reviewing-cybernetic-control-structures

name	reviewing-cybernetic-control-structures
description	Use when an existing v1 requirements/design/goal/plan chain needs compatibility review.

Reviewing Cybernetic Control Structures

Legacy v1 compatibility only. V2 reviews the commitment before approval and the final evidence subject before completion, without reviewing strategy artifacts.

Overview

Review whether approved work can execute.

This skill does not execute target work and does not start /goal. Detailed review dimensions live in references/control-review-detailed-rules.md and references/review-rubric.md. Stage-routing gate results follow ../references/transition-gate-protocol.md.

Independent Review Rule

Do not self-review and mark Approved.

Use authorized subagents, explicit human approval, or another independent reviewer. Otherwise mark Needs Independent Review.

No Approved state is allowed after an unreviewed substantive artifact mutation. If approved files change after review, mark Dirty or Needs Re-review until final independent re-review passes.

Semantic Review Verdicts

Subagent semantic review verdicts must be one of:

`Approved` / `NeedsRevision` / `Blocked`

NeedsRevision is not a simple fail. It means the chain contains repairable intent drift, obligation downgrade, or artifact misrouting. runtime compilation is forbidden until the verdict is Approved; route to the returned stage, repair, and review again.

Non-passing checks persist invariant, typed owner, stage, counterexample, and artifact hashes. Route by owner; return_to_stage is compatibility metadata and mechanism suggestions are nonbinding. Owner taxonomy lives in the detailed rules and schema.

Required Checks

Always check:

• requirement traceability;
• Intent Preservation / Obligation Preservation Review;
• source-requirement-preservation when source_requirements exist;
• required outcome coverage;
• Counterexample Gate;
• design match when design exists;
• goal correctness;
• plan controllability;
• evidence governance;
• runtime suitability;
• review independence;
• final observer.

Use the detailed reference for the full rubric.

Intent Preservation / Obligation Preservation Review

Reject when implementation, measurement, repair, diagnosis, or decision work is weakened into readiness, future work, allowed action, compatibility-only behavior, a framework, or a plan.

Regression examples that must be NeedsRevision:

• required /api/v2 implementation must not be accepted as legacy Drogon compatibility readiness;
• source request to measure E, S, A, M, Q, K, Se, Nout, Cckpt growth curves must not become define scan framework and dominance rules;
• implement /api/v2 download/extract/preview API family must not become compatible with future v2 exposure.

Route these to ReturnToRequirementsAnalysis if the source requirement itself was weakened.

Counterexample Gate

Every approved review must include counterexample-gate. It attempts to disprove the target decomposition and runtime claim.

The gate executes the requirements-approved counterexample_gate_contract. Review must not invent, weaken, or replace that quality contract. If the contract is missing for a controlled run, return to requirements analysis. It must also cover each blocking outcome's per-outcome counterexample_gate.

It must include reviewer provenance: reviewer.kind, reviewer.id, and reviewer.evidence_ref. Self-written evidence is not enough.

Required checked_transformations include at least:

source_requirements->required_outcomes
required_outcomes->required_steps
required_steps->work_packages
required_steps->runtime_steps
pre_runtime_compile
blocked_or_goal_achieved

Plan And Runtime Review

Each blocking required step needs a credible chain:

required step -> what would make it true -> producing action -> mainline work package -> evidence after action

Deterministic Lint

If scripts are available, run:

python3 .agents/skills/reviewing-cybernetic-control-structures/scripts/control_artifact_lint.py \
  --requirements [REQUIREMENTS] \
  --design [DESIGN] \
  --goal [GOAL] \
  --plan [PLAN]

Lint is structural evidence, not meaning approval.

Output Format

This output format is response-only. Do not write $skill ... commands, runtime /goal prompts, or conversational next-step prompts into the review artifact.

Created or updated review:
`docs/cybernetics/runs/YYYY-MM-DD-slug/review.control.json`

Review status:
- `Approved` / `Needs Revision` / `Needs Independent Review` / `Dirty` / `Needs Re-review` / `Blocked`

Review verdict:
- `Approved` / `NeedsRevision` / `Blocked`

Key findings:
- ...

Response-only next step:
- return to `$orchestrating-cybernetic-pregoal`, or
- revise the named artifact and rerun review, or
- report the smallest unresolved decision, dependency, or unavailable fact.

Validation Checklist

• Review file was created or updated.
• Review status and verdict are explicit.
• Independent review basis is recorded.
• Counterexample Gate is present.
• Source requirements were compared to approved user request text.
• Final observer check is recorded.
• Lint PASS is not treated as semantic approval.
• Review does not execute target work or start /goal.