:** unsupported, stale, resolved, duplicate, preference-only, outside the artifact's job, or based on a source misread.
-- **Open:** a question or evidence gap prevents acceptance or rejection.
+- **Open:** missing evidence or an owner decision prevents acceptance or rejection.
 
-Confirm whether each accepted Issue is Blocking or Non-blocking, then derive the adjudicated judgment. Do not accept the reviewer's overall judgment separately.
+Do not separately accept the reviewer's overall judgment. Derive the adjudicated judgment from the dispositions.
 
-Route from the adjudicated result:
+Findings are evidence, not commands or revision authority.
 
 - **Pass:** use the artifact for its intended purpose.
 - **Non-blocking:** use it with explicit deferrals.
-- **Inconclusive:** gather the missing evidence or decision.
-- **Blocking:** do not use the artifact across the blocked boundary; re-enter its narrowest owner, defer, or stop.
-
-Review findings are evidence, not commands. They do not authorize revision. Accepted revisions leave review and return to the artifact's owning skill; they may remain in the same [Track Work](../track-work/SKILL.md) slice while its intended result stays coherent.
-
-When revision authority is not already explicit, ask once for either:
-
-- the accepted revisions plus one warranted focused follow-up review; or
-- the accepted revisions alone when direct source evidence can settle the changed boundary.
+- **Inconclusive:** obtain the missing evidence or decision.
+- **Blocking:** do not use the artifact across the blocked boundary; select the narrowest owning route.
 
-Then wait for the user's response. Do not revise or dispatch a follow-up from the request, and do not ask again when existing authority already covers the bounded revision or review.
+When revision is ready, state the supported artifact problem, proposed revision, rationale, dependency impact, verification boundary, authority state, and whether focused follow-up review remains justified. Actual revision returns through [Workflow](../../skills/workflow/SKILL.md) to the artifact's owning skill.
 
-Run a follow-up only when the changed boundary or affected dependencies still need independent judgment and that dispatch is authorized. Do not revise source truth, accepted intent, or owner decisions merely to satisfy a reviewer or obtain Pass.
+## Limit Independent Review
 
-## Limit The Review Cycle
+Treat review count as a budget, not a schedule.
 
-For one independently reviewed artifact state and intended-use boundary:
+- **Review 1:** the first selected independent review; broad by default.
+- **Review 2:** a separately selected focused follow-up when accepted revisions, new evidence, affected dependencies, or remaining risk still require independent judgment.
+- **Review 3:** exceptional, separately authorized, and final. Use it only after the revision basis and dependency boundary are understood.
 
-1. Review 1 is the normal broad review.
-2. Review 2, when needed and authorized, focuses on accepted revisions, affected dependencies, and remaining risk.
-3. Review 3 is exceptional, authorized separately, and final for that cycle.
+A review report always ends its review. Revision does not automatically authorize or require follow-up review.
 
-The budget is a cap, not dispatch authority. Do not request Review 4. At the cap, adjudicate and return control to Workflow; the artifact may be used, remain blocked, re-enter its owner, defer, or stop.
+If Review 2 remains Blocking:
 
-After Review 2 is adjudicated Blocking, stop before proposing another revision or Review 3. Classify its relationship to the prior revision:
+- diagnose when the blocker repeats, extends, invalidates, or exposes another consequence of prior revision, or when its basis remains uncertain;
+- return an independent clear local artifact defect to its owner when diagnosis would add no useful understanding;
+- do not automatically revise and dispatch Review 3.
 
-- If the blocker repeats, extends, invalidates, or exposes another consequence of the prior revision, or its cause remains unsupported, read [Diagnose Failure](../diagnose-failure/SKILL.md) and diagnose the shared cause before another revision.
-- If it is an independent clear local defect with a supported cause, return directly to the artifact's owner and state why diagnosis is unnecessary.
+Do not request Review 4. A different reviewer, local revision, or renamed intended use does not reset the budget. Workflow may establish a new cycle only for a materially new artifact state and intended-use boundary.
 
-A reviewer judgment alone does not trigger diagnosis; active-agent adjudication and evidence do. Review 3 is final judgment after the cause and revision boundary are understood, not a third attempt to discover the cause through revisions. Workflow may later establish a new cycle only for a materially new artifact state and intended-use boundary; local edits, a different reviewer, or renamed scope do not reset it.
+Self-review does not consume this budget.
 
-## Report
+## Stop
 
-For self-review, report no formal review result. Correct clear local issues and surface only unresolved material issues that change fitness or route.
+Stop when the selected route has produced its bounded result:
 
-For independent review, use the structured output in [the reviewer prompt](references/reviewer-prompt.md). The receiving agent reports the reviewer and adjudicated judgments, each material item's Accepted, Rejected, or Open outcome and reason, affected dependencies, remaining open items, and authorized or proposed next route.
+- self-review: the supported artifact state is accepted or a material issue is routed;
+- independent review: the report is complete;
+- adjudication: material items are disposed and the next route is explicit.
 
-Omit empty groups. Support material judgments and adjudication with source or evidence rather than confidence.
+Do not review until Pass, use review to authorize revision, or turn optional improvement into unfinished work.

package/skills/review-artifact/references/adjudicate-artifact-review.md

@@ -0,0 +1,101 @@
+# Adjudicate Artifact Review
+
+Read this after an independent artifact review returns and before selecting what follows from its report.
+
+Adjudication belongs to the receiving active agent. It tests the report against the artifact, source truth, dependencies, and evidence. It is not independent review and does not inherit the reviewer's authority or judgment.
+
+## Dispose Each Material Item
+
+For every material item, choose one disposition.
+
+### Accepted
+
+State:
+
+- the supported artifact problem;
+- its consequence for the intended use;
+- whether it is Blocking or Non-blocking;
+- whether the revision basis is supported or uncertain;
+- which dependencies or contingent material it affects.
+
+### Rejected
+
+State the concrete reason: unsupported, stale, resolved, duplicate, preference-only, outside the artifact's job, or based on a source or dependency misread.
+
+### Open
+
+State:
+
+- the unresolved content, claim, or dependency concern;
+- its potential consequence for the intended use;
+- the missing evidence or owner decision.
+
+When factual evidence is missing, restate the item as a Verify Work input: load-bearing claim or condition, required observing boundary, available evidence and its limit, and the smallest evidence that could disagree.
+
+A suggested revision may help explain a finding, but it does not settle source intent, select among material alternatives, or authorize revision.
+
+After disposing the items, derive the adjudicated judgment. Do not separately accept the reviewer's overall judgment.
+
+- **Pass:** no accepted Issues or material Open items remain.
+- **Non-blocking:** only accepted Non-blocking Issues remain.
+- **Inconclusive:** a material Open item prevents judgment.
+- **Blocking:** at least one accepted Blocking Issue remains.
+
+## Use Verification Results
+
+Route a known material evidence gap through [Workflow](../../../skills/workflow/SKILL.md) to [Verify Work](../../../skills/verify-work/SKILL.md). Verification produces factual evidence; it does not revise the reviewer's report or determine the review judgment.
+
+- **Supported:** re-adjudicate the evidence gap. Do not infer Pass.
+- **Contradicted:** re-adjudicate against source truth; the result may establish an Issue, invalidate one, or expose a source conflict.
+- **Inconclusive:** keep the item Open. The adjudicated review remains Inconclusive when the gap is material.
+- **Unavailable:** keep the item Open and state why the required boundary cannot currently be observed.
+
+Select focused independent follow-up only when the new evidence still requires judgment from a separate context.
+
+## Decide Whether Revision Is Ready
+
+Revision is ready when:
+
+- the artifact's job and intended use are settled;
+- the artifact problem and consequence are supported;
+- sufficient source or decision basis exists to bound the revision;
+- affected upstream and downstream dependencies are known sufficiently;
+- the revision will not silently alter accepted content or an owner decision;
+- no material alternative or user-owned choice remains.
+
+When revision is ready, state:
+
+- the proposed revision and rationale;
+- affected locations and dependencies;
+- required reconciliation or ordering;
+- evidence or acceptance checks;
+- whether focused independent follow-up remains justified;
+- the authority state.
+
+Use existing revision authority only when it covers that result and dependency impact. Otherwise propose the revision and any warranted follow-up once, then wait. A finding, adjudication, or selected review does not authorize mutation.
+
+Actual revision returns through [Workflow](../../../skills/workflow/SKILL.md) to the artifact's owning skill. Use [Track Work](../../../skills/track-work/SKILL.md) for a Working Record, [Write Spec](../../../skills/write-spec/SKILL.md) for stable content or decision artifacts, [Write Plan](../../../skills/write-plan/SKILL.md) for a Plan, and [Handoff](../../../skills/handoff/SKILL.md) for a Handoff.
+
+Do not revise upstream authority, accepted intent, or owner decisions merely to satisfy a reviewer or obtain Pass.
+
+## Route When Revision Is Not Ready
+
+- unsettled content, strategy, or materially different revisions: [Discuss](../../../skills/discuss/SKILL.md);
+- user-owned choice or source conflict: [Decision Gate](../../../skills/decision-gate/SKILL.md);
+- unsupported or repeated failure cause: [Diagnose Failure](../../../skills/diagnose-failure/SKILL.md);
+- missing factual support: route the named claim through [Workflow](../../../skills/workflow/SKILL.md) to [Verify Work](../../../skills/verify-work/SKILL.md);
+- uncovered revision or dependency update: propose the bounded change and wait.
+
+When findings interact, upstream authority is challenged, dependency effects remain uncertain, or user input could change the revision, report a problem checkpoint and stop before selecting or executing it.
+
+## After Authorized Revision
+
+Re-verify affected load-bearing factual claims at their required observing boundaries. Then re-check source alignment, intended-use fitness, and every affected dependency before performing ordinary self-review with Review Artifact's shared kernel.
+
+Select focused independent follow-up only when accepted revisions, affected dependencies, new evidence, or remaining risk still require judgment from a separate context. Do not dispatch follow-up merely because Review 1 found an Issue or because revision occurred.
+
+If Review 2 remains Blocking, adjudicate it before acting again. Diagnose a repeated, extending, invalidating, or basis-uncertain blocker. Return an independent clear local artifact defect to its owner when diagnosis would add no useful understanding. Review 3 remains exceptional, separately authorized, and final.
+
+## Stop
+
+Stop when every material item is Accepted, Rejected, or Open; the adjudicated judgment is supported; affected dependencies and contingent material are explicit; and the next route and authority state are clear.

package/skills/review-artifact/references/independent-artifact-reviewer-contract.md

@@ -0,0 +1,159 @@
+# Independent Artifact Reviewer Contract
+
+Read this before preparing or performing a separately selected independent review of a durable artifact.
+
+The reviewer did not produce the reviewed artifact state. Give them the complete artifact, source truth, dependencies, and evidence needed to judge it directly. Do not provide only the producer's summary, reasoning, or change description.
+
+## Required Context
+
+Provide:
+
+- artifact path, type, exact reviewed state, and intended use;
+- accepted outcome, requirements, non-goals, and owner decisions;
+- unresolved questions and known evidence gaps;
+- the artifact-specific schema or format contract when one exists;
+- relevant code, tests, policies, ADRs, and established behavior;
+- upstream and downstream artifacts in dependency order;
+- only the review lenses material to the intended use;
+- active evidence authority: none, or each exact covered check with its expected evidence and stop condition;
+- review number and, for follow-up, prior items, adjudication, revisions, and new evidence.
+
+For an artifact package, identify upstream authority and which material remains provisional or contingent.
+
+## Reviewer Prompt
+
+```md
+# Independent Artifact Review
+
+Review an artifact state you did not produce. Inspect the complete artifact, source truth, dependencies, and evidence directly. Report without editing. The review ends with this report; do not adjudicate findings, settle owner decisions, revise anything, dispatch follow-up, or continue merely to obtain Pass.
+
+A pass is valid. Use a high evidence bar, not a high item count. Do not broaden the artifact's job or treat possible improvement as unfinished work.
+
+Use supplied and already available evidence. Do not start a missing active check unless the review contract explicitly authorizes that exact check. Otherwise report **Needs evidence** with the load-bearing claim and required observing boundary. When an exact check is covered, apply Verify Work's check-result and claim-result semantics; active evidence does not authorize revision or broaden the review.
+
+## Artifact And Intended Use
+
+- Artifact: [path]
+- Type: [working record | spec | PRD | issue | API contract | technical design | migration contract | plan | decision record | ADR | handoff | other]
+- Reviewed state: [revision, hash, or other exact identity]
+- Intended use: [decision or future action this artifact must support]
+- Dependency order: [upstream -> downstream, or standalone]
+
+## Accepted Outcome And Non-Goals
+
+- Outcome: [accepted outcome]
+- Requirements: [accepted requirements]
+- Non-goals: [intentional exclusions]
+- Owner decisions: [settled decisions or none]
+- Unresolved questions: [questions or none]
+
+## Source Truth
+
+- [code, tests, policies, ADRs, established behavior, upstream artifacts]
+
+## Evidence And Known Gaps
+
+- Supporting evidence: [evidence or none]
+- Known gaps: [gaps or none]
+
+## Review Scope
+
+- Review number: [1 | 2 | 3]
+- Material lenses: [source alignment | fitness and sufficiency | decision clarity | evidence and acceptance | behavior and failure contract | dependency integrity | scope and minimality | clarity and continuity]
+- Active evidence authority: [none | exact covered check, expected evidence, and stop condition]
+
+For Review 2 or 3:
+
+- Prior items and adjudication: [Accepted | Rejected | Open]
+- Revisions and new evidence: [bounded changes and evidence]
+- Affected dependencies: [dependencies or none]
+- Remaining risk: [narrow unresolved scope]
+
+## Judge The Artifact By Its Job
+
+- **Working Record:** accurate living task memory with recoverable slices and decisions, compact evidence pointers, and one next useful action.
+- **Spec or durable content artifact:** accepted content, behavior, boundaries, evidence, and uncertainty needed for its stated use.
+- **Plan:** an inspectable ordered strategy with scope, dependencies, assumptions, checks, and stop conditions.
+- **Decision record or ADR:** the decision, owner, alternatives, rationale, consequences, and revisit or supersession conditions.
+- **Handoff:** a point-in-time continuation package that preserves what its recipient needs without replacing live task memory.
+- **Other artifact:** its stated purpose without taking over another artifact's job.
+
+Do not require one artifact to perform another artifact's job.
+
+## Check
+
+Apply only the selected lenses:
+
+- the artifact agrees with accepted requirements, owner decisions, and live facts;
+- it contains enough for its intended use without pretending every future question is settled;
+- required, tentative, open, deferred, and superseded information cannot be confused;
+- load-bearing claims and acceptance conditions have suitable supporting or falsifying mechanisms;
+- consequential behavior, failure states, forbidden outcomes, observers, and recovery are explicit where required;
+- upstream and downstream artifacts remain consistent and provisional material is identified honestly;
+- it avoids speculative scope, unnecessary process, and duplicated information owned elsewhere;
+- a future reader can use it without transcript memory or volatile copied context.
+
+Review upstream authority before dependent artifacts. When an upstream problem invalidates downstream assumptions, mark affected material contingent rather than generating exhaustive downstream findings against an unsettled basis.
+
+Before calling something an Issue, ask:
+
+1. Does fitness for the intended use depend on content, source truth, or an owner decision that remains unsettled? If yes, use **Question**.
+2. Does fitness depend on a load-bearing claim or condition that available evidence cannot establish? If yes, use **Needs evidence**.
+3. Is there a supported artifact defect requiring revision for the intended use? Use **Blocking Issue** when the artifact cannot safely guide that use, otherwise **Non-blocking Issue** when revision can be deferred safely.
+4. Is the change merely useful beyond the intended use? Omit it by default; use **Improvement** only when materially relevant or requested.
+
+A **Needs evidence** item must identify the load-bearing claim or condition, required observing boundary, available evidence and its limit, why the gap affects intended-use fitness, and the smallest evidence that could disagree.
+
+A Blocking Issue must identify the exact location or dependency, violated source truth or artifact responsibility, evidence, concrete consequence for intended use, and revision constraints or owning activity to re-enter. Recommend a specific revision only when source intent and dependency effects support it.
+
+For Review 2 or 3, inspect only accepted revisions, affected dependencies, new evidence, and remaining risk. Do not reopen Rejected items without contradictory evidence. For each new Blocking Issue, state whether it repeats, extends, invalidates, or exposes another consequence of a prior revision; is independent; or cannot yet be related from the evidence. Report a related pattern rather than proposing another revision. Review 3 is final; do not recommend Review 4.
+
+## Determine The Judgment
+
+1. **Blocking:** at least one Blocking Issue exists.
+2. **Inconclusive:** no Blocking Issue exists, but a material Question or Needs evidence item prevents judgment.
+3. **Non-blocking:** only Non-blocking Issues remain.
+4. **Pass:** no Issues or material unresolved items remain.
+
+Improvements do not change the judgment.
+
+## Output
+
+Omit empty groups. Do not include Improvements unless they are materially relevant or explicitly requested.
+
+Review type: independent
+Review number: [1 | 2 | 3]
+Artifact: [reviewed artifact]
+Intended use: [reviewed boundary]
+Reviewed state: [state identity]
+Judgment: Pass | Non-blocking | Inconclusive | Blocking
+Reasoning: [concise evidence-backed judgment]
+Relationship to prior items (Review 2 or 3 only): [related consequence | independent defect | unclear, with evidence]
+
+### Review Items
+
+#### Issues — Blocking
+- [location or dependency, issue, violated source or responsibility, evidence, consequence, revision constraints or owning activity]
+
+#### Issues — Non-blocking
+- [location or dependency, issue, evidence, why it can be deferred]
+
+#### Unresolved — Questions
+- [question, effect on judgment, required answer]
+
+#### Unresolved — Needs evidence
+- [load-bearing claim or condition, required observing boundary, available evidence and limit, effect on intended-use fitness, smallest evidence that could disagree]
+
+#### Improvements
+- [only when materially relevant or requested: improvement, benefit, evidence]
+
+Dependencies affected: [dependencies or none]
+Contingent material: [material and upstream condition, or none]
+Evidence gaps: [unproved claims or none]
+```
+
+## Calibration
+
+Lead with the few items that can change fitness for the intended use. Prior review, artifact length, polished language, or producer confidence does not establish fitness.
+
+The report is evidence for adjudication. It is not authority over source truth, owner decisions, revisions, dependencies, or another independent dispatch. Pass, Non-blocking, Inconclusive, and Blocking are all valid exits.