Clevel Review

/clevel-review

Pre-output gate. Three phases. Hard enforcement: do NOT skip to Phase 3.

Canonical spec: <workspace>/6 - slash commands/clevel-review.md

Phase 1: Classify and self-validate the council

Required inputs

Ask the user (via AskUserQuestion if any are missing):

• Deliverable type — decision brief / status / risk / category strategy / contract change / conversation prep / one-pager / steerco pack / external client doc
• Audience — named person + role (e.g. "Group GM Supply Chain"; "CFO"; "client contact at a government department")
• Format — 1-page Obsidian markdown / Word docx / PPTX deck / dashboard / email
• Ask type — support / approval / information / decision / endorsement
• Source material — brief, draft, wiki path, prior outputs (if any)

Routing

1. Read <workspace>/CLAUDE.md "Orchestrator, Routing Logic" section (lines covering thinker triggers).
2. Match the inputs above to thinker triggers. Multi-signal tasks load multiple thinkers.
3. Read each matched thinker file from <workspace>/context/<thinker>.md.

Mandatory thinker triggers (not exhaustive, see CLAUDE.md routing table for full):

Phase 1 output (write to user)

## Classification
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Deliverable type | … |
| Audience | … |
| Format | … |
| Ask type | … |

## Council loaded
| Thinker | Why loaded | File read |
|---|---|---|
| … | … | ✓ |

Stop. Ask user to confirm before Phase 2: "Council looks right? Add or remove any thinker before I run critique."

Phase 2: Council critique

For each loaded thinker, produce critique IN THAT THINKER'S VOICE using:

• The thinker's "Questions This Thinker Always Asks" (apply to the draft / proposal)
• The thinker's "Anti-Patterns This Thinker Catches" (red-flag scan)
• The thinker's "Company Context" (relevance check)

Output format

## Council critique

### [Role] (file: [thinker].md)

**Voice:** [1-2 sentences framing what this thinker brings]

**Challenges raised:**
- [Specific challenge tied to the draft / proposal]
- …

**Anti-patterns flagged:**
- [Specific pattern in the draft this thinker catches]

**Yes if:**
- [What would need to change for this thinker to support]

---

[Repeat per thinker]

## Consolidated MECE issues
| # | Issue | Raised by | Severity | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | … | … | high/med/low | … |

Stop. Ask user to confirm or push back on any critique before Phase 3.

Phase 3: Audience-shaped write-up

Format selected from classification, NOT from topic.

Format library (v1)

v1 ships GM-only. For CFO / ExCo / External, run Phase 1 + 2 then hand off to the named skill with the consolidated issue list.

Auto-chain: after Phase 3 produces the draft, automatically invoke /exec-comms to apply visual + structural format discipline (callouts, parallel tables, bold-the-punchline, banned-word scan, length cap to audience tier). The chain is mandatory, not optional. /exec-comms enforces the format rules; /clevel-review produces the content.

GM 1-page template (mandatory structure)

# [Title]

> Audience: [named person] | Read time: [N] min | Date: [YYYY-MM-DD]

## Decision sought
[1 sentence. The single thing this page asks for.]

## Situation
- [3-4 MECE bullets. Where we are.]

## Complication
- [3-4 MECE bullets. Why current state cannot deliver alone.]

## Asks (parallel)
| # | Ask | Who carries if approved | Effort | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|

## What we commit in return
- [3 bullets. Reciprocal commitment.]

## What's at stake by [date]
- [2 bullets. Cost of inaction, anchored to a real deadline.]

## Appendix
[Links only. No narrative.]

Banned patterns (refuse to ship if any present)

• "What this is NOT" sections (defensive, undermines confidence)
• "Pre-empted Questions" sections (if asked, answer; don't pre-litigate)
• Mixed tactical / structural detail in same section (force separate buckets)
• Asks of different shapes (parallel structure mandatory)
• Value tables before the ask (lead with the answer, not the proof)
• Headlines without urgency markers (anchor to deadline)

Safety / failure modes

• Thinker file missing: warn, list missing thinker, proceed with degraded council, flag in output.
• User wants to skip Phase 2: warn that this defeats the gate; require explicit --skip-critique flag from user; log the skip in the output deliverable.
• Audience unknown: ASK via AskUserQuestion. Do not guess.
• Multiple audiences: default to most senior; flag secondary as constraint.
• Conflict between thinkers: surface to user as decision point. Do not auto-resolve.

Logging

Optional. If user passes --log <path>, write the Phase 1 + 2 outputs as a markdown file at that path alongside the deliverable. Default: no log.

Reference

• Spec: <workspace>/6 - slash commands/clevel-review.md
• Routing logic: <workspace>/CLAUDE.md (Orchestrator section)
• Thinker files: <workspace>/context/*.md
• Output skills: program-exec-summary, program-steerco-pack, analysis-commercial-insight