Menu
Review iteration closeout claims by confirming the proving artifacts are both contract-compliant and versioned
Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.
Based on SOC occupation classification
Run live continuous co-review or replay persisted reviewer evidence for an iteration.
Run live continuous co-review or replay persisted reviewer evidence for an iteration.
Run live continuous co-review or replay persisted reviewer evidence for an iteration.
Perform a Specrew human-verdict boundary stop on the Claude host. Renders the FULL Rule 46 six-section human re-entry packet AND the verdict options as one Markdown message, with the AskUserQuestion picker disabled so the packet cannot collapse into the picker's short header/option fields. Invoke at EVERY human-judgment boundary stop (specify, clarify, plan, tasks, before-implement, implement, review, retro, feature-closeout, lifecycle-end). Triggers: boundary stop, verdict, approve / redirect / send back, why I stopped, human re-entry packet, gate stop.
{what this skill teaches agents}
Run Specrew's per-lens design workshop and collaborative design-analysis. Use whenever you work the design lenses for a feature: at specify/intake (the lens workshop) and at the design-analysis stop (co-design the architecture), and RE-INVOKE at the start of EACH new lens (architecture, data, ui-ux, security, integration, devops, requirements/NFR, observability, component). Triggers: design, design lens, lens workshop, design-analysis, architecture, trade-offs, co-design, explore options, decompose, or moving from one lens to the next. Tells you to facilitate each lens as a discussion, surface diagrams the human can actually SEE (console ASCII inline; mermaid/html to a file with a clickable file:/// link), co-design components/responsibilities/flows WITH the human instead of handing over finished options, capture the agreements, and which per-lens md to load.
| name | iteration-closeout-evidence |
| description | Review iteration closeout claims by confirming the proving artifacts are both contract-compliant and versioned |
| domain | review |
| confidence | high |
| source | earned |
| tools | [{"name":"view","description":"Read the live closeout artifacts and contract language","when":"When checking whether plan, state, or spike artifacts satisfy the stated closeout requirement"},{"name":"powershell","description":"Inspect tracked status for the files being used as closure evidence","when":"When acceptance depends on whether the evidence is durable in git, not merely present in the worktree"}] |
Use this when a closeout or acceptance note says work is complete because plan/state/spike artifacts now exist. Presence alone is not enough for reviewer acceptance if the evidence files are not versioned with the implementation they certify.
reviewing) into what claims to be closeout evidence.scripts\specrew-init.ps1 and the two deployment scripts were tracked, but specs\001-specrew-product\iterations\001\state.md and specs\001-specrew-product\iterations\001\spikes.md remained untracked. Verdict: NEEDS-WORK because the accepted-work evidence was not durable.done, but if the spike deliverable cited by that row is still outside version control, the closeout record is incomplete.git ls-files returned both state.md and spikes.md, and git status --short showed them as tracked additions. Verdict: PASS on the prior rejection reason, because the durability defect was the only remaining acceptance gap in scope.