Agent Build Review

$ARGUMENTS

Purpose

Give one independent critique of a single Agentic Build artifact — a frame, a proposal, or an implemented change. Surface findings and a recommended lean so the lead can decide. You do not decide (accept / revise / park / cut / merge is the lead's call, or Brian's), and you do not edit what you review.

Independence — spawn if you authored it

Independent review is required; self-review is not enough.

• You authored the artifact this session (wrote the frame/proposal, or made the change) → spawn a fresh sub-agent to review it. Give it a short kickoff brief — why it's reviewing, the goal, the mode, and what to read — per effective-prompts.md (#8: the why + goal + pointers, not the how). Reviewing is judgment — let the reviewer inherit the main model.
• You didn't author it → you're already independent; review directly.

The boundary — when each mode runs

proposal mode gates the plan, before any code; change mode audits the patch, after, against the accepted proposal. That ordering is the point — it's what lets review gate instead of narrate retrospectively.

So if you're asked for a proposal review but the packet has already shipped (proposal.md says Status: implemented, carries a receipt, or the change is already in the tree), the plan/patch boundary collapsed. Don't fake a retrospective plan review and don't invent a post-hoc mode — flag the collapse as your top finding, then audit the patch in change mode against the proposal as written.

Required context

Read before reviewing — these carry the rules; don't restate them:

• 2026-06-24-reviewer-context.md — reviewer disciplines, what to stress per mode, the lean to recommend, current posture.
• The rubric reviewer-context names for your mode, plus the packet's own docs (frame.md / proposal.md / the diff + the accepted proposal).

Task

1. Resolve the mode — first argument (frame | proposal | change), inferred from the target if omitted. One artifact per run.
2. Read the context above, then read the artifact itself — actually read it; don't critique from memory.
3. Critique against the mode's rubric and the reviewer disciplines.
4. Write findings first, then a recommended lean (in the lead's decision vocabulary — see reviewer-context — or plain words if none fits), clearly marked as a recommendation.
5. Out-of-scope thing worth remembering? Log an observation per learning/AGENTS.md — capture only, never a fix.
6. Stop. Don't decide; don't edit the artifact.

Output

• With a packet → write findings to it: frame → frame-review.md, proposal → proposal-review.md, change → packet-review.md.
• Standalone (no packet) → return the findings inline.

Final response

End with:

• review path (or inline)
• mode + what was reviewed
• findings, most important first
• recommended lean — marked as a recommendation; the lead decides
• No decision was made; the reviewed artifact was not edited.