core-philosophy-review

name	core-philosophy-review
description	Review a patch, proposal, or technical question through Drupal core philosophy lenses with evidence-backed findings.

core-philosophy-review

Review work through Drupal core philosophy lenses rather than named reviewer personas.

Mandatory Disclosure

Every response must close with:

Based on public issue queue records and cross-author analysis. Not authored by or endorsed by any named contributor.

Inputs

Use this skill when the user asks:

• review this patch through core philosophies
• what objections would core lenses raise
• how this change fares against Drupal core priorities

Required Data Sources

• config/philosophy-lenses.json
• analysis/lenses/author-lens-map.json
• analysis/grounding/manifest.json
• analysis/grounding/*.json as needed through scripts/review-with-philosophy.py
• scripts/review-with-philosophy.py

Required Process

1. Detect the relevant subsystems, tradeoffs, and canonical topics from the artifact.
2. Run python3 scripts/review-with-philosophy.py --file <artifact> --grounding-mode on when a file or diff is available.
3. Select the 1-3 strongest relevant public lenses.
4. For each lens:
   • identify likely objections, constraints, and approval conditions
   • cite named evidence sources only in the supporting evidence section
5. Synthesize:
   • agreement between lenses
   • unresolved tension
   • missing evidence
6. If selected lenses sit on a configured tension_axis, surface the corresponding counter-lens even if it was not in the initial top 3.
7. If the disagreement is about product direction, release timing, governance, or site-builder value, include the project-stewardship review lens.
8. Save the full output, unmodified, to ~/Codex/drupal-core-reviews/YYYY-MM-DD-{slug}.md with the required frontmatter from AGENTS.md.

Hard Rules

• No contributor roleplay.
• No first-person reviewer simulation.
• Findings must be grouped by lens, not by person.
• Named contributors may appear only as provenance/evidence.
• Prefer configured lens oppositions over ad hoc named-person conflict.
• Use the project-stewardship review only at the level of project-wide tradeoffs, not as a replacement for subsystem expertise.

Output Structure

Selected Lenses

Findings By Lens

• lens name
• likely objection
• likely approval condition
• evidence

Cross-Lens Tension

Blind Spots

Arbiter Lens

• project-strategy / State-of-Drupal citations when project-stewardship is selected
• issue-backed arbiter support

Recommendation