SKILL.md
review — refute the spec before build
Every finding cites evidence — file:line or a source. No evidence → flag [unverified]. Default to refuted: a flaw you cannot prove is a flaw you note, not one you wave through.
An LLM cannot self-correct on its own judgment — left alone it drifts or degrades. Review fixes that the only way that works: a separate skeptic anchored to an external oracle — the code, §R, the test suite, the docs. "Looks good" is not a review. A refutation attempt is.
WHEN TO REVIEW
- Before
/buildon a high-blast-radius change (shared module, auth, data, money, public API). - Spec touched §I or §V that other code depends on.
- Right-sizing says the cost of a wrong build > the cost of one review pass.
Skip for a trivial, reversible, well-understood change. Adversarial review on a typo hallucinates flaws & wastes the budget — the self-critique paradox is real.