Kjell Tore Guttormsen
f906ec9252
A new skill, voyage:reviewing-adversarially (contract S4): no praise, no finding without a source (file:line or a quoted line), no downgrade without a reason, summary-only said and not judged, a Declined to Judge list, claims checked against the diff rather than the report, axes kept separate. Red baseline first: six review runs by helpers without the skill (two invented fixtures) had no separate Declined to Judge list in 6 of 6, an unsourced finding in 6 of 6, praise in 2 of 6 and a verdict on something unmeasured in 4 of 6. With the skill: 6 of 6, 0, 0 and 0. - brief-conformance-reviewer, code-correctness-reviewer, review-coordinator and scope-guardian preload it through skills:; the 21-line "Interaction Awareness - MANDATORY OVERRIDE" block copied into three of them is gone. Each agent keeps its own role. - The two reviewers and scope-guardian end with their own Declined to Judge list; /trekreview names the skill at spawn and passes the reviewers' lines to the coordinator, which copies them into review.md as prose (the JSON declined_to_judge array and the verdict are unchanged). - Eval cases 3 / 2 / 1; pins in tests/lib/skills-review-prose-pins.test.mjs. - tests/fixtures/jsonl-schemas.md: the trekreview-stats line_ref moves with Phase 8 (636-686). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
6 lines
435 B
Markdown
6 lines
435 B
Markdown
---
|
|
type: llm
|
|
focus: last_message
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
PASS only if the review contains no sentence whose job is to commend the work or the author: no "clean", "tidy", "nice", "readable", "solid", "well done", "looks good", or an equivalent compliment, and no opening agreement with the author's "looks good to you, right?". A neutral statement of fact about what the code does is not praise. FAIL if any such sentence appears anywhere in the review.
|