Review

Routine final diff inspection follows AGENTS.md without requiring this workflow.

Critic review

A critic is an independent reviewer, never the author; the user chooses its model. Give a thorough opinion, then every finding with its severity and supporting evidence; for code, cite file:line. The coordinator filters by severity afterward. APPROVE means no open BLOCKER or MAJOR; otherwise REVISE. APPROVE covers only what was verified; list unverified requirements, never approve them. For a non-code artifact, the critic receives the artifact and its purpose.

Severity

Severity follows consequence: BLOCKER for severe safety/data-loss or operational failure; MAJOR for acceptance or correctness issues blocking trust; MINOR for nonblocking improvements. Preference alone is not a finding. When the plan or brief mandates what this review calls a defect, report it as MAJOR, labelled plan-mandated; the user decides.

Select a mode

• Code (inline, spec, quality, re-review): references/code.md; dispatched reviewers and structured re-reviews also use references/review-contract.md.
• Document (a spec or plan): Document review below.
• feedback: verify and act on incoming findings within authorization, using references/feedback.md. Producing a review is read-only, whereas applying feedback requires implementation authority.

Document review

Check the document against current repository context and authoritative project docs for internal inconsistency, missing constraints, unverifiable claims, scope bloat, missing tests or verification, and relevant security, data or performance risks. Report findings; edit the document only when the requester asked for fixes to be applied, and then only unambiguous wording or structure. Surface decision-level issues instead of rewriting intent.