shepherd-evaluate

Evaluate the shepherd session end-to-end. Ground every claim in session evidence — `.shepherd/` run files (including the `_progress.md` cost ledger and `archive/<run>/` for earlier runs), findings files, git history, stage completion reports. Cite the source next to each number; say "unmeasured" rather than estimate silently. 1. **Cost** — per-stage table (stage · engine · model · tokens · duration · dispatches), per-run and combined totals, stating what they exclude (e.g. orchestrator context). Wall-clock per run vs. total agent-compute. 2. **Signal** — per stage: what did it change about the outcome, and the counterfactual — skipped, what ships differently? "Nothing" puts it on a cut-candidates list with its cost. 3. **Overlap** — findings caught by multiple reviewers (duplication) vs. uniquely by one (irreplaceable lens). For zero-finding reviewers: clean code, or redundant/filtered lens? 4. **Gates** — every human stop: question asked, answer given, did it differ from the recommendation? Always-accepted gates are calibration signals — which stops should become defaults? 5. **Health & friction** — did orchestrator context compact, and what were its biggest context consumers? Every infra failure or wasted round-trip (tool errors, retries, hook noise), each with its cost in turns. 6. **Improvements** — ranked by expected savings or quality gain; each traced to an observation above and naming the exact change (file + before/after text or config diff). Separate skill-text vs. config/roster vs. infra-shepherd-can't-fix. End with a **keep list**: what earned its cost, with the finding that proves it. Format: 5-line executive summary first (total cost, verdict, top 3 improvements), tables for numbers, prose for judgments, no praise padding — if a stage was waste, say so plainly.