One owner for the rules that both pre-execution reviewers apply, so a Product review and a Plan review cannot drift into two different definitions of independence, union, or convergence. It states policy; it runs nothing, writes nothing, and emits no verdict of its own.
evidence-grounding = how an author prepares and self-checks an artifact.
pre-execution-review = how any pre-execution reviewer judges it, and what the
frozen ledgers look like.
lane (design/plan/review steps) = the surviving pre-execution path; feature 61
P8b retired the standalone review-spec / review-plan
verdict skills, so this pack now owns the ledger shapes
the lane and execute-phase consume, not a verdict gate.
When to use
- The lane's
plan/reviewsteps — when writing the ledgers and when a review comes back failed. - Nothing else. Candidate-source review (
review-change), merge gating (audit-pr) and execution (execute-phase) keep their own contracts; this skill adds no authority over them.
Hard rule — no verdicts, no edits
This skill never prints SPEC-REVIEW-PASS, PLAN-REVIEW-PASS,
SPEC-REVIEW-FAIL, PLAN-REVIEW-FAIL or NEEDS-DESIGN as a result of its own
reading, and it never writes a unit artifact. Quoting a verdict shape here is a
definition, not an issuance. A policy summary that reads like an approval is a
contract violation — the verdict belongs to the reviewer turn that binds the
snapshot.
The three references
| Condition now | LOAD |
|---|---|
| Running or repairing a pre-execution review | references/POLICY.md — independence, union, dismissal, diversity labels, author exclusion, untrusted content, critique/synthesis/arbitration bounds, no quorum, no-progress, batch repair, CONVERGENCE-ANOMALY, write-then-report |
| Building or re-checking a snapshot digest | references/SNAPSHOT.md — the one executable recipe (scripts/pre-execution-snapshot.mjs), what each stage binds, how a consumer re-verifies a receipt, and why a snapshot digest is not a git blob id |
| Writing or validating a Plan-stage artifact | references/LEDGERS.md — the planning-evidence table, the obligation ledger, the stage-aware planning-findings.md, the durable review mark, and who may write each |
Guardrails
- Single owner. A caller may restate a rule only as a one-line pointer plus the stage-specific detail it adds. Two copies of the union rule, the dismissal rule, or the convergence fields is the drift this skill exists to prevent.
- Policy is not a receipt. Reading this file proves nothing about any artifact; only a reviewer turn that binds a snapshot does.
- No weakening. The bounds here are ceilings and floors: a cycle may be shorter than the budget allows, never looser than the policy allows.
- Vocabulary is closed. Severity, class, role, verdict and status words are
exactly those named in the references. Inventing
accepted,waived,mitigated, or a fourth verdict is a contract break. - Docs-language and commit conventions per the project's Workflow conventions.
Done when
- Every pre-execution reviewer and authoring caller points here for the shared cycle and ledger rules instead of restating them, and each stage file keeps only the detail that is genuinely stage-specific.