critical-review

Critical Review

One new reviewer per angle, so no reviewer is swayed by the reasoning that produced the artifact. You then combine the findings and decide on each one.

1. Artifact

With an active lifecycle, take the most relevant of cortex/lifecycle/{feature}/plan.md → spec.md → research.md. Otherwise use the conversation. If nothing is clear enough to challenge, ask "What should I critically review?" Resolve it to an absolute path — reviewers read that exact path.

2. Angles

Derive 1 or 2 angles from this artifact, never more. Lean toward 2 at high/critical criticality. Each angle cites a specific section, claim, assumption, or design choice, and the two must not restate one concern. "Fragile assumptions" is not an angle; "the retry logic in §3 assumes idempotent endpoints, which breaks for the payment webhook in §5" is. Architectural, integration, and scope-creep risk are hints to vary the angles, not a checklist — favor the artifact's domain. More weaknesses than slots → take the most severe.

3. Project context

Build a ## Project Context block for the reviewer prompts:

• the Overview from cortex/requirements/project.md (~250 words);
• a **Project type:** {type} prefix when cortex/lifecycle.config.md has a valid type:;
• the ## Language section of cortex/requirements/glossary.md, word for word. Only that section: it defines words, and more context would tell the reviewer the earlier reasoning.

None available → omit the block.

4. Reviewers

Start one general-purpose agent per angle, in parallel. Send ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/reviewer-prompt.md exactly, with {artifact_path}, {angle name}, {angle description}, and the context block filled in.

Parse each reply: split on the last <!--findings-json--> line and json.loads the rest. Require top-level angle: str and findings: list, each finding with class ∈ {A,B,C}, finding, evidence_quote. Malformed → warn ⚠ Reviewer {angle} emitted malformed JSON envelope ({reason}), use its prose as unstructured findings, and leave the angle out of §6.

One of two fails → work from the other, prefixed "1 of 2 reviewer angles completed." Never wait on a silent agent. All fail → one general-purpose agent derives 1–2 angles itself, same output shape, prefixed Note: reviewer dispatch failed, falling back to single reviewer.

5. Consolidate

Do this yourself — the artifact is in your context. Check every evidence_quote against the artifact before you accept its class. Count any measurement as evidence.

Downgrade A→B when the fix_invalidation_argument is missing, repeats the finding with no causal link, names an adjacent gap, or hedges with no concrete failure path. Exception: a present straddle_rationale keeps it A. Report each class change as Re-classified finding N from B→A: <rationale> (or A→B).

Merge concerns that repeat across angles within the same class into one through-line. Note tensions where angles conflict. With two reviewers, write one coherent challenge, not a list per angle.

Output sections ## Objections (A), ## Through-lines, ## Tensions, ## Concerns (B and C). Use bullets that cite exact artifact text; skip empty sections. No A-class left → no ## Objections, and open with: No fix-invalidating objections after evidence re-examination. The concerns below are adjacent gaps or framing notes — do not read as verdict.

6. B-class residue

With ≥1 B-class finding, write the file the morning report reads. The command finds the feature from the session id:

cortex-critical-review-write-residue --session-id "$LIFECYCLE_SESSION_ID" <<< "$PAYLOAD_JSON"

Payload: ts, feature, artifact, synthesis_status: "ok", reviewers: {completed, dispatched}, findings (each {class: "B", finding, reviewer_angle, evidence_quote}). No B-class → skip. state: no-context / unowned / ambiguous → nothing was written; show the returned note.

7. Present and apply

Output the challenge unchanged. Then decide on each objection without waiting:

• Apply — the fix is unambiguous and confidence is high.
• Dismiss — the artifact already addresses it, or it misreads a stated constraint. Point at the artifact text.
• Ask — it turns on preference, scope, or real uncertainty. The default when unsure.

A resolution needs new evidence. For any empirical claim (latency, size, blast radius, baseline behavior) run the measurement; re-reading is not evidence.

Re-read the whole artifact. Write the updated version with every Apply included and everything else kept. Then summarize: Apply bullets that name the direction of change (strengthened / narrowed / clarified / added / removed / inverted), one Dismiss: N objections line (omit at zero), and all Asks in a single message.