Individual skill

review

Adversarial senior review of the spec before any code is written. Constructs a skeptical reviewer whose authority comes from the codebase, §R research, and live best-practice — then tries to REFUTE the spec, not rubber-stamp it. Every finding cites evidence (file:line or source); unverifiable ones are flagged. Survivors harden §V; the run ends in an explicit go / no-go gate. Triggers before building anything high-blast-radius, when the user says "review the spec", "red-team this", "is this plan sound", "senior review", or invokes /ck:review.

skills/review/SKILL.md

Read pinned source

Source commit 7421e87d5b517c415c519ddf58a3dd10ba842530

What was checked

Matches the observed repository HEAD: Yes
Scanner rules are current: No
Repository scan complete: No
Skill scan complete: Yes
Observed behavior: Not checked yet
Last checked: Nov 3, 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): 1,161
Repository last updated: Aug 14, 2026
License: MIT

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

claude-code Repository topic
parallel-agents Repository topic
skills Repository topic
spec-driven-development Repository topic
test-driven-development Repository topic
research Derived category

Files and excerpt

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

Browse files

SKILL.mdcore · 3,934 bytes

Read excerpt


# review — refute the spec before build

**Every finding cites evidence — file:line or a source. No evidence → flag `[unverified]`. Default to refuted: a flaw you cannot prove is a flaw you note, not one you wave through.**

An LLM cannot self-correct on its own judgment — left alone it drifts or
degrades. Review fixes that the only way that works: a *separate* skeptic
anchored to an *external oracle* — the code, §R, the test suite, the docs.
"Looks good" is not a review. A refutation attempt is.

## WHEN TO REVIEW

- Before `/build` on a high-blast-radius change (shared module, auth, data, money, public API).
- Spec touched §I or §V that other code depends on.
- Right-sizing says the cost of a wrong build > the cost of one review pass.