# Fpf Review

> End-of-session quality gate. Verify the creative and assurance pipeline — not just artifacts. MUST invoke before ending any non-trivial session.

- Skill: `m0n0x41d/fpf-review` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add m0n0x41d/fpf-review`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/m0n0x41d/fpf-review/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: DevOps & Infra
- Author: m0n0x41d (https://skillmd.com/u/m0n0x41d)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/m0n0x41d/fpf-review

---


## What this skill IS

This is a **quality review of both creative work and assurance**, not just an artifact checklist. Check:
- Did you design the problem or just react to symptoms?
- Did you explore alternatives or jump to the first solution?
- Did evidence feed back into problem reframing?
- Are there stepping stones worth preserving?

## Procedure

1. **Restate objective** — what was requested, what "done" means

2. **Check creative pipeline** (problem factory):
   - Was the problem designed proactively or reactively?
   - Does a goldilocks assessment exist? Is the problem feasible-but-hard?
   - Were alternatives to the problem framing considered?
   - If evidence refuted claims: was the problem reframed?

3. **Check solution pipeline** (solution factory):
   - Was SoTA surveyed (for architectural work)?
   - Was a method family bet made explicitly (STRAT-*)?
   - Were ≥3 genuinely distinct variants generated?
   - Was selection explicit (policy before applying)?
   - Were stepping stones preserved?
   - Were weakest links identified for variants/selected solution (WLNK)?
   - If the solution adds complexity, was MONO justification provided?

4. **Check artifacts** — tier-appropriate:
   - T2+: ANOM/PROB-* if investigative, EVID-* if claims made
   - T3+: SPORT-* if options evaluated, SEL-* if choice made, DRR-* if irreversible
   - T4: SOTA-* and STRAT-* if architectural
   - All: worklog updated

5. **Check feedback loop**:
   - Did any evidence show "refuted"? If yes → was PROB-* updated?
   - Did stepping stones get recorded for future work?

6. **Check Factory 3 (process improvement)**:
   - Was there friction in the FPF workflow itself? (gates too strict/loose, templates too heavy, missing skills)
   - Did any hook block you incorrectly? Did any template feel wrong for the task?
   - Process friction is a Factory 3 problem — record it, don't just tolerate it
   - If friction found → write `.fpf/anomalies/PROC-${CLAUDE_SESSION_ID}--<slug>.md` with:
     ```
     # Process Friction Record
     - **ID:** PROC-...  **Created:** YYYY-MM-DD  **Factory:** 1|2|3
     ## Friction observed
     (what happened, which gate/skill/template)
     ## Impact
     (time lost, workaround used, creative quality affected)
     ## Proposed improvement
     (what would fix it — skill change, hook adjustment, template redesign)
     ```
   - Check `.fpf/anomalies/PROC-*.md` from previous sessions — are any still unresolved?

7. **Run minimum verification** — smallest test that reduces risk

8. **Report** — completed items, evidence links, remaining risks, open threads (including Factory 3 observations)

## Output
- Update `.fpf/worklog/session-${CLAUDE_SESSION_ID}.md` with final summary
- Report to user: what was done, what's verified, what's left

## Sentinel cleanup
After review:
1. Write `.fpf/.review-done` (allows stop hook to pass)
2. Delete `.fpf/.session-active`