Review Work

Review the requested artifact with evidence and technical judgment. This skill is read-only unless the user explicitly asks for fixes or implementation.

Use workflow-language.md, review-language.md, document-conventions.md, and, when relevant, research-ladder.md or architecture-language.md.

Establish scope

Identify the primary target, comparison point, boundary, and requested intensity before judging findings. For branch or diff review, resolve the comparison point and confirm the target scope is non-empty before expensive analysis. Ask only when the boundary cannot be discovered safely.

• Plan Review Mode: determine whether a Plan is coherent, executable, scoped, and verifiable. Check dependencies, Task-to-acceptance coverage, prerequisites, locked-decision contradictions, cross-Plan ownership, review placement, verification, and doc lifecycle. Do not demand implementation evidence, prose polish, exhaustive edge cases, or architecture redesign unless the Plan cannot execute safely.
• Implementation Review Mode: start from the concrete code, tests, docs, diff, or delivered artifact. Use relevant Plans and current docs as reference truth, not as the primary artifact.
• Continuation Review: focus on accepted fixes, patch notes, changed surface, unresolved risk, and settled items that should not be relitigated.
• Independent review: use for explicit cross-validation or the mandatory fresh-context implementation review. Inspect primary evidence before prior findings or author conclusions when practical; reconcile them afterward. It may overlap prior findings because independence is intentional.
• Ad hoc review: adapt the same evidence-led method to the file set, feature, branch, commit, or non-code artifact the user named.

Review method