Pre-Execution Review Policy (internal)
One owner for the rules that both pre-execution reviewers apply, so a Product
review and a Plan review cannot drift into two different definitions of
independence, union, or convergence. It states policy; it runs nothing,
writes nothing, and emits no verdict of its own.
evidence-grounding = how an author prepares and self-checks an artifact.
pre-execution-review = how any pre-execution reviewer judges it, and what the
frozen ledgers look like.
review-spec / review-plan = the only skills that emit a pre-execution verdict.
When to use
review-spec / review-plan — before the first check and again before any
repeat, repair, or synthesis step.design-feature, plan-feature, plan-feature-scaffold, plan-fix — when
writing the ledgers and when a review comes back failed.- Nothing else. Candidate-source review (
review-change), merge gating
(audit-pr) and execution (execute-phase) keep their own contracts; this
skill adds no authority over them.
Hard rule — no verdicts, no edits
This skill never prints SPEC-REVIEW-PASS, PLAN-REVIEW-PASS,
SPEC-REVIEW-FAIL, PLAN-REVIEW-FAIL or NEEDS-DESIGN as a result of its own
reading, and it never writes a unit artifact. Quoting a verdict shape here is a
definition, not an issuance. A policy summary that reads like an approval is a
contract violation — the verdict belongs to the reviewer turn that binds the
snapshot.
The three references
| Condition now |
LOAD |
| Running or repairing a pre-execution review |
references/POLICY.md — independence, union, dismissal, diversity labels, author exclusion, untrusted content, critique/synthesis/arbitration bounds, no quorum, no-progress, batch repair, CONVERGENCE-ANOMALY, write-then-report |
| Building or re-checking a snapshot digest |
references/SNAPSHOT.md — the one executable recipe (scripts/pre-execution-snapshot.mjs), what each stage binds, how a consumer re-verifies a receipt, and why a snapshot digest is not a git blob id |
| Writing or validating a Plan-stage artifact |
references/LEDGERS.md — the planning-evidence table, the obligation ledger, the stage-aware planning-findings.md, the durable review mark, and who may write each |
Guardrails
- Single owner. A caller may restate a rule only as a one-line pointer plus
the stage-specific detail it adds. Two copies of the union rule, the dismissal
rule, or the convergence fields is the drift this skill exists to prevent.
- Policy is not a receipt. Reading this file proves nothing about any
artifact; only a reviewer turn that binds a snapshot does.
- No weakening. The bounds here are ceilings and floors: a cycle may be
shorter than the budget allows, never looser than the policy allows.
- Vocabulary is closed. Severity, class, role, verdict and status words are
exactly those named in the references. Inventing
accepted, waived,
mitigated, or a fourth verdict is a contract break.
- Docs-language and commit conventions per the project's Workflow conventions.
Done when
- Every pre-execution reviewer and authoring caller points here for the shared
cycle and ledger rules instead of restating them, and each stage file keeps
only the detail that is genuinely stage-specific.
1---2name: pre-execution-review3description: Internal owner of the pre-execution review cycle and the planning ledgers: independence, unioned findings, counter-evidence dismissal, no-progress, `CONVERGENCE-ANOMALY`, and the evidence/obligation/findings tables. Consumed by `review-spec`, `review-plan`, and the authoring skills. Not a menu entry.4license: MIT5---67# Pre-Execution Review Policy (internal)89One owner for the rules that both pre-execution reviewers apply, so a Product10review and a Plan review cannot drift into two different definitions of11independence, union, or convergence. It states **policy**; it runs nothing,12writes nothing, and emits no verdict of its own.1314```text15evidence-grounding = how an author prepares and self-checks an artifact.16pre-execution-review = how any pre-execution reviewer judges it, and what the17 frozen ledgers look like.18review-spec / review-plan = the only skills that emit a pre-execution verdict.19```2021## When to use2223- `review-spec` / `review-plan` — before the first check and again before any24 repeat, repair, or synthesis step.25- `design-feature`, `plan-feature`, `plan-feature-scaffold`, `plan-fix` — when26 writing the ledgers and when a review comes back failed.27- Nothing else. Candidate-source review (`review-change`), merge gating28 (`audit-pr`) and execution (`execute-phase`) keep their own contracts; this29 skill adds no authority over them.3031## Hard rule — no verdicts, no edits3233This skill never prints `SPEC-REVIEW-PASS`, `PLAN-REVIEW-PASS`,34`SPEC-REVIEW-FAIL`, `PLAN-REVIEW-FAIL` or `NEEDS-DESIGN` as a result of its own35reading, and it never writes a unit artifact. Quoting a verdict shape here is a36definition, not an issuance. A policy summary that reads like an approval is a37contract violation — the verdict belongs to the reviewer turn that binds the38snapshot.3940## The three references4142| Condition now | LOAD |43|---|---|44| Running or repairing a pre-execution review | [references/POLICY.md](references/POLICY.md) — independence, union, dismissal, diversity labels, author exclusion, untrusted content, critique/synthesis/arbitration bounds, no quorum, no-progress, batch repair, `CONVERGENCE-ANOMALY`, write-then-report |45| Building or re-checking a snapshot digest | [references/SNAPSHOT.md](references/SNAPSHOT.md) — the one executable recipe (`scripts/pre-execution-snapshot.mjs`), what each stage binds, how a consumer re-verifies a receipt, and why a snapshot digest is not a git blob id |46| Writing or validating a Plan-stage artifact | [references/LEDGERS.md](references/LEDGERS.md) — the planning-evidence table, the obligation ledger, the stage-aware `planning-findings.md`, the durable review mark, and who may write each |4748## Guardrails4950- **Single owner.** A caller may restate a rule only as a one-line pointer plus51 the stage-specific detail it adds. Two copies of the union rule, the dismissal52 rule, or the convergence fields is the drift this skill exists to prevent.53- **Policy is not a receipt.** Reading this file proves nothing about any54 artifact; only a reviewer turn that binds a snapshot does.55- **No weakening.** The bounds here are ceilings *and* floors: a cycle may be56 shorter than the budget allows, never looser than the policy allows.57- **Vocabulary is closed.** Severity, class, role, verdict and status words are58 exactly those named in the references. Inventing `accepted`, `waived`,59 `mitigated`, or a fourth verdict is a contract break.60- Docs-language and commit conventions per the project's Workflow conventions.6162## Done when6364- Every pre-execution reviewer and authoring caller points here for the shared65 cycle and ledger rules instead of restating them, and each stage file keeps66 only the detail that is genuinely stage-specific.
gtrabanco