| 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.
- — an overclaiming comment or doc is itself a defect: make the
code earn the sentence, or soften the sentence.
