check

name	check
description	Reviews code diffs, PRs, issue queues, release readiness, commits, pushes, publishing, and project audits. Use when users ask review/看看代码/合并前/看看issue/PR/release/push or to implement an approved plan, with safety gates for dirty and untracked worktrees. Not for exploring ideas, debugging root causes, or prose review.
when_to_use	review, 看看代码, 检查一下, 有没有问题, 是否需要优化, 合并前, 继续优化, 优化代码, 看看issue, 看看PR, release, publish, push, release reaction, GitHub reaction, 发布, 提交, 关闭issue, 发布表情, release表情, close issue, issue close, review my code, check changes, before merge, before release, code review, code-review, audit, project audit, 项目体检, 项目评分, 给项目打分, 深入分析项目代码, 评估项目质量, 代码质量评分, scorecard, linus review, rate this codebase, score this project
dispatch_intent	Code review, before merge, release gates, generated artifacts, safety sinks, publish/push/reaction follow-through, triage issues/PRs, project-wide code-quality audit scorecard

Check: Review Before You Ship

Prefix your first line with 🥷 inline, not as its own paragraph.

Note: /review is a built-in Anthropic plugin command for PR review. Waza uses /check (or the alias code-review) instead. Do not re-trigger /review from within this skill.

Read the diff, find the problems, fix what can be fixed safely, ask about the rest. Done means verification ran in this session and passed.

Outcome Contract

• Outcome: a review, release decision, or maintainer action grounded in the current diff, project context, and live evidence.
• Done when: findings, fixes, shipped state, or blockers are stated with the commands, artifacts, or remote state that prove them.
• Evidence: worktree status, diff, public project docs, manifests, CI, package contents, release or registry state, and current command output.
• Output: concise findings first, then verification and shipped-state summary when applicable.

Worktree Safety Preflight

Before any review, triage, ship, release, or PR operation, read the current worktree with:

git status --short --branch -uall

Treat modified, staged, and untracked files as user work. You may read them and include them in the review surface, but you must not move, hide, overwrite, clean, or discard them without explicit user approval in the current turn.

Do not run these commands as default review or PR setup: git switch, git checkout, git reset --hard, git clean, git stash -u, git stash --include-untracked, git stash -a, git stash --all, or gh pr checkout. If a branch change or cleanup is genuinely required, stop and ask for that exact operation.

For PR inspection, prefer commands that do not switch the current working tree: gh pr view, gh pr diff, git fetch origin pull/<n>/head:refs/tmp/pr-<n>, and git merge-tree.

Mode Picker

Pick the mode that matches the user's intent, then read that section in full. Modes layer on top of the shared review surface (Scope, Hard Stops, Autofix, Specialist Review, Verification, Sign-off) further down.

User intent	Mode
"implement this plan", /think output handed off	Plan Execution
Diff or PR ready, "review", "看看代码", "合并前"	Default review (start at Get the Diff)
"look at issues", "review PRs", "triage", "批量处理"	Triage Mode
"is this worth a release", "值不值得发版"	Release Worthiness Analysis
"commit", "push", "publish", "release", "close issue", "发布表情"	Ship / Release Follow-through
"audit", "项目体检", "项目评分", "给项目打分", "深入分析项目代码", "scorecard", "linus review"	Project Audit
Document, PDF, prose review	Delegate to /write (see Document Review)

Before any mode, run Project Context Extraction and (if memory is in scope) Durable Context Preflight.

Plan Execution Mode

Activate when the user's message starts with "Implement the following plan", "按计划实施", "按照计划", "整", "可以干", "直接改" followed by a plan body, or links to a /think output.

In this mode, do not run a code review. Instead:

1. State which plan is being executed (first heading or summary line).
2. Check for obvious repo drift: run git status --short --branch -uall and skim any changed files that contradict the plan. If drift makes the plan unsafe, name the specific conflict and stop.
3. Work through each plan item as a to-do. Mark each complete as you go.
4. After all items are done, run the project's verification command.
5. Transition automatically into Ship mode if the project context or current thread indicates review-then-ship.

Default Continuation (review-then-ship)

When the project's AGENTS.md or the current thread explicitly asks to "commit after review", "ship if green", or equivalent, transition directly from review to the Ship flow after a clean review. Do not ask again. State "proceeding to ship" before acting.

Project Context Extraction

This is Waza's public, standalone code-review capability. It should not depend on private machine paths or unpublished project instructions.

Before reviewing, extract project constraints from repository context:

1. Read the diff and identify changed languages, frameworks, manifests, generated outputs, release files, and CI workflows.
2. Inspect public project files only as needed: README, AGENTS/CLAUDE instructions when present, package manifests, lockfiles, build configs, test configs, workflow files, and release notes.
3. Compress the findings into review context: verification commands, protected or generated files, release artifacts, domain risks, and public reply rules.
4. Apply the stricter rule when project context and this skill overlap.
5. If project docs or CI name a verification command, prefer that over auto-detection.

For the context shape, see references/project-context.md.

For release or maintainer work, also fill the Release Gate 2.0 matrix from references/project-context.md. It covers review base, dirty/staged/untracked state, latest tag, origin sync, version fields, generated artifacts, package/archive contents, release assets, registry/appcast/CI, and public issue/PR state. Missing matrix evidence is a blocker for a "ready to release" claim.

Durable Context Preflight

See rules/durable-context.md for when to read durable context, the read-order budget, and the memory-type mapping.

For /check, private task constraints are decision, preference, and principle entries; review checklists are pattern and learning. Current code, diff, public docs, CI, tests, and remote state override memory. Durable memory can explain user intent and preferred follow-through, but public project rules still come from README files, manifests, CI workflows, release docs, the diff, and explicit instructions in the current thread. Never cite private memory as a public project requirement.

Get the Diff

Get the full diff between the current branch and the base branch. If unclear, ask. If already on the base branch, ask which commits to review.

Triage Mode

Activate when the user mentions: issue, PR, "review all", triage, "batch", or "批量处理". Skip the diff flow and run this instead.

Action-first rule: Items with a clear disposition (already fixed, duplicate, already released) get acted on immediately without analysis paragraphs. When analyzing screenshots or images, state what you see and the suggested action in one message. Only ask the user when the disposition is genuinely ambiguous.

Flow: First identify the project's issue/PR host from public context. For GitHub projects, pull open items with gh issue list -R <repo> --state open --limit 20 and gh pr list -R <repo> --state open. For non-GitHub projects, use the platform CLI/API named by the project docs or user request; if none exists, stop and report the missing integration instead of pretending GitHub commands apply. For each item, check if a fix already shipped: git log --oneline <latest-tag>..HEAD | grep -i "<keyword>". If shipped: close with note. If merged but unreleased: reply "已修复，等下一个版本 release" and close. If no fix: analyze and act. Fix now if possible (fix: closes #N commit); when the target project documents a nightly, beta, or pre-release channel that already contains the fix, reply with that exact upgrade path and close; for valid-but-unreleased items acknowledge and leave open; for invalid items give one-two sentence reason and close.

Before final conclusions in a live queue, refresh the issue/PR list once more and re-read any item that changed during the run. If evidence is incomplete, hold the item instead of closing it on a guess.

PR handling: If the PR direction is accepted but the patch needs changes, prefer pushing the maintainer's fixes to the contributor's PR branch and then merging the PR. Check maintainerCanModify first. If branch edits are not allowed, ask the contributor to enable maintainer edits or push the needed revision; only fall back to a separate maintainer commit when timing or release safety requires it, and say so in the PR. Close without merging only when the direction is rejected, unsafe, no longer needed, or explicitly not part of the project's scope. Do not silently absorb an accepted PR into main and close it.

Public reply shape: load references/public-reply.md for the full template (mention, single thanks, factual paragraphs, next-release step, editing rules, closure criteria). Ship Mode uses the same template; the file is the single source.

Sign-off line (append to standard sign-off):

triage:           N reviewed, N closed, N deferred

Release Worthiness Analysis

Activate when the user asks "深入分析 X 是不是值得发新版本", "is this worth a new release", "值不值得发版", or similar.

1. Run git log <last-tag>..HEAD --oneline (find last tag with git tag --sort=-version:refname | head -1).
2. Count and classify commits: feat (new feature), fix (bug fix), chore/docs/refactor (internal).
3. Output:
   • Commit summary: N feat, N fix, N chore since last release
   • Verdict: release / skip (one line)
   • Recommended version bump: patch (fixes only), minor (feat present), major (breaking change)
   • Key risk: one sentence on the biggest risk in this batch
4. If verdict is "release", offer to transition into Ship mode.

Ship / Release Follow-through

Activate when the user asks to commit, tag, release, publish, push, reply on an issue/PR, or close an issue after a change is ready.

This mode extends review; it does not skip review. Before any public or irreversible action:

1. Extract release rules from public project context: README, manifests, CI workflows, release notes, package scripts, changelogs, and explicit user instructions in the current thread.
2. Fill the Release Gate 2.0 matrix from references/project-context.md: review base, dirty/staged/untracked state, latest tag, origin sync, version fields, generated artifacts, package/archive contents, release assets, registry/appcast/CI, and public issue/PR state.
3. Verify generated or bundled outputs, version fields, release notes, package contents, and required artifacts are in sync. Prefer dry-run commands when the ecosystem provides them.
4. Commit only intended files. Preserve unrelated dirty work, and serialize git operations so index locks or overlapping adds do not corrupt the workflow.
5. Push, publish, tag, or create a release only when the user has explicitly approved that action. If auth, OTP, CI, registry, or network state blocks the operation, pause and report the exact blocker.
6. For issue/PR follow-through, confirm the item identity with the host's read command before posting. On GitHub, use gh issue view or gh pr view; on other hosts, use the CLI/API named by project docs or the current request. Use references/public-reply.md for the maintainer reply template (mention, single thanks, facts, explicit next release or verification step) and its closure criteria.
7. For GitHub release reaction follow-through, only do it when project context or the current thread asks for it. After the release exists and required assets are verified, resolve the release id from the tag, POST every positive release reaction to repos/<owner>/<repo>/releases/<id>/reactions with gh api or the available GitHub tool, and re-read reactions to confirm. Positive release reactions are +1, laugh, heart, hooray, rocket, and eyes.
8. After network or API failures, re-read the end state instead of assuming success or failure.

End with the concrete shipped state: commit hash, tag, release URL, registry/version result, pushed branch, release asset state, release reaction state, issue/PR state, and any remaining blockers. Omit fields that do not apply.

Project Audit Mode

Activate when the user asks for a project-wide code-quality scorecard: "audit", "项目体检", "代码质量评分", "scorecard", "linus 风格 review". Distinct from Default Review (PR/diff scoped) and Triage (issue batching). Single-pass project-wide quality assessment.

Flow

1. Run python3 <waza>/skills/check/scripts/audit_signals.py --root <project> from the target repo. The script emits labelled blocks (=== FILE SIZE HOTSPOTS === ... === DENYLIST IN BUILD ===) each ending with status: PASS|WARN|FAIL|N/A.
2. Skim the largest source files surfaced by FILE SIZE HOTSPOTS (typically 3-5; stop sooner if the architecture is already clear).
3. Read CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / README.md to learn the project's own stated conventions before judging it against generic ones.
4. Apply the four-axis rubric below. Each axis is independently scored 0-10. Overall = arithmetic mean.
5. Surface 3-7 concrete findings per axis. Each finding: file:line citation when possible, severity (CRIT/STRUCT/INCR), one-line fix.
6. Output to terminal only. Do not create files in the target repo. If the user follows up with "save it", offer ./docs/<project>-audit.md then; default is ephemeral.

Rubric

Axis	What it covers
Architecture	Module boundaries, coupling, abstraction layers vs flat duplication, single source of truth
Code Quality	File size discipline, dedup, readability, comments on non-obvious behavior
Engineering	Tests, CI gates, version coordination, install URL pinning, packaging posture
Perf and Risk	Hazards, scope creep, distribution risk, privacy posture, third-party blast radius

Scoring anchors

• 9-10: exceptional discipline, polish-only items
• 7-8.5: solid with clear targeted improvements
• 5-7: working but with structural debt
• below 5: significant rework recommended

A WARN that the project has explicitly justified (in its own docs or a comment) is not a finding; cite the justification and skip. Do not mechanically convert WARN to CRIT. A block with status: N/A means the surface does not exist (e.g. no packaging script); treat as silence, not as a positive signal.

Output template (terminal)

Project: <name>
Overall: X.X / 10

Architecture: X / 10 -- one-line summary
Code Quality: X / 10 -- one-line summary
Engineering:  X / 10 -- one-line summary
Perf & Risk:  X / 10 -- one-line summary

Findings
[CRIT] <file:line> -- <issue>
       why: <reason grounded in signal or read>
       fix: <concrete action>
[STRUCT] ...
[INCR] ...

Top 3 highest-leverage moves
1. ...
2. ...
3. ...

Stop after the report unless the user asks for follow-up implementation. Audit mode does not modify files in the target repo.

Scope

Measure the diff and classify depth:

Depth	Criteria	Reviewers
Quick	Under 100 lines, 1-5 files	Base review only
Standard	100-500 lines, or 6-10 files	Base + conditional specialists
Deep	500+ lines, 10+ files, or touches auth/payments/data mutation	Base + all specialists + adversarial pass

State the depth before proceeding.

Did We Build What Was Asked?

Before reading code, check scope drift: do the diff and the stated goal match? Label: on target / drift / incomplete.

Also check surgical traceability: every changed file and every new public surface must trace back to the user's stated goal. If a file, dependency, config knob, abstraction, generated artifact, workflow permission, or release behavior cannot be explained in one sentence from the request, label it drift until proven necessary.

Drift signals (examples, not exhaustive -- any one is enough to label drift):

• A changed file has no connection to the stated goal
• The diff includes pure refactoring (renames, formatting, restructuring) when the goal was a bug fix or feature
• A new dependency appears that the goal did not mention
• Code unrelated to the goal was deleted or commented out
• A new abstraction or helper was introduced that is not required by the goal
• A maintainability, review, or cleanup change quietly adds user-visible UI, default config, workflow permissions, or release behavior

Large Change Recap Gate

When reviewing or preparing a large branch, PR, subagent delivery, or multi-file UI/API/schema change, produce a compact recap before line-level findings. This is a GetTokens-local version of a visual recap; do not require hosted Agent-Native Plan tooling unless the user explicitly asks for it.

Use this gate when any of these are true:

• The diff touches rendered UI, interaction states, routes, modals, menus, design tokens, API contracts, Wails bindings, SQLite/schema, sidecar management APIs, or release packaging.
• The change spans more than 8 files or crosses frontend/backend/sidecar/native boundaries.
• A reviewer needs to understand the shape of the change before raw line review.

Recap shape:

1. Outcome: what user-visible or system behavior changed.
2. Surface/state inventory: pages, modals, popovers, empty/error/loading states, role/access variants, DTO/API/schema surfaces.
3. File map: changed files grouped by responsibility.
4. Key changes: 3-8 load-bearing diffs or code paths with one-line summaries.
5. Verification evidence: commands, screenshots, DOM checks, CI, Wails build, sidecar mock tests, or explicit unverified gaps.
6. Risk: compatibility, migration, rollback, stale generated artifacts, or runtime-only behavior.

For UI-impacting diffs, screenshots or DOM/headless browser evidence should be considered review evidence when feasible. Prose about "looks fine" is not enough for layout, density, modal, menu, or interaction changes.

Pattern-Fix Completeness

When the diff fixes one instance of a class-of-bug (a missing validation, a wrong selector, an off-by-one, a missing lock), the same shape often lives elsewhere. Extract the pattern signature, grep -rn it across the repo (exclude generated dirs), and confirm sibling instances were also handled. List any unswept sibling: flag it as a hard stop when it carries the same risk, advisory when lower-risk. For a deeper sweep playbook, see hunt's Scope Blast Mode.

CLI Command Surface

When a diff touches a CLI entrypoint, installer, completion, config/env handling, package wrapper, or a mutating command such as cleanup, update, uninstall, migration, or cache removal, fill the CLI Command Surface from references/project-context.md before sign-off.

Check command contract and installed-runtime behavior, not just library tests: help/version, subcommands/flags, exit codes, stdout/stderr, JSON/schema output, TTY/non-interactive paths, env/config precedence, shebang/executable bit, PATH shim, and package-manager install path when applicable.

For mutating CLI commands, also run the Safety Sink Review: dry-run or confirmation path, operation log or rollback story, retry/idempotency, signal/partial-failure handling, and test-mode guards for auth prompts or real system changes.

Hard Stops (fix before merging)

Examples, not exhaustive -- flag any diff that could cause irreversible harm if merged unreviewed.

• No unverified claims. Do not write "I verified X", "I ran Y", "tests pass", or "this fixes Z" unless the shell output is in this turn's transcript. If you reason about behavior without running, say "based on reading the code" instead of "I verified". Every verification claim in the sign-off must point to a command that actually ran in this session.
• Re-read before citing source-of-truth facts. Before writing a line number, dirty-file count, branch ahead/behind state, fallback behavior, locale coverage, or release artifact state into a handoff or review report, re-read the source in this turn (git status, git diff, file Read, rg, command output). Earlier chat context, prior agent's notes, and your own recall from a hundred turns ago are stale by default; restating "the catalog uses en fallback" or "the file is at line 310" without checking has been the recurring failure mode in long sessions. Cite the verification path inline (per current Read of <file> / per git status this turn) so reviewers know which facts are anchored.
• Destructive auto-execution: any task marked "safe" or "auto-run" that modifies user-visible state (history files, config, preferences, installed software) must require explicit confirmation.
• Release artifacts missing: verify every artifact listed in release notes, release templates, or project workflows exists and has been uploaded before declaring done.
• Generated artifact drift: if source changes require generated or bundled outputs, verify the output was regenerated and included.
• Tracked package omissions: if a package script builds from tracked files, allowlists, or generated manifests, verify every new helper module, reference file, template, or script used by the diff is tracked and present in the built archive before sign-off.
• Version skew: release version fields across manifests, package metadata, app configs, changelogs, tags, or lockfiles must stay synchronized.
• Unknown identifiers in diff: any function, variable, or type introduced in the diff that does not exist in the codebase is a hard stop. Grep before writing or approving any reference: grep -r "name" . -- no results outside the diff = does not exist.
• Injection and validation: SQL, command, path injection at system entry points. Credentials hardcoded, logged, committed, or copied into public docs.
• Dependency changes: unexpected additions or version bumps in package.json, Cargo.toml, go.mod, requirements.txt. Flag any new dependency not obviously required by the diff.
• Safety sinks: destructive file operations, shell or AppleScript construction, cwd/path/symlink traversal, approval or sandbox boundary changes, signing/appcast flows, and auth prompts need explicit review of validation, rollback, and user-confirmation behavior.
• Audit before restore: when the diff re-adds a symbol, string, asset, or config field that recent history removed, grep the rest of the diff and the main branch to confirm anything still uses it. A rule file that names the symbol is not proof of life. If only a parity test references it, the rule is stale and the restore is wrong; reject the restore and flag the stale rule. Specifically suspicious: re-adding an enum case, xcstrings entry, dictionary key, or asset file that the prior commit deleted intentionally.
• AI-generated PR with broad matchers in destructive sinks: any PR that introduces find-like recursion, mass-delete, sandbox/container traversal, ID-prefix wildcards, or fallback regex branches feeding a destructive sink, and was likely AI-generated, must be reviewed line-by-line for three things: matcher breadth in every branch (fallback paths often regress to broad globs even when the primary branch is correct), protected-path coverage (does the existing guard list include this new entry point?), and whether the change bypasses an existing user-confirmation step. Generic plausibility is not safety. When in doubt, ask the contributor to narrow the matcher to an exact constant (exact bundle ID, exact app name, exact path), not a prefix or wildcard; do not approve "this looks fine."
• Migration code for features that did not ship before: reject migration scaffolding, version-gated defaults, or "carry old key forward" logic when the underlying preference / schema / feature was introduced in this same release. git show v<last-release>:<path> is the gate: if the key is absent from the last tag, no migration is needed; ship the default. Migration code added for a never-shipped key is dead-on-arrival complexity.

Finding Quality Gate

Before writing any finding into the report, run this gate:

Pre-report self-check (four questions, every finding must pass):

1. Can I cite the exact file:line?
2. Can I describe the specific input or state that triggers the bad outcome?
3. Have I read the upstream callers / downstream consumers, not just the function in isolation?
4. Is the severity defensible? Would a senior reviewer raise this at this level in a real PR?

If any answer is "no", drop the finding or downgrade it to advisory. Vague findings train the reader to ignore real ones.

A clean review is a valid review. Do not manufacture findings to justify the invocation. Zero findings with a stated review surface is a complete output. Padding the report with low-confidence noise is a worse outcome than reporting nothing.

HIGH and CRITICAL require three pieces of evidence:

1. The exact file:line where the bug lives.
2. The specific trigger: what input, state, or sequence produces the bad outcome.
3. Why existing guards (validation, type system, upstream catch, framework default) do not already prevent it.

Cannot supply all three? Downgrade to MEDIUM, or drop. "This might break under some condition" is not a HIGH.

Knowledge Sync

After reviewing the diff, check whether it introduces invariants not yet captured in project docs:

• New safety gate or path-guard rule → AGENTS.md
• New UI constraint (layout rule, animation, overlay registration) → .claude/rules/*.md
• New deploy/release step or artifact → AGENTS.md or docs/
• New cross-file sync requirement (enum ↔ HTML anchors, Swift keys ↔ xcstrings) → AGENTS.md
• One-off review reports or diagnostic snapshots should not become durable docs as-is; extract the stable rule into AGENTS/CLAUDE/rules/references and drop the stale report from the commit.

Snapshot Report Routing

Treat review reports, scorecards, and diagnostic snapshots as evidence, not as source-of-truth docs. Before approving one:

1. Re-read the current diff or repo surface named by the report. If the claim is stale, exclude the report from the commit or rewrite it into a stable rule.
2. Keep project-specific commands, paths, protected areas, release rituals, and safety constraints in that project's public context. Do not promote them into Waza.
3. Promote only transferable review behavior into Waza: e.g. "check untracked files before readiness", "inspect generated package contents", or "turn one-off reports into invariants."

If found, either apply the doc update as safe_auto (when the invariant is clear from the diff) or flag it in the sign-off as doc debt. When no new invariants exist, sign-off says doc debt: none.

Specialist Review (Standard and Deep only)

Load references/persona-catalog.md to determine which specialists activate. Launch all activated specialists in parallel via the environment's agent or sub-agent facility when available, passing the full diff. If no parallel reviewer facility exists, run the specialist passes sequentially in the same session.

Merge findings: when two specialists flag the same code location, keep the higher severity and note cross-reviewer agreement. Findings on different code locations are never duplicates even if they share a theme.

Autofix Routing

Class	Definition	Action
safe_auto	Unambiguous, risk-free: typos, missing imports, style inconsistencies	Apply immediately
gated_auto	Likely correct but changes behavior: null checks, error handling additions	Batch into one user confirmation block
manual	Requires judgment: architecture, behavior changes, security tradeoffs	Present in sign-off
advisory	Informational only	Note in sign-off

Apply all safe_auto fixes first. Batch all gated_auto into one confirmation block. Never ask separately about each one.

Adversarial Pass (Deep only)

"If I were trying to break this system through this specific diff, what would I exploit?" Four angles (see references/persona-catalog.md): assumption violation, composition failures, cascade construction, abuse cases. Suppress findings below 0.60 confidence.

Platform Operations

Use the platform tool that matches the project. For GitHub projects, prefer gh or the available GitHub integration and confirm CI passes before merging. For non-GitHub projects, derive the CLI/API from public project docs or the user's explicit platform context; do not force GitHub commands onto other hosts.

Verification

Run bash scripts/run-tests.sh from this skill directory, or the project's known verification command from the target repository. Paste the full output.

If the script exits non-zero or prints (no test command detected): halt. Do not claim done. Ask the user for the verification command before proceeding. If the user also cannot provide one, document this explicitly in the sign-off as verification: none -- no command available and flag it as a structural gap, not a pass.

For bug fixes: a regression test that fails on the old code must exist before the fix is done.

Gotchas

What happened	Rule
Commented on #249 when discussing #255	Run gh issue view N to confirm title before acting
PR comment sounded like a report	1-2 sentences, natural, like a colleague. Not structured, not AI-sounding.
PR comment used bullet points	Write as short paragraphs, one thought per paragraph; thank the contributor first
article.en.md inside _posts_en/ doubled the suffix	Check naming convention of existing files in the target directory first
Deployed without env vars set	Run vercel env ls before deploying; diff against local keys
Push failed from auth mismatch	Run git remote -v before the first push in a new project

Document Review

For document, PDF, white paper, or prose review, route to /write (Document Review Mode). /check handles code diffs and release artifacts only.

Sign-off

files changed:    N (+X -Y)
scope:            on target / drift: [what]
review depth:     quick / standard / deep
hard stops:       N found, N fixed, N deferred
specialists:      [security, architecture] or none
new tests:        N
doc debt:         none / AGENTS.md needs X / rules need Y
verification:     [command] -> pass / fail