pre-execution-review
Skill23 starsChanged 51 days agoMITView on GitHub
Internal owner of the pre-execution review cycle and the planning ledgers: independence, unioned findings, counter-evidence dismissal, no-progress, `CONVERGENCE-ANOMALY`, and the evidence/obligation/findings tables. Consumed by `execute-phase`, `review-change`, and the lane's authoring steps for the **planning-ledger shapes and ownership**; the pre-execution verdict owners (`review-spec`/`review-plan`) were retired by feature 61. Not a menu entry.
In this repository30 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- template/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- audit-docsSkill
- audit-prSkill
- batch-schedulerSkill
- discover-repository-stateSkill
- execute-phaseSkill
- fold-findingsSkill
- init-workspaceSkill
- log-sessionSkill
- orchestration-envelopeSkill
- phase-contractSkill
- product-auditSkill
- resolve-repository-stateSkill
- review-a11ySkill
- review-brandSkill
- review-changeSkill
- review-codeSkill
- review-debtSkill
- review-designSkill
- review-implementationSkill
- review-perfSkill
- review-securitySkill
- review-seoSkill
- review-verifySkill
- skill-lintSkill
- triage-issueSkill
- unit-laneSkill
- verification-contractSkill
- workflow-statusSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈1
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 74
Every pre-execution reviewer and authoring caller points here for the shared cycle and ledger rules instead of restating them, and each …
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Pre-Execution Review Policy (internal)
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.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.