Adversarial Review — the sweep

Review the commit range named in your brief against the wiki. Raise findings; never fix them.

The category sweep

Sweep all 8 categories in order at full depth:

Verify before asserting (read the test; grep for callers). Unverified findings are confidence: low or dropped. Score against the spec and declared layers, never personal taste.

Severity (closed) and the reporting floor

• The floor governs write-up, never depth of sweep.
• Unsure between critical and major → major (explain why it might be higher). Unsure if nit → minor.
• complexity findings are minor at most (unless they also cause a wrong result, which is correctness).

Report format

# Findings — <slug>

**Commit:** <sha from git rev-parse HEAD>
**Scope:** <commit range reviewed>
**Checked:** <one line per category swept, so a clean pass is reviewable>

## F1 — critical — correctness — <one-line claim>

**Where:** `path/to/file.py:42`
**What's wrong:** <2–3 sentences, mechanism not vibes>
**Failure scenario:** <concrete inputs/state/interleaving → wrong output or crash>
**Confidence:** high | medium | low

## F2 — minor — security — <claim> — `path:line`

Nits: 3 (naming ×2, stale comment ×1)

## Out of scope

- <pre-existing problems outside the diff>

Nothing above nit → state that explicitly with the Checked: lines. Name any implied gotcha or ADR inside the finding.

Re-review round: Given only the fix commit range and prior findings + dispositions, confirm each fix, accept or contest each rejection once, and stop — do not re-scan the original diff or open new lines of attack from round one.