oracle-review

name	oracle-review
model	opus
description	Run iterative oracle + agent hardening loop on any artifact (designs, plans, beads, architecture) until findings converge to near-zero. Combines /swarm-oracle with /swarm-review in alternating rounds. Use for the full hardening cycle, not just a single oracle pass. For oracle-only, use /swarm-oracle. For bead-only hardening, use /swarm-beads-quality.
triggers	["oracle review","hardening loop","iterate until converged","full review cycle"]
argument-hint	<target: design|plan|beads|architecture> [--rounds N]

Oracle Review Skill

Oracle policy (2026-06): Fable (claude-fable-5) is the primary oracle. By default the FOR/AGAINST sessions below run as two fresh Fable subagents (Agent tool with model: "fable"; Fable is not reachable through PAL). The PAL 2x GPT-Pro setup is the escalation tier — extremely important or complex validations only, and always paired with a Fable consultation on the same prompt. See /consult-oracles and the Oracle Consultation Policy in ~/CLAUDE.md.

Two-part process: (1) oracle consensus validation with FOR/AGAINST stances, then (2) iterative hardening loop until findings converge to near-zero.

When to Use

• After design completion (validate UX + architecture)
• After implementation planning (validate feasibility + correctness)
• After bead creation (validate readiness + completeness)
• After architecture decisions (validate scope + approach)
• Any high-stakes decision needing external challenge

When NOT to Use

• Quick questions or second opinions (use /swarm-oracle-standalone)
• Code review (use /swarm-agents type=review)
• Simple validation that doesn't need adversarial challenge

Part 1: Oracle Consensus Validation

Setup

Run 2 concurrent oracle sessions:

• Default tier: two Fable subagents (Agent, model: "fable"), one FOR stance, one AGAINST stance, spawned in a single message
• Escalation tier (extremely important/complex only): PAL MCP consensus with 2x GPT-5.5-Pro (FOR + AGAINST), plus a parallel Fable consult on the same prompt

Oracle Prompt Template

Evaluate the following [ARTIFACT_TYPE] for [FEATURE]:

[ARTIFACT CONTENT or reference to document]

Score 1-10 on:
1. Correctness — Are the technical decisions sound?
2. Completeness — Are there gaps or missing considerations?
3. Consistency — Do parts contradict each other?
4. Feasibility — Can this be implemented as specified?
5. Quality — Does this meet production standards?

For each issue found, provide:
- Severity: CRITICAL / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
- Location: Which section/bead/decision
- Problem: What is wrong
- Recommendation: Specific fix

Do NOT say "looks good" without specific evidence.
Produce at least 3 actionable findings per category.

Interpreting Results

Score	Meaning	Action
9-10	Excellent	Proceed, apply minor findings
7-8	Good with issues	Fix all CRITICAL/HIGH, proceed
5-6	Significant problems	Fix all issues, re-validate
<5	Fundamental issues	Redesign, then re-validate

Both oracles typically converge on similar scores. If they diverge by >2 points, investigate the disagreement — it usually reveals a genuine ambiguity.

Apply Corrections

After each oracle round:

1. Compile all findings from both stances
2. Deduplicate (FOR and AGAINST often find same issues from different angles)
3. Prioritize: CRITICAL first, then HIGH
4. Apply fixes to the artifact
5. Document what changed and why

Part 2: Iterative Hardening Loop

After oracle validation, run hardening rounds until convergence.

Round Structure

Each round has 3 steps:

Step A: Review (10 Opus agents via /swarm-agents type=review)

• Each agent reviews with a different lens
• Finds issues, inconsistencies, gaps
• Output: list of findings per agent

Step B: Fix

• Compile all findings
• Apply fixes (6-8 Opus agents for large artifacts)
• Each fix validated against the original plan/design

Step C: Validate Fixes

• Oracle round on the fixed artifact
• OR agent review of just the changes
• Confirm fixes don't introduce new issues

Convergence Signal

Track issues found per round:

Round	Issues Found	Action
1	15-20	Expected — many first-pass issues
2	8-12	Good — deeper issues surfacing
3	3-5	Converging — mostly edge cases
4	0-2	Done — ready to ship

Stop when a round finds <= 2 non-trivial issues. Typical: 3-4 rounds.

Hardening Agent Prompt Template

You are hardening [ARTIFACT] for [FEATURE].
Round {N} of iterative review.

Previous rounds found and fixed:
[SUMMARY OF PRIOR FINDINGS]

Your lens: [SPECIFIC_LENS]

Review the artifact and:
1. Check that prior fixes are correctly applied
2. Find NEW issues not caught in earlier rounds
3. Verify cross-cutting concerns are embedded (not just referenced)
4. Check acceptance criteria are Given/When/Then format
5. Verify file paths exist and are correct
6. Ensure no bead is >3 files (split if needed)

For beads specifically:
- Each bead must be self-contained (implementable without reading other beads)
- Dependencies must form a DAG (no cycles)
- Test beads must reference specific test methods/classes
- Acceptance criteria must be machine-verifiable

Target-Specific Guidance

Design Validation

Oracle focus: UX soundness, information architecture, interaction model consistency, accessibility, progressive disclosure balance, terminology.

Plan Validation

Oracle focus: Feasibility, file-level correctness, dependency ordering, risk coverage, test strategy completeness, migration safety.

Bead Validation

Oracle focus: Self-containment, AC specificity, dependency DAG, file path accuracy, test coverage, priority ordering, cross-cutting embedding.

Architecture Validation

Oracle focus: Rewrite scope (not too much/little), backward compatibility, migration path, performance impact, data integrity, rollback strategy.

Full Hardening Pipeline Example

Phase 1: Oracle (2x Fable FOR/AGAINST; escalate to 2x GPT-5.5-Pro + Fable if extremely important)
  -> Fix CRITICAL/HIGH findings
Phase 2: Agent Review (10 Opus, multi-lens)
  -> Fix all findings
Phase 3: Oracle (2x Fable FOR/AGAINST) on fixes
  -> Verify fixes, find remaining issues
Phase 4: Agent Hardening (8 Opus, fresh eyes)
  -> Embed cross-cutting, convert ACs, split oversized
Phase 5: Final Correctness (10 Opus)
  -> Verify everything, fix last issues
  -> If <= 2 issues: DONE
  -> If > 2 issues: repeat from Phase 3

Key Rules

1. Always run both FOR and AGAINST — single-stance misses adversarial findings
2. Fix before re-validating — never run a new round on unfixed artifacts
3. Track convergence — if issues aren't decreasing, the artifact needs redesign, not more rounds
4. Validate fixes against plan — hardening must not drift from the original design intent
5. Oracle before agents, agents before oracle — alternate perspectives for best coverage
6. Verify PAL MCP is running before launching GPT/Gemini oracle sessions (agents silently fall back to self-analysis without it); Fable subagents need no PAL