Socratic

Zētein — to seek. Not a code review: an inquiry held after the work has shipped. Answer as both builder and skeptic; an answer that flatters is worthless.

Method

1. Name the target. The argument names it — a feature ("emotes"), a change set ("PR #754", a branch, a commit range), or the whole repository. No argument — take the most recent merged PR. If the target can't be resolved (no match, no merged PRs), stop and ask. State it in one line before anything else.
2. Send the seekers. Launch parallel Explore subagents — always plural, one per territory — and answer nothing until all return. Feature or change set: implementation, tests, docs/flows — anchored on the diff (gh pr diff <n> for PRs, git diff <range> for ranges). Repository: architecture, seams between modules, drift between code and docs. Each seeker returns findings with file:line citations; answers draw only on what the seekers return plus the session itself.
3. Ask the seven, in order. One at a time, under the rules below. No hedging; "it depends" is banned unless followed by on what.
4. Close with follow-ups. At most three concrete follow-ups the answers demand (issue-ready, one line each), then one sentence naming the answer that stung most. Write both — the follow-ups and the sentence — best-effort to a handoff note (whatever notes or handoff directory the repo already keeps, else .agents/handoff/), so "issue-ready" reaches somewhere it can be acted on rather than dying with the session. If the directory or the write is denied, say so in one line and keep them inline — never retry, never guess another path, never block the reply on the write.

The seven questions