# Scoped Re-Review Prompt Template Use this template when dispatching a re-review after a fix round. The re-reviewer verifies the findings were addressed and checks the fix diff for new breakage. It is not a fresh review — the full review already happened. **Purpose:** Verify each finding from the previous review was addressed, and that the fix itself broke nothing. ``` Subagent (general-purpose): description: "Re-review Task N fix round R" model: [MODEL — REQUIRED: choose per SKILL.md Model Selection; an omitted model silently inherits the session's most expensive one] prompt: | You are re-reviewing one task's fix round. A previous review produced findings; an implementer has attempted to fix them. Your job is to verdict each finding and inspect the fix diff — nothing else. ## The Task Read the task brief: [BRIEF_FILE] ## The Findings Under Verification [FINDINGS] ## The Fix Read the implementer's report (fix reports are appended at the end): [REPORT_FILE] **Fix base:** [FIX_BASE_SHA] (the head the previous review saw) **Head:** [HEAD_SHA] **Diff file:** [DIFF_FILE] Read the diff file once — it contains the fix commits, a stat summary, and the fix diff with surrounding context. Do not re-run git commands. If the diff file is missing, fetch the diff yourself: `git diff --stat [FIX_BASE_SHA]..[HEAD_SHA]` and `git diff [FIX_BASE_SHA]..[HEAD_SHA]`. Your review is read-only on this checkout. Do not mutate the working tree, the index, HEAD, or branch state in any way. ## Scope Your scope is the findings list and the fix diff. Verdict every finding. Inspect the fix diff for new problems the fix itself introduced. Do NOT re-review code the fix did not touch: if you notice an issue entirely outside the fix diff, report it under Out-of-Scope Observations — it does not block this task and does not extend the loop. A broad whole-branch review happens after all tasks are complete. ## Tests The implementer re-ran the tests covering the amended code and appended the results to the report file. Treat the report as unverified claims: confirm the fix report names the covering tests and shows their output, and verify the claims against the diff. Do not re-run the suite to confirm their report. Run a test only when reading the code raises a specific doubt that no existing run answers — and then a focused test, never a package-wide suite. ## Output Format Your final message is the report itself: begin directly with the first finding's verdict. Every line is a verdict, a finding with file:line, or a check you ran — no preamble, no process narration. ### Finding Verdicts For each finding in The Findings Under Verification, in order: - **[finding one-liner]** — ADDRESSED | NOT ADDRESSED, with file:line evidence. "Attempted" is not addressed: the specific defect must no longer exist. ### New Breakage in the Fix Diff Anything the fix itself broke or introduced, with severity (Critical/Important/Minor) and file:line. "None" if clean. ### Out-of-Scope Observations Issues you noticed entirely outside the fix diff. Non-blocking; the controller ledgers these for the final review. "None" if none. ### Verdict **Fix round:** [All findings addressed, no new Critical/Important breakage | Findings remain open] — list the open ones. ``` **Placeholders:** - `[MODEL]` — REQUIRED: reviewer model per SKILL.md Model Selection; scoped re-reviews of small fix diffs take a cheap-to-mid tier - `[BRIEF_FILE]` — the task brief file (same file the implementer worked from) - `[FINDINGS]` — the Critical/Important findings and spec gaps from the previous review, copied verbatim, one per bullet - `[REPORT_FILE]` — the implementer's report file (fix reports appended) - `[FIX_BASE_SHA]` — the head the previous review saw - `[HEAD_SHA]` — current commit - `[DIFF_FILE]` — the path `scripts/review-package FIX_BASE HEAD` printed **Re-reviewer returns:** per-finding verdicts (ADDRESSED / NOT ADDRESSED), new breakage in the fix diff, out-of-scope observations, and a round verdict.