| name | elsa-critical-constitution-review |
| description | Critically review Elsa or framework constitution sections for enforceable gates, ambiguity, contradictions, missing exceptions, ratification readiness, and source-of-truth drift. Use when a user asks to question, revise, finalize, ratify, or challenge constitution/architecture rules. |
| argument-hint | Constitution section or topic |
| compatibility | Requires .specify/memory constitutions and docs |
| metadata | {"author":"elsa-foundation","source":"docs/skills/catalog.md#critical-constitution-review"} |
| user-invocable | true |
| disable-model-invocation | false |
User Input
$ARGUMENTS
Outline
- Read
docs/skills/catalog.md#critical-constitution-review.
- Read the target constitution section in
.specify/memory/constitution-framework.md or .specify/memory/constitution.md.
- Read linked glossary/reference/report material only when needed to separate gate meaning from rationale/history.
- Compare the target rule against current code reality and maps when the review asks whether it is enforceable.
- Present findings first: ambiguity, contradiction, missing exception, non-gate material, stale draft history, or ratification blocker.
- Propose a revision path or work unit. Do not silently rewrite constitutional meaning.
If the review produces deferred findings, update or propose an update to docs/reports/unfinished-work.md. If a finding becomes planned durable work, add or move it to the relevant program-goal bucket before implementation, or explicitly keep it none/free-flow.
