v1.1 to v1.2

18 added, 10 removed. Audit A to A.

---

name: fresh-eyes-review

description: Fresh-eyes review of a changeset by a fresh-context agent — catches regressions and correctness issues the authoring context reads past.

disable-model-invocation: true

type: flow

license: MIT

metadata:

- version: "1.1"

+ version: "1.2"

---

# Fresh-eyes review

A context that produced a change reads its intent, not its text, so same-context review misses what

a fresh reader would catch. The fix is procedural: a reviewer whose context holds only the

artifacts.

## Workflow

1. **Resolve the inputs.** The changeset: whatever the invocation names — a branch, a commit, a

diff range, a draft vs its original. Given none, infer it from the session — usually the work

just finished, committed or not; no VCS required. With no session context to draw on, fall back

to the current git diff; when that too yields nothing, ask the user what to review. Pin the

changeset as concretely as the environment allows — a diff or commit range where one exists,

otherwise the touched files, with their prior state when reconstructable. Alongside it, a short

statement of what the change is supposed to achieve, when one exists (the task as stated, a PR

or ticket description); when this session authored the change, never include the session's own

reasoning, plan, or messages — leaked rationale recreates the blindness the fresh context

- exists to remove. Done when changeset and intent are pinned down and free of authoring context.

+ exists to remove. Strip what the change deliberately leaves for later, whatever its source:

+ naming it walls off the omissions lens below. Done when changeset and intent are pinned down

+ and free of authoring context.

2. **Confirm the prompt.** Assemble the reviewer prompt — changeset, intent, the mandate and

exclusions below, and any further reviewer instructions the invocation supplies (e.g. what to

report back). When the invocation supplied changeset, intent, and mandate explicitly (e.g. a

driving skill), nothing was inferred, so skip the confirmation and proceed. Otherwise show

the prompt to the user verbatim and wait for approval; fold any doubt about an inferred

changeset into the proposal rather than asking separately. Text emitted before a tool call may

not be displayed, so never show the prompt and then ask via a question tool in the same turn —

end the turn with the prompt and a plain-text ask, or embed the prompt in the question tool.

Done when the user has approved the prompt, as shown or amended — or the explicit-inputs skip

applied.

3. **Spawn one fresh-context reviewer** (a subagent or equivalent isolated session) with the

prompt, free to read any surrounding project material — except the paths the prompt lists as

excluded: any exclusions the invocation supplies, plus, when this session authored the change,

session-authored files that are not part of it (plans, notes, scratch), since a fresh context

cannot tell them apart. Its mandate, unless the invocation redirects it (e.g. security only):

regressions and correctness, including contradictions with surrounding code, rules, or docs —

though matching surrounding code is not correctness: verify any pattern the change extends or

mirrors is itself sound, since completing a broken rollout inherits its breakage; ambiguities

- a reader without context would trip on; and, when an intent statement was given, whether the

- change does what it says. Tough but grounded, aimed at mistakes that matter: every finding

- names its location and a concrete failure scenario; style nits, speculation, and padding are

- out of scope, and zero findings is a valid outcome. Out of scope bounds what is reported,

- never what is investigated: a pre-existing anomaly in the mechanism the change touches is a

- reason to audit it. If the harness cannot isolate a context, fall back to an adversarial pass

- over the same inputs in the main session. Done when an isolated reviewer has returned its

- findings, or the fallback pass ran and its result is flagged as same-context (weaker).

+ a reader without context would trip on; when an intent statement was given, whether the change

+ does what it says; and omissions — what the change should have touched and didn't: an altered

+ contract (file format, payload, schema, config or CLI surface) has counterparts that must move

+ with it — templates, samples, fixtures, seed data, docs. Find those by content, not location:

+ they often sit outside the changed tree and its stack, and a literal a changed file copies from

+ a shipped artifact (a header row, a sample payload) names one. A deferral the submission itself

+ states — a PR description or commit subject carried verbatim — is a claim to test, not scope

+ conceded. Tough but grounded, aimed at mistakes that matter: every finding names its location

+ and a concrete failure scenario; style nits, speculation, and padding are out of scope, and zero

+ findings is a valid outcome. Out of scope bounds what is reported, never what is investigated: a

+ pre-existing anomaly in the mechanism the change touches is a reason to audit it. If the harness

+ cannot isolate a context, fall back to an adversarial pass over the same inputs in the main

+ session. Done when an isolated reviewer has returned its findings, or the fallback pass ran and

+ its result is flagged as same-context (weaker).

4. **Report back.** Relay every finding intact — location and failure scenario included — plus

whatever else the reviewer was instructed to return; add the session's own assessment when

useful, but never silently drop or soften a finding. What to do with the findings is the

caller's decision, not this skill's. Done when every reviewer finding appears in the report.