| name | perfection-review |
| description | Adversarial "perfection" review — hold a change to an *ideal* bar, not just a correct one, assuming eternal time, unlimited energy, and no ship pressure. Use when the user asks to review "for perfection", to make a defect "impossible to express", or to hunt where a defect "relocates" across review rounds. Grounds every claim in the diff, fans out adversarial verifiers via Workflow, and reports residual surfaces with a structural fix for each. ONLY invoke when the user explicitly asks for a perfection / ideal-bar review. |
| argument-hint | [<pr-number>] [--base <branch>] [--post] |
Perfection review
The bar is not "closed" but "the defect can no longer be expressed." Assume eternal
time, unlimited energy, no deadline. "Overridable", "acceptable for scope", and "documented
intent" are still holes.
Most defects are one shape in costumes. Name the shape, then hunt where it relocates —
a fix that satisfies the literal ask but lets the defect resurface one seam over is not done.
Track it across rounds until it has nowhere left to go.
Method
- Ground in the diff, not the story — the PR body, commit messages, docs, and the
author's claims are assertions to falsify, not facts. Check them against the code.
- Letter vs effect — a safety added but never exercised is inert. Require a real path
that uses it and a test that fails when it is removed.
- Unspellable > absent — make the wrong thing impossible to write, not merely
discouraged. If a future author can still spell the defect, it isn't closed. Beware a
guarantee that proves presence, not behaviour.
- Reconcile claim and code — an overclaiming comment or doc is itself a defect: make the
code earn the sentence, or soften the sentence.
- Finish the blast radius — not done until every dependent and downstream is carried to
the same bar and verified against the final state.
Verify adversarially — use Workflow
Review with fresh context, separate from the author — a reviewer carrying the author's
context rationalizes the author's intent; a fresh mind grounded only in the diff does not.
Fan out grounded verifiers (one per claim) plus an adversary whose only job is to express
the defect anyway, each citing the diff; then synthesize. Default to refuted-if-uncertain,
loop until nothing new surfaces, and re-verify the headline finding yourself. Keep agent
schemas flat and isolate the adversary so one failure can't abort the run.
Report
Lead with credit for what's closed — don't move goalposts on done work — then the
residual surfaces, ranked, each with its structural fix. Frame each finding as the
invariant it violates, not a lone exploit: a single proof-of-concept trains a one-line
patch and the defect just relocates — give the property, and if you must show an example,
give a few from different angles and call it one costume of many. Separate "the product is
fine" from "the claim isn't yet true". Post to the PR only when asked (--post).
