Review Verify (internal)

Composed by review-change / product-audit within their conversation — on any agent, follow this file inline as the routed step. Findings only; never edits, never refactors.

Shift from discoverer to auditor of recorded evidence (S5). The implementer's claim-evidence loop is the primary verification. This review audits the recorded evidence: re-runs a sample of the recorded commands instead of re-deriving the whole change. This is the cost-scaling invariant — reviewers dig into code only when evidence is absent or contradicts.

Scope

The diff or path/glob the caller passes; default the current change vs the default branch. State the scope at the top of the returned table.

Checklist (evaluate EVERY item — none is optional; n/a must be stated)

✓ Evidence audit. Sample the unit doc's Evidence rows: re-run ≥ 3 of the recorded commands and compare observed output against what the implementer recorded. Mismatch → finding: "evidence contradicts observation at file:line". ✓ Claim-evidence loop verification. Check the fold's claim table (if present): every row has status: ✓. Any ✗ row means the implementer's turn did not complete its claim-evidence loop. ✓ Unit-route triage currency. Re-run bun scripts/unit-route.mjs --triage <slug> and compare the Steps: line against the unit doc's Evidence section. Mismatch → stale triage. ✓ The project's verification gate ran in THIS review (type-check, tests, build per the project's declared commands) — paste exit status per command ✓ The change's primary claimed behavior was exercised for real (run the CLI/endpoint/function; paste the actual observed output) — in addition to the evidence audit, verify at least one behavioral claim not covered by recorded evidence ✓ At least one failure-mode from the SPEC's dev scenarios was reproduced (bad input, missing file, error path) and behaved as specified ✓ New/changed tests actually fail when the implementation is reverted or broken (mutate or stash to prove they assert something — restore after) ✓ No test was skipped/disabled to get green (grep for skip/only/todo markers in the diff) ✓ The build artifact/dev server starts cleanly (no new warnings that indicate breakage) ✓ Anything that can only be confirmed by a human (visual, device, locale, load) is listed explicitly under "Manual" — never silently dropped

Materiality bar

Report a row only when a competent user's outcome changes or a rule the project explicitly declares is violated — cite the rule it violates beside the evidence. Not findings: comment/punctuation typos, formatting-only drift, style preference with no cited rule, hypothetical robustness beyond the SPEC's named scenarios. An empty table with Decision: PASS is the expected result for a well-formed change — never pad the table.

Return exactly

Sev and Impact are the two published closed sets (BLOCKER | CRITICAL | WARNING | SUGGESTION and blocking | docs-only | report-only); their meanings are owned by review-implementation (CLASSIFY.md §Severity ladder) — assign a token, never a prose grade.

REVIEW VERIFY — scope: <scope>

| # | Finding | Sev | Impact | Evidence | Suggested fix |
|---|---------|-----|--------|----------|---------------|
| 1 | <what>  | BLOCKER|CRITICAL|WARNING|SUGGESTION | blocking|docs-only|report-only | <file:line> | <smallest action> |

Checklist: <n> evaluated, <n> pass, <n> findings, <n> n/a (<which + why>)
Summary: <1-2 sentences>
Manual (a human must check): <bullet list, or "none">
Decision: PASS | FAIL

FAIL if any BLOCKER, CRITICAL or WARNING finding is open; PASS otherwise. SUGGESTION findings never block — they route to the caller's triage step.

Done when

• Every checklist item was evaluated with evidence (file:line or command output) or explicitly marked n/a with the reason.
• The fixed-format block above is returned — nothing more, nothing less — and no code was changed.