Menu

Individual skill

review

0upvotes

Use when a diff needs adversarial judgment in rsc ASDD — per task inside implement's loop (depth set by `rsc risk`: none, one fresh-context reviewer, or the three-refuter panel) or as the closing review of the whole branch against the spec — keyed to the spec/plan/constitution in 02-DOCS/wiki/sdd/ and the project's REVIEW.md; or receive a review and verify each comment before agreeing. Converges via `rsc review ledger` (max 3 rounds, no repeated finding). NOT running lint/type/tests (that is `verify`), NOT the spec-less standalone pass (that is `code-review`), NOT merging (that is `ship`).

skills/review/SKILL.md

Read pinned source

Source commit d9d6bb338f66cc1e23998585e580a0ea45bbcb82

What was checked

Matches the observed repository HEAD
Yes
Scanner rules are current
No
Repository scan complete
No
Skill scan complete
No
Observed behavior
Not checked yet
Last checked
Nov 6, 2026

These are observations at the recorded commit, not a guarantee of safety. Review the source before running it.

Install this skill

Choose an agent in your Stack or copy a command below. Commands fetch the pinned commit and copy only this skill directory. Existing destinations are refused. Copying a command does not install anything.

An install command is unavailable: current rules, complete repository and skill scans, an eligible behavior level and a permitted license are required.

Repository context

Repository stars (not skill ratings)
557
Repository last updated
Nov 4, 2026
License
MIT

Observed agent integration: No specific integration evidence. Standard SKILL.md installation does not imply verified compatibility.

Files and excerpt

File metadata and permitted, redacted excerpts come from the recorded scan. Source links are pinned to that commit.

Browse files
Read excerpt

# Review — adversarial code review, both directions

Tests prove the code works, not that it does what was asked. Review answers that other question: **is the diff correct, well-scoped and faithful to the spec — or did it pass for the wrong reasons?** In ASDD (`../asdd/SKILL.md`) it runs in two modes:

- **Per task** — called from `implement`'s loop after each task's self-check. Depth comes from `npx @ericrisco/rsc risk [--base <ref>] [paths…]` (same path table as the sello, works with the sello off): **tier 0** → no review; **tier 1** → one fresh-context reviewer (a subagent that never saw the implementation conversation); **tier 2** → the three-refuter panel below, recorded after it runs with `npx @ericrisco/rsc review ledger panel <slug>/<task> --lenses correctness,security,tests` (the ship guard refuses to push a tier-2 branch without it — one reviewer is not a panel), and the branch will wait for human approval at ship. The tier reads the diff's content too: auth code in a generic file is tier 2.
- **Closing review** — once, before `ship`: the whole branch against the spec. Forty individually-correct tasks can still fail to be the feature together: a criterion nobody owned, two tasks that each assumed the other handled an edge, scope that crept in a slice at a time. Read the spec's acceptance criteria and "must respect" list against `git diff <base>...HEAD`, not the task reviews. Its record — tier, counts, verdict, each finding with its outcome — goes to `02-DOCS/wiki/sdd/reviews/<slug>.md`.

This skill owns **two roles that share one discipline**:

- **Giving** a review — read a diff adversarially, find the real defects, rank them by impact, ship the verdict as evidence not opinion.
- **Receiving** a review — take incoming feedback (human or machine), verify each point against the code *before* acting, fix the real findings, and push back — with proof — on the wrong ones.

The discipline is the same in both directions: **every finding and every rebuttal carries evidence — no agreement without verification, no objection without a defect.** A reviewer who waves through a bug to be agreeable, and an author who edits working code because a comment *sounded* authoritative, are making the same mistake. Everything below is in service of that one rule.