Knowledge Refresh

Knowledge review

Contract

Inputs

Required:

• Artifact: a file path or paste of content to review.

Optional:

• Referenced data context files.
• Explicit indication that content is external-facing (published, emailed, or posted publicly).

If the input is ambiguous, ask the user to supply a file path or paste the content.

Procedure

1. Load the artifact.

   • If a file path is given, read the file.
   • If pasted content is given, use it directly.
   • If content references data (metrics, conversion rates, financial figures), also load any data context files cited in the artifact. Done when: the artifact content is loaded and any cited data context files are read.

2. Run both reviewers in parallel. a. Launch a strategic alignment review using the full artifact content. Evaluate:

   • goal clarity: the goal connects to a measurable outcome;
   • hypothesis falsifiability: the hypothesis uses a testable "if-then" form;
   • success metrics: metrics are defined and connected to the goal; flag vanity metrics;
   • scope proportionality: effort is proportional to expected impact;
   • resource awareness: time, people, tools, and budget are stated;
   • strategic consistency: the artifact is consistent with stated project goals;
   • opportunity cost: what is not being done and whether this is the best use of effort here. b. Launch a data accuracy review using the full artifact content and data context files. Evaluate:
   • source citation: every number has a cited source with a file path, dashboard name, or calculation;
   • comparison baselines: every comparison has a stated baseline; flag incomplete comparisons;
   • canonical definitions: metrics match the project's canonical definitions;
   • freshness: flag data older than 48 hours with a warning and data older than 7 days as P2;
   • caveats: known limitations of data sources are stated;
   • hardcoded vs live: identify hardcoded numbers that should be live-queried;
   • baseline appropriateness: watch for seasonal skew or cherry-picked timeframes. c. Wait for both reviewers to return before proceeding. Done when: both reviewers have returned their findings.

3. Editorial check for external-facing content.

   • If the artifact will be published, emailed, or posted publicly: check for AI writing patterns (generic phrasing, stock transitions, vague claims) and tone or voice consistency with the project's style guides.
   • If the artifact is internal (plan, brief, analysis for the team): skip this step. Done when: the editorial check is run for external-facing content or skipped for internal content.

4. Merge findings. Combine findings from both reviewers. Group all findings by severity:

   Severity	What qualifies
   P1 Critical	Factual error, wrong data source, missing goal, unfalsifiable hypothesis
   P2 Important	Missing source citation, stale data older than 7 days, unclear success metric
   P3 Nice-to-have	Minor framing, additional context, formatting
   Clean	Sections that passed all checks

   Done when: all findings are grouped into P1, P2, P3, or Clean.

5. Present findings. Present a grouped review report with P1 (blocks shipping, most critical first), P2 (should fix), P3 (nice to have), and Clean (what passed) sections. Each finding is specific: "Revenue cited as $X but [source] shows $Y as of [date]" rather than "Revenue might be wrong." Done when: the grouped report is presented with specific findings in severity order.

6. Offer next steps. Ask: "Review complete. [N] findings ([P1 count] critical, [P2 count] important). What next?" Options: (1) Fix P1/P2 issues now: address findings inline, then re-review; (2) Ship as-is: acknowledge findings and proceed without fixing. Done when: the user is offered the two next-step options.

7. Execute the chosen action only after the review completes.

   • If the user chooses to fix: the review is complete. The fix is a separate, explicitly user-authorized edit. Make targeted edits, then re-run the review as a new invocation.
   • If the user chooses to ship as-is: acknowledge the outstanding findings and stop. Done when: the chosen action is executed (fixes applied and re-reviewed as a separate step, or findings acknowledged and stopped).

Failure and recovery

Output

A grouped review report with P1, P2, P3, and Clean sections (each finding specific with source and date), where P1 findings explicitly block ordinary shipping and receive the next-steps prompt.