The reviewer prompt told the model to judge "the analysis requirements," but
the reviewer stage only needed [patch, impl_plan] — it never actually received
the analysis artifact, so the acceptance criteria it was meant to check against
were never in its context. A reliability gate checking against criteria it
can't see is theater.
- reviewer now needs `analysis`, so the diff is judged against concrete,
pre-stated acceptance criteria (§5 narrow question) rather than whole files
against taste; the §3 minItems enforcement guarantees those criteria are
non-empty.
- reviewer.md operationalizes §5's two principles: evaluate the diff against
each requirement (findings must map to a requirement/plan-step/defect), and
don't re-report what deterministic tools already catch (compiler/detekt/tests
— trust verification, point at failures, don't re-derive them).
This is the workflow-level realization of §5. The full static-first
infrastructure (running static tools as a pipeline step and mechanically
excluding their findings from reviewer context) needs a static-findings event
representation and is deferred. §6 critic calibration needs runtime history
before it can say anything (spec ordering #5).
kami
3467826d4a