Adversarial review of any input (human idea, agent analysis, research report, feedback, observation) BEFORE it mutates persistent project state. Universal interceptor with domain auto-detection, 2-phase classification + evaluation, and triple-verdict output (veracity / fit / actionability). Anti-girouette guardrail that distinguishes drift from pivot — preserves human decisional authority. Manual invocation only (no hooks, no enforcement). Activate when an input may affect strategic-frame.md, a DEC, an OT, an architecture/pattern doc, an agent definition, a backlog story scope/AC/wedge field, or user-facing copy.
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.
A direct command skips the review prompt. Inspect the source before running it.
The command stays on one line. Scroll horizontally to inspect it before copying.
Prefer a local copy? Download the files currently available to SkillsMP.
Showing SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Source instructions · Read-only preview
name
review-input
description
Adversarial review of any input (human idea, agent analysis, research report, feedback, observation) BEFORE it mutates persistent project state. Universal interceptor with domain auto-detection, 2-phase classification + evaluation, and triple-verdict output (veracity / fit / actionability). Anti-girouette guardrail that distinguishes drift from pivot — preserves human decisional authority. Manual invocation only (no hooks, no enforcement). Activate when an input may affect strategic-frame.md, a DEC, an OT, an architecture/pattern doc, an agent definition, a backlog story scope/AC/wedge field, or user-facing copy.
["Input text — any origin (human idea, agent proposal, research excerpt, feedback, bug observation, external signal)","Optional intent declaration — drift_check (default) | pivot | refinement | exploration","Optional targets hint — DEC IDs, file paths, OT IDs the input may affect"]
outputs
["Triple-verdict JSON report (veracity / fit / actionability) with confidence and rationale","Domain auto-detected + governance docs cited","Cost-of-not-pivoting mirror question (forces symmetry, counter to status-quo bias)","Override path documented (human can always proceed with traced rationale)","Recommendation : ACCEPT | EXPERIMENT | DEFER | DOCUMENT_ONLY | REJECT (advisory, not gate)","Sources with tool_call_id when web/MCP verification was performed"]
Intercept ANY input — human or agent — that may mutate persistent project state, BEFORE it becomes a DEC, an OT amendment, a strategic-frame edit, an architectural pattern, or a backlog story scope change. Produce a structured 3-verdict report that eclaire the human decision without replacing it.
This skill is anti-girouette, not anti-pivot. It distinguishes :
Drift (small reactive changes accumulating without rationale) → freined.
Pivot (deliberate, articulated change with rationale + falsifiability) → eclaired, not blocked.
The human is always the final decider. The skill produces recommendation + traceability ; override is first-class and structurally low-friction.
When to Activate
Manual invocation only — no hooks, no automatic enforcement. The agent (typically Discovery Agent) invokes this skill when :
Human introduces a strategic-level idea ("on devrait pivoter sur X", "et si on changeait Y")
Agent surfaces an analysis or recommendation that could amend a DEC / OT / Non-Goal
A research report or external signal is being evaluated for inclusion in memory
Before formalizing a draft DEC as candidate or transitioning candidate → active
Before amending strategic-frame.md §3 Non-Goals, §6 Open Tensions, or §8 override
Before writing to memory/strategy/, memory/architecture/, patterns/, or rules/
Before backlog refinement of a story whose scope/AC/wedge implies governance impact
Founder feels "drifting" or "lost" (per strategic-frame.md §7.1 trigger)
Phase 1 is lightweight pattern-matching. It produces no LLM-generated verdicts ; it identifies what kind of input this is and whether Phase 2 evaluation is warranted.
Phase 2 — Evaluation (conditional on Phase 1 verdict)
Phase 2 loads domain-specific governance, applies Decision Filters, and produces the triple-verdict report. Skipped if Phase 1 returns out_of_scope.
Phase 1 — Classification
For the input received, deterministically identify :
A. Type of input
human_idea | human_directive | agent_analysis | agent_proposal
research_report | feedback_user | bug_report | observation
external_signal (competitor launch, blog post, paper)
todo | cleanup | housekeeping
B. Potential targets (state mutation candidates)
Inspect the input for references to :
Active DEC IDs (consult memory/index.md for your project's current registry)
strategic-frame.md sections (Non-Goals §3, OT §6, Decision Filters §5)
Files in memory/architecture/, memory/strategy/, patterns/
If multiple domains → list them all ; primary = the one most affected by mutation.
If none clear → ask the human, do not guess.
D. Intent declaration (input or inferred)
drift_check : default. Standard adversarial review against current state.
pivot : input EXPLICITLY proposes changing direction. Reviewer mode shifts —
Non-Goals become artefacts to interrogate, not constraints to enforce.
Question = "is the pivot WELL-FORMED ?" (not "does it violate Non-Goals ?").
refinement : input refines a previously-reviewed insight in same session — light review.
exploration : input is exploratory, not yet engaging persistent state.
Output max = DOCUMENT_ONLY or EXPERIMENT, never REJECT.
If intent not declared → default to drift_check.
E. Phase 1 verdict
out_of_scope → Pass-through. No mutation candidate, or mutation purely mechanical
(typo, lint, dep bump, mechanical refactor). Stop here.
lightweight → Local + reversible mutation, 1 file, no DEC amendment, no Non-Goal
touched. Continue Phase 2 in light mode (compress §3 + §6 in 1 line).
full_review → Touches DEC / OT / Non-Goal / strategic-frame / pattern transverse /
scope V1 / pricing / wedge / ICP / agent definition. Continue Phase 2.
escalate_now → Input demands an irréversible / destructive action (drop table, delete
branch, force push, supersede active DEC without formal amendment).
STOP. Demand written human confirmation before any further processing.
Phase 2 — Evaluation (when lightweight or full_review)
Step 2.1 — Load domain governance
Always load :
.gaai/core/contexts/rules/base.rules.md
.gaai/project/contexts/memory/index.md (DEC registry — find current count + active DECs)
Then load domain-specific anchors per Phase 1 detection :
Detected domain
Mandatory reads
strategy
your project's strategy docs (mission / wedge / product philosophy)
architecture
architecture/<relevant>.md + cited DECs (read DEC files, check status field)
patterns
patterns/conventions.md + the existing pattern being amended
governance
orchestration.rules.md + the DECs that codify your governance rules
security
the DECs that codify your security/compliance posture
product_ux
your project's positioning + brand-identity docs + patterns/conventions.md
pricing
the DEC(s) that codify your pricing model (active + any candidate)
content_marketing
your project's competitor analysis + brand-identity + voice guide
data_model
architecture/<storage-bindings>.md + the DECs that codify your data layer
ops_infra
the DECs that codify your ops/infra/runtime choices
tooling
the DEC(s) that codify your tooling stack + dependency analyses
If domain unknown → ask the human, do not invent governance docs.
Transitive reads — follow linked_research AND lifecycle fields on every cited DEC :
When loading any cited DEC, the skill MUST :
Read the DEC body in full.
Check the DEC's status field — if superseded, follow the superseded_by field and read the superseding DEC. The verdict must apply against the currently-active DEC, not the superseded one.
Check the DEC's linked_research frontmatter field (if present). For each path listed, read the research doc in full — paying particular attention to any ADDENDUM section, which by GAAI convention may post-date the DEC body and contain empirical evidence that invalidates, qualifies, or amends the DEC's original conclusions. ADDENDUMs are appended after a DEC is active, NOT promoted into the DEC body, so they would otherwise be missed by readers who only follow the DEC reference.
Check the DEC's amends field — read the amended DEC for context.
Rationale : a past incident saw a DEC reversal proposal REJECTed by a review-input invocation that read the cited DEC but did not follow the DEC's linked_research field. The linked research doc contained an ADDENDUM that empirically invalidated the DEC's foundational assumption. The verdict was therefore based on stale evidence the skill did not have access to. The override path corrected the outcome, but the false REJECT consumed reviewer cycles that the transitive-read discipline above prevents.
Step 2.2 — Veracity Gate (skip if zero factual claim detected)
Detect factual claims in the input — pattern-match on : product/competitor names, version numbers, dates, citations of standards (RFC/ISO/NIST/OWASP), technical capability assertions, regulatory facts, market data, benchmarks.
If zero factual claim → skip this step. This is the Pareto hot path — the majority of inputs (refactor, design choice between existing patterns, internal scope decisions) have no external claim and avoid verification cost entirely.
If claims present → for each claim, run graduated verification :
Code + git — technical claim on GAAI codebase → grep code + git log. Read DEC files cited.
MCP docs tools — claim on lib/framework → context7 (resolve-library-id + query-docs). For Cloudflare specifics → cloudflare MCP. For analytics → posthog MCP. Prefer these over WebSearch when domain matches (per MCP server instructions : "fetch current documentation … even well-known ones … your training data may not reflect recent changes").
No invented URL. If you have not fetched it, verification_method: not_attempted.
No paraphrased quote. Literal extract from fetched content, or empty quote field.
No invented date. If source has no visible date → "undated" (never an estimate).
One source insufficient for load_bearing factual_external → minimum 2 independent (not temporally clustered, not syndicated). Otherwise cap at PARTIALLY_VERIFIED.
Do NOT cite the input itself as source (circular).
Stale-knowledge guard : claims on current state of products/services/pricing/versions → training data PROHIBITED as source. MUST go through context7 / WebFetch / WebSearch.
Confidence laundering : do not reformulate a claim with more assertive tone than its source. Preserve "may", "is expected to", "in some cases".
Step 2.3 — Decision Filters check (universal, all domains)
For each filter from strategic-frame.md §5, output PASS / FAIL / N/A + 1-line justification :
5.1 Pareto 90-day — will a paying customer see value within 90 days, directly or as enabler ?
5.2 Non-goal check — does input violate any Non-Goal in §3 ? Cite §.
5.3 Complexity budget — does input exceed the capacity envelope set by your governance (e.g. a solo-founder 1/5-day budget) ?
5.6 Competitor differentiation — if a known competitor in your space can do it, what makes your offering distinct ?
If intent = pivot, treat Non-Goals as artefacts to interrogate, not constraints to enforce. The question shifts from "violates ?" to "does the pivot WARRANT amending the Non-Goal ?".
Step 2.4 — Triple verdict (the core output — replaces single ACCEPT/REJECT)
Produce 3 INDEPENDENT verdicts. Do not collapse into one. The human combines them.
Always answer this mirror question BEFORE producing recommendation :
"If this input became ground truth, which active DECs / Non-Goals / OTs would become obsolete or need revision ? What is the COST of NOT pivoting if the input is true ?"
Without this question, the reviewer is structurally biased toward status quo (confirmation bias on the corpus of past decisions). With it, both sides of the trade are visible.
Step 2.6 — Falsifiability check
Can you write : "This input is wrong if <signal> measured < Y within delay Z" ?
If YES → falsifiability passes. Note the conditions for V1+8w decision-gate or future re-eval.
If NO → input is intuition, not hypothesis. Default to DEFER or DOCUMENT_ONLY. Cannot ACCEPT.
Output Format (always JSON-compatible)
{"skill_invocation":{"skill_id":"SKILL-RIN-001","invoked_at":"<ISO 8601 timestamp>","session_id":"<if available>","input_hash":"<sha256 of input text, for idempotence within session>"},"phase_1":{"type":"<see §A>","targets":["<DEC-ID | path | OT-ID>"],"domain_primary":"<see §C>","domains_secondary":["..."],"intent":"drift_check | pivot | refinement | exploration","classification":"out_of_scope | lightweight | full_review | escalate_now"},"phase_2":{"governance_loaded":["<doc1>","<doc2>"],"veracity_report":{"claims":[/* per Step 2.2 */],"load_bearing_status":"all_verified | some_unverified | some_contradicted | not_applicable","summary":"<1 line>"},"decision_filters":{"5.1_pareto":"PASS | FAIL | N/A","5.2_non_goal":"PASS | FAIL | N/A","5.3_complexity_budget":"PASS | FAIL | N/A","5.4_icp_alignment":"PASS | FAIL | N/A","5.5_assumption":"PASS | FAIL | N/A","5.6_differentiation":"PASS | FAIL | N/A","rationale":"<1 line per filter>"},"triple_verdict":{"veracity":"VERIFIED | NEEDS_NUANCE | CONTRADICTED | UNVERIFIABLE | NOT_APPLICABLE","fit":"ALIGNED | TENSION | VIOLATES_NON_GOAL","actionability":"READY | NEEDS_REFINEMENT | TOO_VAGUE"},"mirror_question":{"if_input_true_what_becomes_obsolete":["<DEC-X>","<Non-Goal §3.Y>"],"cost_of_not_pivoting":"<1 paragraph>"},"falsifiability":{"can_be_falsified":true,"condition":"<input wrong if X < Y within Z>"}},"recommendation":{"verdict":"ACCEPT | EXPERIMENT | DEFER | DOCUMENT_ONLY | REJECT","confidence":"high | medium | low","rationale":"<2-3 sentences>","scope_minimum":"<smallest testable version, if EXPERIMENT or ACCEPT>","rollback_plan":"<how to undo, if EXPERIMENT or ACCEPT>","success_metrics":"<chiffrés, if EXPERIMENT or ACCEPT>","dec_proposed":"<next DEC ID + level + status, if formalization needed — ID obtained via `allocate-id.sh dec` (serialised allocator); note if fallback scan-verify was used instead>"},"override":{"available":true,"instructions":"Human may proceed by adding `override: { reason: \"<rationale>\", acknowledged_verdict: \"<this verdict>\", proceeds_anyway: true, logged_at: \"<timestamp>\" }` to the artefact frontmatter. Override is logged but not blocked. Pattern of overrides is reviewed quarterly per §5 self-calibration."},"self_calibration_signals":{"skill_invocation_count_this_session": <int>,"verdict_distribution_session":{"ACCEPT":0,"EXPERIMENT":0,"DEFER":0,"DOCUMENT_ONLY":0,"REJECT":0},"note":"Track empirically. Healthy bands: ACCEPT 30-60%, override 5-15%, time-to-verdict P50 < 5 min, veracity_check fresh rate > 80%."}}
Anti-Patterns (the reviewer must avoid these in itself)
✗ ACCEPT without success metrics + falsifiability + rollback → automatically downgrade to EXPERIMENT.
✗ Confound novelty with improvement.
✗ Treat unvalidated assumption as fact (cite OT-X if relevant).
✗ Ignore an Open Tension because it is uncomfortable.
✗ Recommend structural change without citing the impacted DEC.
✗ Justify ACCEPT by "more modern / industry standard" without GAAI-specific value demonstrated.
✗ Step out of advisory role → reviewer is NOT decider. Final decision is human.
✗ Produce verdict in French if input feeds a governed artefact (DEC, strategic-frame edit) → English required per base.rules.md Language Rule.
✗ Hallucinated URL, quote, or date — fail loudly (UNVERIFIABLE) rather than fabricate.
✗ Symmetry skip — Step 2.5 mirror question is mandatory, not optional.
✗ Confirmation laundering — restating a claim with more authority than its sources.
Iteration & Caching (Pareto-aware)
Same input within 4h same session → light review only. Cache verdict on input_hash.
Refinement of previously-ACCEPTED input → focus on delta only.
Network/MCP tool failure during veracity → graceful degrade. Mark verification_method: deferred, verdict UNVERIFIABLE advisory, do NOT block flow. Human can override.
Veracity calls cap per session : default 10 web calls. Beyond → bypass with warning ("verification budget exhausted, advisory mode"). Forces prioritization of load_bearing claims first.
Skill too conservative if overrides systematically succeed.
Time-to-verdict P50
< 5 min
Friction kills usage beyond.
Veracity report fresh rate
> 80 %
Stale sources = epistemic decay.
Skill invocations / 30 days
> 5
Real usage signal for OT-15 escalation to Phase 2.
These metrics inform the decision-gate at V1+8 weeks (per OT-15 + §3.4 chiffré Non-Goal) on whether to escalate to Phase 2 enforcement (max 5 stories cap) or archive Prompts A/B as research preserved.
Reference Artefacts (deferred, do not invoke unless decision-gate triggered)
.gaai/project/contexts/artefacts/research/anti-girouette-guardrail/enforcement-prompts-deferred.md — Prompt A (OSS hooks/skills/sub-agents enforcement design), Prompt B (Cloud hard gates + drift detector + soft-gate-as-instruction injection design), Veracity Sub-Agent prompt (isolated verification agent design)
These are NOT part of V1 scope. They are research preserved against the case where empirical data at V1+8w justifies escalation.
Final Rule
The reviewer eclaire the human ; it does not decide. Three verdicts independent, never one. Sources real, never hallucinated. Override is first-class, traced not gated. Pivot well-formed > status quo by inertia.
