# Cold Review > - Skill: `petar-djukic/cold-review` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 4 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add petar-djukic/cold-review` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/petar-djukic/cold-review/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: petar-djukic (https://skillmd.com/u/petar-djukic) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/petar-djukic/cold-review --- --- name: cold-review description: >- Fresh-context entailment check with a fixed contract: a reviewer that never saw the drafting conversation reads baseline + candidate, paragraph-aligned, hunting inverted claims, numbers reattached to wrong claims, altered quotations, and hedges that change assertions; verdicts limited to ship as-is / ship with listed verbatim-reverts / reject. Every accepted fix is a revert to the baseline span — no authored prose. Ships a mechanical drift screen and a revert applier with invariant re-checks. Triggers: cold review, cold read the candidate, entailment check, fresh-context review, did the rewrite change the meaning, revert list. argument-hint: 'screen|apply --baseline --candidate ' --- # Cold Review (fresh-context entailment, reverts only) Every generative stage measured against a cold read lost most of its raw gain there, and the two 2026-09-01 runs that fixed this contract caught real damage both times: swapped 0.768/0.867 arm numbers, an inverted improvement direction, a lost constitution bridge sentence — and, on the second run, confirmed ship-as-is with zero reverts, which is also a result. The prompt was re-improvised per run; now it is versioned. ## The contract - **Fresh context, maker is not checker.** The reviewer sees only the baseline, the candidate, the caller's named high-value targets, the constitution's [CHECK] items when the form has one, and the mechanical screen's findings. Never the rewrite history, reasoning, or diffs. - **Meaning entailment, paragraph by paragraph**: inverted claims, numbers reattached to wrong claims, altered quotations (including reattributed judgment), hedges that change assertions, [CHECK] items no longer satisfied. - **Closed verdict vocabulary**: `ship as-is` | `ship with reverts: p: ` | `reject candidate: `. The reviewer never proposes prose. - **The repair rule**: every accepted fix is a verbatim revert to the baseline span — kept-original at paragraph level, no authored prose. Damage that reverts cannot save (structural) rejects the candidate. The prompt template with slots is [references/review-prompt.md](./references/review-prompt.md). ## The scripts (deterministic halves) ```bash # recall aid for the reviewer: mechanical drift per aligned paragraph python3 /scripts/cold_review.py screen \ --baseline base.md --candidate cand.md [--json] # apply an accepted revert list, verbatim, with invariant re-checks python3 /scripts/cold_review.py apply \ --baseline base.md --candidate cand.md --revert "3,7" --out gated.md ``` `screen` flags number-multiset changes (citations masked), citation changes, and altered double-quoted spans; it is a recall aid, not the review — an inverted claim carries the same numbers and only the model catches it. `apply` swaps the named paragraphs back to the baseline text and re-checks the invariants on the written bytes: locked spans preserved, paragraph count stable, reverted paragraphs byte-identical to baseline. Both refuse mismatched paragraph counts — the chain rewrites 1:1, and a count drift means index reverts would land on the wrong text. ## Position Caller's review phase (GH-208), after critic-apply and before voice-critic: the gated candidate is what the scores are believed on. Read-only plus reverts — a revert authors nothing, so running it after the terminal stage does not violate the GH-57 contract. Offline tests: `scripts/test_cold_review.py` (a planted number swap yields a revert list naming it; the applier restores baseline bytes).