Reviewing an edit in BashCut

Core measures, renders evidence and states what it did not check; you decide which findings matter and how many rounds to run. Passing checks is not proof of a good video. One tool's edit had all 29 actions on the beat and every cut on a bar line, and still had cramped frames, small text and titles over the icons: "the model will satisfy whatever can be quantified" (T16 §2, guizang). Look at the pixels.

If you were given a packet

You are a fresh critic with a review packet --point strategy|draft|process folder and this skill only: none of the maker's reasons, on purpose (T16 §4). Judge against the brief and the plan, never what the maker meant.

Generic checks (every video): one message; promise.payoff answers promise.hook; opening text and speech (hookSeconds) agree; understandable on mute; captions never repeat on-screen text; nothing the brief did not ask for: no credits, no "AI voice", "minh hoạ", "stock" or effect labels.

The draft packet:

Read README, plan.json, measured.json, then the other JSON files, then every sheet; judge the opening from the first shots, words and cells. Never edit; with the CLI, read-only commands for a doubt (ui frame F --phone, review window F) only.

Return, as text, briefed "to roast, not to praise" (T16 §2):

1. Verdict: pass (no blocker), changes (fixable blockers) or fail (the strategy or the cut is wrong). A check you could not judge is not a pass: name it under 5.
2. Findings, blockers first: time or frame, severity, what the viewer perceives, evidence (file and field, or sheet cell), the stage that owns the fix.
3. The 3–5 fixes first (T16 §7).
4. needs_user: taste and missing material, apart from defects.
5. What you could not judge: sound by ear, motion between cells, whatever measured.json lists as not measured.

Record it (a log entry, not an edit): run append audit --point draft --verdict changes --findings 4 --by critic. Without the CLI, the maker records exactly your verdict and count.

Process audit

Read the checklist, log, changes. Flag: a required stage skipped, missing or still pending when review ran; done without evidence, or evidence not in the log; a skill unread for a stage that ran; a missing or self audit; a gate request without the user's answer; summary claims no entry or change backs ("fixed" without review verify, "exported" without an export). Return the verdict and lessons (symptom → cause → what to do) for bc:self-learn.

Severity: what the viewer perceives

By the viewer at normal speed and size on a phone, not by the metric (T16 §4, reelmimic, talkcraft):

• blocker: noticed and hurts understanding or trust: a black or frozen frame, a clipped word, unreadable or covered text, speech drowned by music, a missing promised moment, a hook that does not show the topic. Core error issues (gaps, black on Main, a cut inside a word, missing glyphs, wrong length or shape) are blockers unless you show they are not real.
• polish: visible only paused, zoomed or side by side. Fix when cheap; never a reason for another round.
• taste: a viewer could like it either way (pace, look, transition): needs_user.
• needs user: only the user can supply or decide it (a missing shot, music choice, a name to spell).

A measured warning is not automatically a blocker (a locked-off interview trips "static shot", a deliberate long title "long still"): fix, adjust the profile, or accept with a reason.

Before round 1: the profile

Core has no editorial defaults: the project's review object holds the limits. An unset limit reports only the measured value, as info, listed in checks.unsetLimits and by plan check. A vlog recipe sets them; otherwise choose from the ranges below for this genre and footage, write them with project set-data review review.json --merge (or plan.cut.review; setProjectProperties replaces the whole review object), record each in the plan's ranges with source and reason, and tell the user.

Ranges seen in other review tools (T16 §3), starting points, not defaults:

Platform numbers (length, loudness, safe zones) come from platforms get <id>, never from here.

The loop

bashcut review measure                      # a job
bashcut jobs wait <job> --done --timeout 100       # repeat on timedOut
bashcut review run --summary --min-severity warning

Before round 1, run checklist: a stage the plan requires (effects, sound, visuals) still pending or started is a blocker, whatever review run says. Do it, or log it skipped with the reason; BashCut answers stage_pending to marking review done, G5 and a final export until then. One tutorial passed review with its required effects stage pending: one zoom reused on every screen shot.

Each round:

1. Measure, then read. stale checks need measuring again; unreliable is not a pass; status incomplete (unsetLimits or notChecked not empty; loudness before the normalized draft does not count) is never reported as passing: set the profile or say what was not checked. Errors first. Info issues voice-text-changed-*, captions-source-changed-*, beats-source-changed-*: the result is from an older text or file; run their fix (speak, transcribe, detect again) before judging it.
2. Look in batches. timeline sheet --cuts --text (--outputs all for safe zones), then review window F only at cuts in doubt: ±0.4–1.5 s at 10–12 fps, wider for dialogue cuts, narrower for beat cuts (T16 §3; at 30 fps about --span 12–45 with --step 3). ui frame F --phone for text at the width a viewer sees (360–420 px, T16 §3). review coverage and script check against the plan.
3. Critic, always. Give the review packet --point draft folder to the bc:critic agent (or a sub-agent briefed with <skill_dir>/CRITIC.md): without your reasons it sees what a viewer sees. No sub-agent: audit yourself by that brief from the packet only, --by self. Record the verdict with run append audit (a skipped G5 needs it). Apply its one plan.cut patch (plan apply --patch) without re-reading the packet. A second look only for a blocker no measurement proves; review verify proves the rest.
4. Decide each finding by severity: fix it (one labelled edit; the issue's fix if any), change the profile when the limit is wrong for this video (say why), accept it with a reason, or list it for the user.
5. Verify each fix. review verify <id> (or all) re-measures before and after. Say "fixed" only with that result: "looks better" does not count (T16 §2). Then look only at what changed (timeline sheet --entries c2,t1).
6. Log the round: run append round --round 1 --fixed 3 --left 2.

Applying a fix: run its command with fix.arguments (timeline.apply: the ops in a file, --label "<the issue title>"); export.start → loudness comes from a normalized draft, last; selects.place → place it or unmark it with a reason (bc:rough-cut); a hint only → that area's skill, or the user when it is taste. Never hide a failure with a transition or a flash (T16 §4).

Rounds and stopping

• Cap: the rounds range above, never more than workflow gates › maxReviewRounds (the user's setting).
• From round 2, review run --summary --since-rev R (R = the previous round's revision) gives the diff. First confirm the previous fixes; then only a new blocker fails the round. New polish and taste findings are listed, not chased (T16 §2, reelmimic): rubric creep is how loops never end.
• Stop early when a round fixes nothing. What is left goes to the user with reasons, never silently shipped.

Accept with a reason

Keep a warning or info that is right for this video: review accept <id> --reason "locked-off interview, chosen" --base-rev N (the export report lists it). Accept an error only when no fix exists, and tell the user; to change a whole check set review.severities.<check> to {"severity": "warning", "reason": "…"}.

The draft

Loudness and the delivered file are measured from a normalized export: make it last, review once more, then request G5 (bc:edit-workflow):

bashcut export start --preset quick-draft --name draft-v1 --include-srt --normalize-audio
bashcut export status                      # also the delivered-file checks
bashcut review run --summary --min-severity warning

Report

A few lines from run log and the last summary: status; audit verdicts (self-audited?); rounds; fixes (issue → edit → review verify numbers); profile changes and accepted issues with reasons; needs_user; coverage: copy checks.notChecked, failed, unreliable, and "not listened to" for sound you could not hear. Example: "Review: 2 rounds. Closed a 1.2 s black gap at 0:41 (verified: 0 black frames), raised the caption out of the Reels bar. Kept: the 9 s shot at 0:12 (locked-off interview). Not checked: the music under your voice by ear." Log it: run append measured --measured … --not-measured ….