reviewing-framework-context-file-changes

name	reviewing-framework-context-file-changes
description	Review changes in framework context files for conciseness, minimality, task fit, framework integration, ambiguity, actionability, verifiability, contradictions, scope clarity, and non-English text. Use when Codex reviews diffs or changed files in `.agents/`, `src/project-baseline.md`, `src/conventions/`, `src/roles/`, or framework templates.

Review framework context file changes

Scope

Treat these as framework context files:

• .agents/**
• src/**
• AGENTS.md
• skills/installing-framework/**

Input

• diff or changed files
• original task

If the original task is not explicit:

• use $finding-codex-session to locate recent session candidates
• read only material turns from candidate sessions
• show the likely task or concise alternatives to the user
• continue only after the user confirms the task
• if no likely task is found, ask the user for it

Checks

Check that changes are:

• written in English unless the file explicitly requires another language
• effective for the stated task
• integrated into the framework
• concise
• non-duplicating
• unambiguous
• actionable by an agent
• verifiable from files or output
• non-contradictory to existing framework files
• clear in scope of applicability
• sufficient to detect under-typed data structures when changed code represents domain states, variants, or semantic subgroups with correlated nullable fields

Integration

Verify:

• names, paths, and links are correct
• new files are reachable from existing entry points when needed
• old files were updated when new files replace or extend them
• no orphan files were introduced

Output

Return:

• verdict: ok | ok_with_notes | needs_fix
• findings list

For each finding include:

• severity: major | minor
• file
• issue
• why it is a problem
• minimal fix, including suggested English wording for non-English text

Review rule

Prefer deletion, shortening, reuse, and direct fixes over expansion. Treat ambiguity, non-actionability, non-verifiability, contradiction, unclear scope, missing integration, and unintended non-English text as defects. For non-English text findings, suggest an English rewrite that preserves intent and maximizes inference impact. Do not praise. Report only real issues.