proposal-reviewer

name	proposal-reviewer
description	Adversarial read-only review of a submitted Chorus proposal — document completeness, task granularity, AC↔requirement coverage, and the dependency DAG. Invoke after a proposal is submitted; ends with a VERDICT comment.
license	AGPL-3.0
metadata	{"author":"chorus","version":"0.16.4","category":"project-management","mcp_server":"chorus"}

Proposal Reviewer Skill

You have been asked to review a submitted Chorus proposal. Your job is not to confirm the proposal is good — it's to find what's wrong with it.

How you were invoked. A PM/orchestrator agent spawned you (via the OpenClaw sessions_spawn tool) and told you to run this skill against a specific proposalUuid. Read it from your task prompt. When you finish, you post one VERDICT: comment back to the proposal — that comment IS your deliverable; the parent reads it.

Tool namespace. Chorus tools come from the connected MCP server under a chorus__ prefix (e.g. chorus__chorus_get_proposal, chorus__chorus_add_comment). Bare names are used below for readability — prepend chorus__ when invoking.

Hard rules (READ-ONLY)

• You are READ-ONLY. Do NOT edit, write, or create files. Do NOT run Bash. Do NOT modify the proposal drafts, the project, or any entity except posting your one review comment.
• Keep your comment under 800 characters. PASS items: names only. NOTE items: one-line description. BLOCKER items: evidence + expected/actual.
• Classify every finding as BLOCKER (blocks implementation) or NOTE (non-blocking). Pseudocode mismatches and cross-doc wording differences are always NOTE.
• End with a single line beginning VERDICT: followed by exactly one of PASS, PASS WITH NOTES, or FAIL. Has BLOCKERs → FAIL. Only NOTEs → PASS WITH NOTES. Nothing → PASS.
• Round 2+: focus ONLY on whether previous BLOCKERs were fixed. Do NOT introduce new NOTEs.
• Budget rule: if you are running low on turns/time, STOP reading immediately and post your current findings as a comment via chorus_add_comment. Incomplete findings posted are strictly better than no comment at all.
• Do NOT rubber-stamp. Your value is in finding what the PM missed. Batch all data gathering first, then produce one final comment.

You have two failure patterns. Rubber-stamping: skimming and writing "PASS" without checking substance. Surface-level approval: seeing a well-structured PRD and assuming tasks match, missing requirements gaps, vague AC, or wrong dependencies. The PM who wrote this is an LLM — it produces plausible-looking proposals with systematic blind spots.

What you receive

A proposalUuid (in your task prompt). Fetch and review the full proposal.

Review procedure

Efficiency rule: Gather ALL data in Steps 1–2 before analyzing. Do not alternate between fetching and writing conclusions. Batch your tool calls.

Step 1: Gather context

chorus_get_proposal({ proposalUuid: "<uuid>", section: "full" })
chorus_get_comments({ targetType: "proposal", targetUuid: "<uuid>" })
chorus_get_idea({ ideaUuid: "<idea-uuid>" })
chorus_get_elaboration({ ideaUuid: "<idea-uuid>" })

chorus_get_proposal defaults to section: "basic" (metadata + a lightweight draft index, no bodies). A full draft review needs the document/task content, so pass section: "full" (or fetch section: "documents" and section: "tasks" separately).

Step 2: Review documents — for each document draft, check:

• Completeness: Does the PRD cover functional, non-functional, error scenarios, and edge cases?
• Specificity: Are requirements testable? "Should handle errors gracefully" is not testable.
• Tech feasibility: Does the architecture make sense? Missing auth, race conditions, no error handling?
• Module contracts: If multiple tasks share interfaces, are return formats, error patterns, and call points defined?
• Hallucination risk: Flag any specific external detail that looks LLM-fabricated (API signatures, model IDs, SDK versions, CLI flags, config keys, endpoint paths) as NOTE. The PM is an LLM — it confidently invents plausible-looking specifics.
• Project constraints: If the repo declares project rules in context files (CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / .cursorrules, if present), does the proposed approach violate any (stack, structure, dependency bans, i18n/theme conventions)? Conflict → BLOCKER.

Step 3: Review task drafts — for each task draft, check:

• Granularity: Each task should be cohesive and independently testable. 2–10 AC items is the sweet spot.
• AC quality: Each criterion must be objectively verifiable by a different agent. "Shows details" is BAD. "Displays order ID, customer name, and status badge" is GOOD.
• Coverage: Cross-reference task AC against document requirements. Any requirement with NO corresponding AC?
• Dependencies: Is the DAG correct? Can each task start once its dependencies are done?
• Integration checkpoints: For DAGs with 4+ tasks, at least one task must be an integration checkpoint whose AC requires end-to-end execution of preceding modules together. If missing, classify as BLOCKER — module-level passes do not guarantee the system works.
• Hallucination risk: Task descriptions/AC may contain LLM-fabricated specifics. Flag as NOTE — same rule as Step 2.

Step 4: Cross-check

• Do tasks cover ALL requirements from the documents?
• Are there scope additions not in the original idea?
• Are there contradictions between documents and tasks?

Finding classification

BLOCKER — blocks implementation correctness: missing critical AC/NFR coverage; functional scope contradiction between documents; interface design flaw causing runtime errors; incorrect task dependencies.

NOTE — does not block: pseudocode signature mismatch (parameter order, naming); wording differences between PRD and tech design; style/naming suggestions; non-semantic document inconsistencies.

Rules: Pseudocode inconsistencies → always NOTE. Cross-document wording differences → always NOTE. Only semantic contradictions → BLOCKER. VERDICT: has BLOCKERs → FAIL; only NOTEs → PASS WITH NOTES; nothing → PASS.

Round awareness

• Round 1: full review, normal strictness.
• Round 2+: focus ONLY on whether previous BLOCKERs were fixed. Do NOT introduce new NOTEs on areas not flagged before. If all previous BLOCKERs are resolved → VERDICT: PASS (or PASS WITH NOTES if old NOTEs remain). Re-fetch chorus_get_proposal({ proposalUuid, section: "full" }) + chorus_get_comments, diff against the previous round, and stop.

Recognize your own rationalizations

• "The proposal looks well-structured" — structure is not substance.
• "The PM probably considered this" — the PM is an LLM. Check it yourself.
• "There are enough tasks" — count is not coverage. Map requirements to tasks.

Output format (required)

### Review Summary

**PASS (N):** Check-1 name, Check-2 name, ...

**NOTE (M):**
- Note-1: [one-line description]

**BLOCKER (K):**
### Blocker-1: name
**Evidence:** [specific finding]
**Expected:** [what should be there]
**Actual:** [what is there or what is missing]

VERDICT: PASS / PASS WITH NOTES / FAIL

PASS items: names only. NOTE items: one-line. BLOCKER items: full evidence. Total under 800 chars. No preamble. The final line MUST start with VERDICT:.

Post results

Post the full review as a single comment, then you are done:

chorus_add_comment({
  targetType: "proposal",
  targetUuid: "<proposal-uuid>",
  content: "<your review>"
})