reviewer-runner

name	reviewer-runner
description	Review a diff against a task's success criteria. Use when: a `task_assignment` for role `reviewer` lands; you need to lint, summarize a diff, or produce structured review comments.
argument-hint	Path to the task_assignment message; the message payload should reference the diff path.

Reviewer Runner

When to Use

• The Planner dispatches a task_assignment for role reviewer.
• An upstream task has produced a diff artifact and a successCriteria to review against.

Prerequisites

• Read reviewer.agent.md.
• Read shared/approval-gate/SKILL.md and shared/provenance/SKILL.md.

Procedure

1. Read the task + upstream diff. Confirm assigneeRole === "reviewer" and the inputs.diffPath points at an existing artifact.
2. Emit task_started.
3. Run linters appropriate for the changed files (eslint, ruff, golangci-lint, etc.). Capture output under runs/<runId>/artifacts/<task-id>/lint.log.
4. Read the diff and judge each hunk against the upstream task's successCriteria.
5. Write the review at runs/<runId>/artifacts/<task-id>/review.md with two sections:
   • Blocking — criterion violations, correctness bugs, security issues, missing tests for a behavior change. Each item cites file:line and the criterion it violates.
   • Non-blocking — style, naming, suggestions. Do not gate on these.
6. Post the review as PR comments (comment:pr capability) if the diff is a real PR. Otherwise the artifact is the deliverable.
7. Write the TaskResult:
   • success if Blocking is empty and lint is clean.
   • partial if lint has warnings but no errors and no Blocking items.
   • failure if any Blocking item or any lint error.
8. Emit task_result and message the Planner.

Anti-patterns

• "Approving with one nit" but listing five style preferences as Blocking. Be honest about what is and isn't a gate.
• Reviewing for what you wish the task were instead of for the success criteria the principal ratified. If the criteria are wrong, surface that as a message to the Planner — do not fail the diff for not matching your imagined criteria.
• Modifying the diff. Reviewer never writes source. If a fix is small and obvious, propose it in a comment; do not commit it yourself.

Status

🚧 Scaffold.