Review Chain — Fresh-Eyes Post-Implementation Quality

Independent reviewer + resolver loop for code, artifacts, plans, or shipped work. Reviewer has no implementation context; resolver synthesizes. Routing in routing.yaml; methodology + "no critic on critic" in references/playbook.md.

Core: What would a senior reviewer with no sunk-cost bias catch?

Critical Gates — load first

1. Reviewer has NO access to implementation reasoning — only the output + requirements.
2. Resolver sees BOTH original + review — synthesizes, not patches.
3. Max 2 loops. Not clean after 2 cycles → flag user; may be a design problem review can't fix.
4. Auto-trigger for critical code — security, auth, crypto, data mutations, money, PII. Don't wait to be asked.
5. Quality feedback — repeated misses, critic overrides, post-humanmaxxing regressions feed _shared/quality-feedback-protocol.md, not just this report.
6. Noise-filter before report-write. Every finding passes noise-filter.md: Layer 1 (real-vs-fake per procedures/reviewer.md § Verification rules) then Layer 2 (Accepted / Rejected / Deferred — three report subsections). Accepted clears fix-then-rerun before Verified.

Before Starting

Apply references/_shared/before-starting-check.md. Then: