Quick Summary

Review modes: For review/audit work, standalone defaults to --review-only (--report-only alias); --fix-loop enables review → validate → authorized fix → fresh re-review, default cap 3. --fix-loop --loop-owner=caller returns a read-only pass to the caller that owns fixes/re-review. Create triage, review, validation and re-review todo tasks first; apply the carried review-policy contract for LOW deferral and user-approved bounded extensions. Non-review modes and terminal findings validation keep their own dispatch.

Goal: Ensure knowledge artifacts are evidence-backed, complete, protocol-compliant, and safe to use for decisions — reviewing for quality, completeness, citation accuracy, and template compliance.

Summary:

• PURPOSE: audit a knowledge artifact (research report / market analysis / business evaluation / marketing strategy / course) for completeness, citation accuracy, confidence calibration, source quality and template compliance. Review-only returns a verdict; standalone fix-loop validates, repairs and freshly audits the artifact.
• MAIN STEPS in order: (1) read the artifact and set its profile (type → template, applicable rows) and depth (scope triage → core or full) → (2) run the checklist rows they select from the 7-checklist audit — template compliance · citation audit · confidence accuracy · source quality · knowledge gaps · cross-validation · actionability, verifying presence AND quality depth (never just that a section exists) → (3) run the adversarial Anti-Bias Gate at that depth → (4) emit PASS/WARN/FAIL per-check + verdict (APPROVED/REVISE/BLOCKED) → (5) conditional Round 2 focused re-review.
• Default to SKEPTIC: run the Anti-Bias Gate before any verdict — find a contradicting source per major claim, stress-test every score ≥80%, state the strongest alternative conclusion, check supporting-vs-contradicting source ratio, run a pre-mortem, and argue the opposite verdict in 2+ sentences. Core depth runs the compressed gate (Artifact Profile and Depth).
• Calibrate confidence to evidence: a single source ≠ 80%, scores >80% need 2+ independent sources with contradicting evidence addressed, single-source claims marked unverified must be <60%, and findings <60% must be flagged prominently.
• Convergence: a clean Round 1 ENDS the review once the persisted minRounds is met; otherwise validate and fix only current-round blocking findings, then full re-review until the severity bar is clear (Round 2 LOW-only findings are deferred and end the loop).

Workflow:

1. Read artifact — Load the knowledge report/market analysis/business evaluation/strategy/course; set its profile and depth (Artifact Profile and Depth)
2. Template compliance — Verify all enforced sections of the profile's template present
3. Citation audit — Check inline citations and source table
4. Confidence check — Verify scores match evidence
5. Output review — Validate findings with /why-review --validate-findings <report-path>, then emit the summary with pass/warn/fail per check

Key Rules:

• Every section from template must be present and non-empty
• Every factual claim must have inline citation
• Confidence scores must match evidence basis
• Each review pass is read-only. Standalone fix-loop repairs validated findings between passes; review-only and caller-owned leaves never modify the artifact.

Apply skeptical, sequential thinking; trace every claim and state confidence (>80% to act).

Contents

• Quick Summary
• First Principle — Easy to Change · Easy to Scale · Easy to Maintain
• Adversarial Review Mindset (NON-NEGOTIABLE)
• Knowledge Review
• Artifact Profile and Depth
• Review Checklist
• Output Format
• Round 2: Focused Re-Review (conditional — triggered by findings)
• Closing Reminders

First Principle — Easy to Change · Easy to Scale · Easy to Maintain

The full gate is SYNC:core-engineering-principles (protocol guide below; a hook delivers its text); its closing digest ends this file.

---

Adversarial Review Mindset (NON-NEGOTIABLE)

Default stance: SKEPTIC challenging research quality, NOT confirming research completeness.

Source confirmation bias trap: AI gravitates toward sources confirming its working hypothesis. Knowledge artifact built iteratively — by completion, framing is locked in. This section forces challenge of both sources AND framing.

Adversarial Techniques (apply ALL before concluding)

1. Source Bias Detection Top 3 claims: "What sources CONTRADICT this claim?" No contradicting source cited → either reviewer didn't look, or evidence truly one-sided. Ask: "What would skeptic of this conclusion cite?" No counterevidence addressed → confidence score inflated.

2. Confidence Calibration Challenge Each confidence score ≥ 80%: "What would need to be true for this confidence to be wrong?" High confidence warranted ONLY when: (a) multiple independent sources agree, (b) contradicting evidence addressed, (c) methodology sound. Challenge any score resting on single source or undisclosed assumptions.

3. Alternative Conclusion Check Given same evidence, what DIFFERENT conclusion could reasonable expert reach? Artifact not addressing 1+ credible alternative interpretation → analysis incomplete. State strongest alternative conclusion.

4. Cherry-Picking Detection Count sources supporting main conclusion vs. sources challenging it. Ratio > 3:1 favoring supporting sources without explicit explanation of why contradicting sources discounted → flag cherry-picking.

5. Pre-Mortem Assume artifact's recommendation implemented and fails. Write most plausible failure scenario given research limitations. Artifact not acknowledging this failure mode → missing a risk section.

6. Contrarian Pass Before writing any verdict, generate 2+ sentences arguing OPPOSITE conclusion about artifact's quality. Then decide which argument is stronger.

Forbidden Patterns

Citation presence, plausible scores, broad coverage, and actionable wording are insufficient without source support, confidence stress tests, missing-perspective checks, and an evidence chain. Never approve without challenging evidence quality; the closing Anti-Rationalization table gives the corresponding checks.

Anti-Bias Gate (MANDATORY before finalizing verdict) (MUST ATTENTION)

• found 1+ contradicting source per major claim (or flagged its absence)
• challenged 1+ confidence score ≥ 80% with a stress test
• stated strongest alternative conclusion from same evidence
• checked source balance (supporting vs. contradicting ratio)
• ran pre-mortem on main recommendation
• generated 2+ sentences arguing opposite verdict

Any item unmet → adversarial review incomplete. Go back. — why: skipping the gate ships confirmation-biased verdicts as fact.

At core depth (Artifact Profile and Depth) the gate is the compressed three-item form stated there; full depth runs all six items.

Knowledge Review

Artifact Profile and Depth

Set both before the checklist and record them in the review output.

Profile — the artifact type selects the template and the rows. Every type runs all 7 checklists against its own template, with the exceptions below. A row that checks a section its template does not define (Recommendations, a Gaps section) is recorded N/A with that reason, never failed; its duty still applies, so open gaps, limitations and low-confidence claims stay flagged beside the claims they affect.

Artifact type	Written to	Template	Row exceptions
Research report	docs/knowledge/research/	.claude/templates/research-report-template.md	None
Market analysis	docs/knowledge/strategy/market-analysis/	.claude/templates/market-analysis-template.md	None
Business evaluation	docs/knowledge/strategy/business/	.claude/templates/business-evaluation-template.md	None
Marketing strategy	docs/knowledge/strategy/marketing/	.claude/templates/marketing-strategy-template.md	None
Course outline	docs/knowledge/courses/	.claude/templates/course-outline-template.md	No per-finding confidence row; its Sources table is Resources & References; add the pedagogy check

Pedagogy check (course outlines): objectives are measurable (an observable verb at a stated Bloom level); objectives and assessments align, so every objective is tested by at least one knowledge-check or final-assessment item and every assessment item traces to an objective; prerequisites are stated for the course, and each module builds on the earlier ones.

An artifact type outside the table uses the template its producer skill names; with none, review it against the research-report rows and record that assumption.

Depth — the scope triage selects how much runs. Read the triage the workflow recorded (workflow-research records Narrow, Standard or Broad in its workflow report); standalone, classify with the Question-Scope Triage table in .claude/skills/workflow-research/SKILL.md.

Depth	When	Runs
Core	Narrow scope, and no decision rides on the artifact	Checklists 1 Template, 2 Citation, 3 Confidence and 6 Cross-Validation (with the profile's exceptions), plus the compressed Anti-Bias Gate: 1+ contradicting source for the main claim (or its absence flagged), a stress test of the highest score ≥80%, and 2+ sentences arguing the opposite verdict
Full	Standard or Broad scope, a decision-critical artifact (business evaluation, marketing strategy, any go/no-go input), or triage unknown	Every applicable row and the full Anti-Bias Gate

Review Checklist

Check both presence and substantive quality for every row; headings, placeholders, or generic filler do not pass.

1. Template Compliance

Check	Verify presence and depth
All enforced sections present	Every template section has substantive content; missing or partially filled sections fail.
No empty placeholders	Reject “TBD”, “to be filled”, and generic filler such as “risks will be identified later”.
Section order matches template	Preserve prescribed order and verify cross-references still make sense.

2. Citation Audit

Check	Verify presence and depth
Every factual claim has inline [N]	Read the source: it must support the specific claim or paraphrase.
Every Sources row is cited	Cite at the most specific supported claim; reject unused credibility-padding sources and vague section-level citations.
No orphan citations	Every [N] resolves to a Sources row; numbering stays consistent, without gaps or duplicates.
Sources table has: Title, URL, Author, Date, Tier	Verify all five fields, accurate Tier and topic-appropriate Date. A blog labeled Tier 1 inflates authority.

3. Confidence Accuracy

Check	Verify presence and depth
Per-finding scores	Each finding has its own explicit percentage; section/artifact scores cannot substitute.
Overall confidence	Require a reasoned aggregate, not the highest finding score; 85%, 60%, and 40% do not aggregate to 85%.
Scores match evidence	Justify source count, independence and quality; name what would lower each score. A single source ≠ 80%; scores >80% require 2+ independent sources and addressed counterevidence.
Findings <60% flagged prominently	Visually distinguish and position low-confidence findings so skimming readers cannot mistake them for facts.

4. Source Quality

Check	Verify presence and depth
Appropriate Tier distribution	Record distribution; Tier 4 must be a minority, never the entire set. Assess authority per claim: unrelated Tier 1 sources do not rescue a core Tier 4 claim.
At least 50% Tier 1-2 for key claims	Verify the overall threshold and authoritative support for key/high-stakes claims; prestige outside the claim's domain is insufficient.
Topic-appropriate recency	Date and assess each source against the topic's rate of change; flag stale sources. Cloud pricing ages faster than database theory.

5. Knowledge Gaps

Check	Verify presence and depth
Honest Gaps section	State specific unanswered questions, ranked by impact on conclusions, to guide follow-up; “some uncertainty exists” is insufficient.
Explicit limitations	Distinguish methodological/coverage limitations from gaps. State a limitation near any finding it invalidates, before using it to discount the finding; a late footnote is insufficient.
Further research	Include 1+ suggestions tied to gaps, with specific query + source type; prioritize gaps affecting decisions.

6. Cross-Validation

Check	Verify presence and depth
Key claims have 2+ sources	Verify genuine independence; sources citing each other or the same original study are amplification, not validation.
Conflicts documented and resolved	Explain which source was weighted more and why; merely noting disagreement is insufficient.
Single-source claims unverified	Explicitly label them “unverified” or equivalent, with confidence <60%; an unverified claim at 75% contradicts itself.

7. Actionability

Check	Verify presence and depth
Concrete recommendations	State who does what, assignable to a role without clarification. “Improve monitoring” is vague; “add P99 latency alert at 500ms” is actionable.
Evidence-based next steps	Trace each action to a finding and confidence score; label actions based on low-confidence evidence (e.g. 40%) speculative, not directives.
Accurate executive summary	Capture key findings with confidence caveats and limitations; never turn a 60%-confidence finding into fact for readability.

Output Format

## Knowledge Review Result

**Status:** PASS | WARN | FAIL
**Artifact:** {path}
**Profile:** {artifact type} · **Depth:** {core | full} — {triage evidence}

### Checks (N/7 passed; N/A rows named with reason)

- [x] Template compliance
- [x] Citation audit
- [ ] Confidence accuracy — {issue}
- [ ] Source quality — {issue}
      ...

### Issues

- {specific issues found}

### Verdict

{APPROVED | REVISE | BLOCKED}

Round 2: Focused Re-Review (conditional — triggered by findings)

Convergence follows the single contract in SYNC:review-policy below: a clean Round 1 ENDS the review once the persisted minRounds is met (default 1); an explicitly required independent pass is still mandatory. Re-review is triggered by a validated-finding fix cycle (review → validate findings → fix → full re-review) or an explicitly declared independent-pass minimum, not by a round number alone.

When Round 1 surfaces findings, run this focused re-review as part of that full re-review (do NOT rely on Round 1 memory):

1. Re-read the Round 1 verdict and checklist results
2. Re-evaluate ALL checklist items from scratch
3. Challenge Round 1 PASS items: "Is this really PASS? Did I verify citations and confidence?"
4. Focus on what Round 1 typically misses:
   • Citation accuracy (do sources actually say what's claimed?)
   • Confidence calibration (are percentages realistic?)
   • Knowledge gaps that weren't flagged
   • Template compliance shortcuts
5. Update verdict to incorporate the new findings; then re-enter the loop until a complete review pass finds zero issues.

---

[IMPORTANT] Use TaskCreate to break ALL work into small tasks BEFORE starting.

Prerequisites: MUST ATTENTION READ before executing:

Review scope: Review the knowledge artifact’s completeness, citations, confidence, and stated claims. Research-only artifacts have no application-inheritance or linter prerequisite. When an artifact makes code-linked claims, inspect only the referenced code and applicable project rules to verify those claims; route a requested code-design review to its code-review owner. Do not prescribe empty base classes or unrelated tooling.

<!-- PROTOCOL-GUIDES:START -->

Protocol guides — Apply each protocol only when its read-when condition holds. If a protocol's text is not in your context, read its file below before you act on it.

• core-engineering-principles — Core quality gate: easy to change, easy to scale, easy to maintain, judged by future change cost; planning, implementing or reviewing any change → .claude/skills/shared/protocols/core-engineering-principles.md
• goal-contract-satisfaction-loop — Save the goal in a file and loop until every saved criterion passes; executing work against a user goal → .claude/skills/shared/protocols/goal-contract-satisfaction-loop.md
• review-decision-autonomy — Choose supported review decisions and ask before extending the round budget; running any review or audit skill or mode → .claude/skills/shared/protocols/review-decision-autonomy.md
• review-policy — Review-only or a three-round fix loop with explicit extension and fresh post-fix evidence; deciding round eligibility, blocking findings or review state → .claude/skills/shared/protocols/review-policy.md
• review-principle-awareness — Classify the change context first, then apply the current principles that fit it; starting any review → .claude/skills/shared/protocols/review-principle-awareness.md
• review-protocol-injection — Verbatim template and protocol blocks for every fresh sub-agent review prompt; spawning a fresh sub-agent to review → .claude/skills/shared/protocols/review-protocol-injection.md
• severity-rubric — One consequence-based Critical, High, Medium, Low scale for every finding and gate; classifying a finding or deciding whether a review round passes → .claude/skills/shared/protocols/severity-rubric.md
• task-tracking-external-report — Task breakdown before the work and report files written incrementally; starting any multi-step skill, plan or review → .claude/skills/shared/protocols/task-tracking-external-report.md
• trade-off-interrogation-gate — Three trade-off questions before any verdict, score or recommendation; rendering a verdict or recommending an option → .claude/skills/shared/protocols/trade-off-interrogation-gate.md
• web-research — Structured web search for evidence gathering; gathering external evidence from the web → .claude/skills/shared/protocols/web-research.md

<!-- PROTOCOL-GUIDES:END --> <!-- SYNC:web-research:reminder -->

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION cite 2+ independent sources per claim. NEVER fabricate — "No evidence found" is valid output.

<!-- /SYNC:web-research:reminder --> <!-- SYNC:task-tracking-external-report:reminder -->

• MANDATORY Bootstrap task tracking before target work; transition one task at a time.
• MANDATORY Persist plan/review findings to tmp/reports/ incrementally and synthesize from disk.

<!-- /SYNC:task-tracking-external-report:reminder --> <!-- SYNC:severity-rubric:reminder -->

• MANDATORY Classify every finding Critical/High/Medium/Low by consequence using the affected asset, shipped impact, exposure, reversibility, evidence location, and confidence; Critical/High/MEDIUM remain actionable under the round bar, while LOW is recorded/deferred from round 2 onward.
• MANDATORY A finding names a reachable trigger path (caller, input, state or event that reaches the defect) and a consequence; an unreachable concern is an observation, and unsettled reachability is NOT VERIFIABLE only when the concern would be MEDIUM or higher (an observation otherwise) — never a speculative LOW.
• MANDATORY Keep binary gates separate from severity: a failed test, security must-fix, required artifact, or parity check blocks at every round and is never relabeled LOW.
• MANDATORY Score-based skills (sre 0-2, perf two-axis) map onto the same four tiers — no parallel severity vocabulary.

<!-- /SYNC:severity-rubric:reminder --> <!-- SYNC:goal-contract-satisfaction-loop:reminder -->

• MANDATORY Resolve the active Goal Contract BEFORE work (active plan goal.md → <plans root>/goals/{YYMMDD-HHmm}-{slug}/goal.md, plans root default plans and overridable via a docsRoots.plans.path entry in docs/project-config.json → create from current request) and read saved success criteria before editing.
• MANDATORY Append iteration evidence after execution; emit a Goal Satisfaction matrix (PASS/FAIL/BLOCKED) before reporting PASS; loop on validated FAIL; escalate repeated no-progress or blockers. NEVER store secrets in goal files.

<!-- /SYNC:goal-contract-satisfaction-loop:reminder --> <!-- SYNC:trade-off-interrogation-gate:reminder -->

Review/audit invocations: follow SYNC:review-decision-autonomy for every decision prompt; choose supported recommendations without asking, preserve round-extension approval and actual authority.

• MANDATORY MUST ATTENTION ALWAYS ASK THE 3 TRADE-OFF QUESTIONS — on the thing under review AND on every recommendation you make: (1) what does it SACRIFICE? name the dimensions checked (change cost · complexity · perf · coupling · reversibility · migration · ops load · blast radius · security · testability · delivery time · UX) — "none"/"pure win" is an unfinished analysis; (2) is it worth it? gain (with a metric) vs cost, WHO pays, WHEN → emit WORTH IT / NOT WORTH IT / UNCLEAR; NOT WORTH IT → withdraw or replace it; (3) is it MATERIAL enough to confirm with the user? irreversible/one-way door · cost shifted onto another team/ops/maintainer/user · one quality attribute traded for another · a tier/service/event/library boundary crossed · auth/money/data-integrity/breaking-change/High-or-Medium-risk path · verdict UNCLEAR → STOP and confirm via ask user question tool BEFORE the verdict.
• MANDATORY A MATERIAL trade-off with no user confirmation can NEVER be PASS; never bury one as a Low-severity note, never decide it silently, and never let delivery or convergence pressure authorize a one-way door — an un-walked-back one-way door is the user's call, not the reviewer's.
• MANDATORY — a context that cannot ask escalates BY HANDOFF, never by silence. ask user question tool reaches only the main interactive agent, so a sub-agent or a terminal/verdict-only mode cannot ask. There the duty is REDIRECTED, not waived: still name the trade-off, still decide materiality, record confirmed? = NO — cannot ask from this context, and state the unconfirmed MATERIAL trade-off in your RETURNED verdict so the CALLER escalates it (a note only in an on-disk report is not a handoff); never emit an unqualified PASS. If you CAN ask, you MUST ask.

<!-- /SYNC:trade-off-interrogation-gate:reminder --> <!-- SYNC:review-principle-awareness:reminder -->

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Every review first checks the change context and routes only applicable principles to their detailed protocols: scale-ready foundation, test intent in the project's native format (GWT is one option), AI-agent-as-user access, and UI/component design when relevant. Record evidence-backed apply/adapt/defer/N/A/block/unverified status with owner and next step; do not invent unrelated findings or expand scope.

<!-- /SYNC:review-principle-awareness:reminder --> <!-- SYNC:review-decision-autonomy:reminder -->

MUST ATTENTION Decide supported review choices and recommendations, record the rationale, and finish without routine user questions. Keep round-limit extension, indispensable facts and actual action authority; preserve source coverage, validation, tests, read-only boundaries and budgets. Review decisions do not accept open risks or make a failed gate pass.

<!-- /SYNC:review-decision-autonomy:reminder -->

Closing Reminders

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Goal: Ensure knowledge artifacts are evidence-backed, complete, protocol-compliant, and safe to use for decisions — reviewing for quality, completeness, citation accuracy, and template compliance.

Protocols in force (concise digest of the SYNC/shared blocks this skill carries):

• Double Round-Trip Review: review → validate → fix only current-round blocking findings → full re-review; Round 1 requires zero open findings (LOW deferral), while Round 2 requires zero CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM with LOW deferred.
• Fresh Context Review: after a fix, re-review with zero-memory fresh sub-agents.
• Review Protocol Injection: MUST ATTENTION embed all 11 protocol bodies VERBATIM into each fresh sub-agent prompt.
• Nested Task Creation: expand child phase tasks and link the parent when nested.
• Task Tracking & External Report: bootstrap tasks; persist plan/review findings to tmp/reports/ incrementally.
• Web Research: cite 2+ independent sources per claim; NEVER fabricate.
• Severity Rubric: classify findings Critical/High/Medium/Low by consequence using SYNC:severity-rubric; round 1 blocks on every open validated finding (LOW deferral), round 2 blocks only CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM, and LOW is recorded/deferred. Failed binary gates always block.
• Parallel Sub-Agent Dispatch: Tag tasks PAR/SEQ, group PAR into disjoint-write-set waves, spawn each wave in ONE message, barrier before advancing.

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION default SKEPTIC, not VALIDATOR — run the full Anti-Bias Gate before ANY verdict (core depth: the compressed three-item gate): 1+ contradicting source per major claim, stress-test every score ≥80%, state the strongest alternative conclusion, check supporting-vs-contradicting source ratio, run a pre-mortem, argue the opposite verdict in 2+ sentences IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION calibrate confidence to evidence — a single source ≠ 80%; scores >80% need 2+ independent sources with contradicting evidence addressed; single-source claims marked unverified MUST be <60%; findings <60% flagged prominently IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION main steps in order — read artifact + set profile and depth → 7-checklist audit (presence AND quality depth) → adversarial Anti-Bias Gate → emit PASS/WARN/FAIL per-check + verdict (APPROVED/REVISE/BLOCKED) → conditional Round 2 re-review IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION verify presence AND quality depth on every row the profile and depth select from the 7 checklists (template compliance, citation audit, confidence accuracy, source quality, knowledge gaps, cross-validation, actionability); course outlines add the pedagogy check IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION validate findings with /why-review --validate-findings whenever the report has findings, before any repair IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Review-only/caller-owned passes report without artifact edits; standalone fix-loop repairs validated findings between passes, then freshly audits citations and the full artifact.

• break work into small todo tasks using TaskCreate BEFORE starting; add a final review todo to verify work quality
• cite evidence for every claim — for a knowledge artifact that is the supporting source citation [N] / source-table row (use file:line only for the rare code-linked claim); confidence >80% to act, <60% DO NOT recommend
• read required project-reference docs (always lessons.md) before the target review; classify findings Critical/High/Medium/Low by consequence (severity rubric) — round 1 blocks on every open validated finding (LOW deferral); round 2 blocks only CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM, while LOW is recorded/deferred and failed binary gates always block
• verify every factual claim has an inline citation, every source in the table is referenced, no orphan citations, all 5 source fields present with accurate Tier
• execute the review loop: review → validate findings → fix validated findings that block the current round → full re-review; round 1 requires zero open findings, while from round 2 onward zero CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM ends the loop and LOW-only findings are recorded/deferred — NEVER fix unvalidated findings, NEVER skip the full re-review after a blocking fix cycle

[TASK-PLANNING] Before acting, analyze task scope and systematically break it into small todo tasks and sub-tasks using TaskCreate.

Anti-Rationalization:

Evasion	Rebuttal
"Sources are cited"	Presence ≠ quality — verify each source actually supports the SPECIFIC claim, not just sits in the table.
"Confidence scores look reasonable"	Name what would LOWER each score ≥80%. No answer = inflated. A single source is not 80%.
"Comprehensive coverage"	State the strongest alternative conclusion and the perspective MISSING — absence of counterevidence ≠ consensus.
"Recommendations are actionable"	On what evidence, at what confidence? A directive from a 40%-confidence finding must be labeled speculative.
"Clean enough, skip the Anti-Bias Gate"	The gate is MANDATORY before any verdict — skipping it ships confirmation-biased approval as fact.
"I'll fix while judging citations"	Keep each review pass read-only; only the standalone fix-loop owner repairs after validation, then runs a fresh independent audit.

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Goal (recency anchor): ship only evidence-backed, complete, protocol-compliant knowledge artifacts — Anti-Bias Gate, confidence calibrated to source count/quality and validated severity-tiered findings. Review-only reports; standalone fix-loop repairs between read-only passes and freshly reviews until the shared round bar is clear, default cap three.

<!-- SYNC:core-engineering-principles:reminder -->

MUST ATTENTION Core Engineering Principles — every plan, implementation and review must be Easy to change (reuse first, one owner per rule, interfaces/adapters at volatile boundaries, no speculative abstraction) · Easy to scale (extend by addition, bounded growth, explicit boundaries, sized to the project's real profile) · Easy to maintain (intent-named tests that fail when the rule breaks across happy/error/edge paths; harness green locally and in CI). Before done: next change → how many edit sites? 10× → what breaks? which test goes red?

<!-- /SYNC:core-engineering-principles:reminder --> <!-- SYNC:review-policy:reminder -->

MUST ATTENTION Triage all targets, plan and create review/validation/fix/fresh re-review tasks first. Review-only reports without edits; fix-loop freshly reviews every repair under one fixing owner. Default cap three rounds: disclose deferred LOWs, ask and wait before a bounded extension for MEDIUM+ or failed required checks. Preserve scope, coverage and actual operation authority.

<!-- /SYNC:review-policy:reminder -->