Archetype Review Base

Archetype-review-base — shared review framework

Every domain reviewer follows this skeleton. Each reviewer's own SKILL.md adds the domain heuristics on top. This skill defines the parts that must be IDENTICAL across all reviewers.

Output artifact (canonical)

Pre-implementation reviewers (the *-reviewer agents — ~30 in agents/ — invoked by architect BEFORE senior-dev claims tasks) write a threat model at docs/sec-threats/TM-{slug}.md and append a <!-- HANDOFF --> block (see "Workflow scaffold" below). That is the single convention for every reviewer.

One TM file per feature slug. Per-reviewer filename suffixes (TM-api-{slug}.md, TM-extension-{slug}.md) are deprecated — consumers glob TM-{slug}.md and per-suffix files silently escape their checks. When multiple domain reviewers run on the same slug, each APPENDS its own ## {reviewer} findings section and its own <!-- HANDOFF --> block to the shared TM-{slug}.md — never overwrite another reviewer's sections.

The Findings / Severity / Verdict structure below is the CONTENT format that goes inside that artifact (and inside any post-implementation docs/reviews/REVIEW-{slug}.md produced by a review-tier agent). Path differs by phase; the section grammar is identical.

Mandatory report sections

The report (TM or REVIEW) MUST contain these sections in this exact order:

# TM-{slug} — {reviewer name}      <!-- pre-impl; post-impl review-tier files use REVIEW-{slug} -->

Reviewed: {commit-sha or file paths or ARCH doc reference}
Standard: {regulation / framework you applied — list specific clauses}
Date: {ISO timestamp}

## Scope

2-3 sentences. What did you look at? What's intentionally out of scope?

## Findings

For each finding, use this exact format:

- **[Critical|High|Medium|Low]** {one-sentence finding title}
  - Location: {file:line or component name}
  - Rationale: {why this matters IN THIS DOMAIN — cite a regulation or
    domain-specific best practice. Generic "could be a problem" is
    rejected.}
  - Repro: {a command, or numbered steps, that SHOWS the finding. Required for
    Critical and High.}
  - Remediation: {specific fix — code change, config change, or
    architectural change. NOT "consider adding X" — write the exact change.}
  - References: {URL or document section}

Order findings: Critical → High → Medium → Low.
If no findings at a tier, write: "_None at {tier} severity._"

### Repro, and why it is required at Critical and High

A finding with no reproduction cannot be shown to be fixed, so closing it is an
opinion. A security review on 2026-08-07 said exactly this about its own weaker
items and scored them lower for it — the rule is that reviewer's own standard,
written down.

It is also what makes the finding survive you. The person who fixes it is not
you, and neither is the person who checks the fix; a reproduction is the only
part of a finding that both of them can run.

### File Critical and High as beads

A finding that lives only in a report is one nobody can track, and one whose
closure nobody can check. Two of them were closed on 2026-08-07 by the author of
the fix, which is not a check at all — `scripts/lib/finding-closure.mjs` calls
that `self-verified` and refuses it, but only for findings it can see.

```bash
bd create "[Critical] {title}" --label finding --type bug \
  -d "Location: {file:line}
Repro: {command or steps}
Rationale: {why}
Remediation: {exact fix}"

Then, as the finding moves:

bd comment <id> "fixed-by: <agent>"      # whoever writes the fix
bd comment <id> "verified-by: <agent>
repro-result: passed"                    # someone who did NOT write it,
                                         # stating what the repro did NOW
bd close <id> --reason "repro re-run after the fix, now passing"

repro-result is passed, failed or not_run, and the VERIFIER writes it in the same comment as verified-by. Nothing re-executes the reproduction on your behalf: running a command out of a bead description is how a reporting channel becomes an execution channel, and it produced three CRITICALs in execution-claims on 2026-08-07. So this rung checks who says the repro passes and whether they wrote the fix — not the command. That is a real limit and it is the deliberate one.

A verification that does not say what the reproduction did leaves the finding repro-not-run. "Looks fine to me" is not a result.

The verifier may not be the fixer, the verification must come after the fix, and the repro must pass now. Those are checked, not merely asked for.

Verdict

VERDICT: {APPROVED|BLOCKED} reason="{specific reason}"

## Severity scale (DOMAIN-anchored)

Severity is graded against THIS DOMAIN's regulatory or
correctness baseline, not generic STRIDE severity. Examples:

- A PCI reviewer rating an unencrypted PAN at REST = **Critical** (PCI
  scope violation; immediate regulatory exposure)
- An oracle reviewer rating a Chainlink staleness < 1h = **High**
  (likely OK now, MEV vulnerable in stress)
- A gov reviewer rating Section 508 a11y gaps = **High** (federal
  contract risk; not Critical because not an immediate breach)

Cite the standard in Rationale. If you can't, the finding is probably
generic and should be reduced one severity tier (the security-officer
agent handles generic concerns).

## Verdict rules

- `VERDICT: APPROVED` is allowed only when ALL Critical and ALL High
  findings have remediation in the bd backlog. (Use
  `bd ready --label {your-archetype}` to check.)
- `VERDICT: BLOCKED` is required when even one Critical or High has no
  remediation, OR when discovery surfaced an unknown that you couldn't
  resolve.
- Medium and Low findings do NOT block. Note them; pipeline continues.

## Domain heuristic vs generic check

You are the SPECIALIST. Your job is the domain-specific stuff that
generic STRIDE / OWASP misses. Decision rule:

| The check is about… | Belongs to |
|---|---|
| Card data, PCI scope, idempotency in payments | pci-reviewer |
| Oracle staleness, MEV, contract upgradeability | oracle-reviewer |
| PHI flows, BAA chain, FHIR/HL7 | healthcare-reviewer |
| Generic XSS, SQLi, weak hashing, secrets in source | security-officer (NOT you) |
| Generic "needs error handling" | senior-dev / code-reviewer (NOT you) |

If a finding is generic, mention it briefly but DON'T inflate severity.
Defer to the appropriate generic reviewer.

## Apply skeptical-triage

Before emitting `VERDICT: BLOCKED`, apply the `skeptical-triage` skill
(3 rounds of self-challenge). False-positive BLOCKED at gate:plan wastes
CTO time. Only block when 3/3 rounds confirm.

## Verdict log line

After writing your report, record the canonical verdict via the helper (see
`agents/_shared/verdict-format.md` — do NOT hand-write the line; the helper
guarantees the format the board parser and the pipeline dispatcher both read,
and `auto` records real token cost):

```bash
bash scripts/log-verdict.sh {your-name} {APPROVED|BLOCKED} auto \
  feature={slug} tm=docs/sec-threats/TM-{slug}.md criticals={N} highs={M}

Prose rules — apply skill prose-style

• No hedge words ("generally", "somewhat", "maybe")
• Lead with the conclusion
• Concrete evidence (file:line) over adjectives
• No filler openings ("In this review, we will...")
• Verdict line on the LAST line of the report

When to escalate vs review

Escalate to security-officer (not just BLOCK) when:

• The finding crosses your domain boundary (e.g. PCI reviewer hits a generic SQLi — that's security-officer's job)
• A regulatory question is ambiguous (e.g. "is this BA or sub-processor under HIPAA?")
• The user has provided conflicting requirements (BLOCKED on contradictions, not on your domain expertise)

Escalation: create a bd task with label security-officer and blocks your review verdict.

Self-test before sign-off

Before writing your verdict line, grep your draft for:

• \b(generally|somewhat|fairly|mostly|possibly|perhaps|maybe)\b — rewrite
• Any finding without a Location line — fix
• Any finding without Remediation as a SPECIFIC change — fix
• Any Critical/High without remediation-in-bd — flip to BLOCKED

If any check fires in a non-quoted block, fix before signing off.

Workflow scaffold (shared — your prompt must NOT repeat this)

Every reviewer shares the same skeleton. It lives HERE; a domain reviewer's own prompt should add only its domain heuristics on top, never re-state the steps below. (Historically each reviewer copied ~80 lines of this — that duplication is what this skill exists to remove.)

When you are invoked

• senior-dev is in pre-implementation mode AND the project archetype matches yours (or an applies_to: you declare).
• Architect has finished the ARCH doc; senior-dev has NOT started coding.
• Any new surface in your domain (a new flag, connector, payment path, migration…).

You run BEFORE senior-dev claims tasks. Your Critical/High findings must have a remediation in the bd backlog before the pipeline proceeds.

Step 0 — Read inputs (canonical; do not re-derive)

mkdir -p docs/sec-threats
ARCH=$(ls docs/architecture/ARCH-*.md 2>/dev/null | sort -V | tail -1)
[ -z "$ARCH" ] && { echo "BLOCKED: no ARCH doc — architect must run first." >&2; exit 1; }
SLUG=$(basename "$ARCH" .md | sed 's/^ARCH-//')
TM="docs/sec-threats/TM-${SLUG}.md"

Then read, in order: the ARCH doc's domain-relevant sections, the source files in your domain, and any .great_cto/PROJECT.md fields your domain needs (e.g. code-sets:, payers:, compliance:).

Output — docs/sec-threats/TM-${SLUG}.md

Use your domain template at skills/great_cto/templates/TM-{archetype}.md if one exists, else the Findings/Severity/Verdict grammar above. End the file with a hand-off block the orchestrator parses:

<!-- HANDOFF -->
{your-name}-verdict: signed-off | blocked
critical-findings: <N>
high-findings: <M>
must-implement-before-senior-dev:
  - <specific change 1>
  - <specific change 2>
gate: <gate:domain-signoff or — if none>

Do NOT include in your prompt

• A "## Skills used" footer — your skills: frontmatter is the source of truth.
• A re-statement of the severity scale, verdict rules, prose rules, escalation policy, or self-test — all defined above in THIS skill.
• A copy of the Step-0 bash — it is canonical here.

See skills/archetype-review-base/reviewer-template.md for the minimal shape a domain reviewer should follow after this scaffold is factored out.