git:20261003.1b3586a to git:20261003.51d9739

1 added, 1 removed. Audit A to A.

---

name: fresh-eyes

description: Have a diff reviewed by a reviewer with no memory of how it was written, judged against what the user says it should do, and report what it would block on with evidence. User-invoked only, and outside the flow, so nothing is tracked and no work file is written.

disable-model-invocation: true

argument-hint: "optional: the diff or range, and what it should do"

---

# Fresh Eyes

The close-out review, without the flow around it. Its failure mode is the review by the mind that wrote the code, which reads what it meant instead of what it wrote.

- The concept: **the diff goes to a reviewer that never saw it being written, judged against what it was for, and its findings come back as claims to check.** What the reviewer is told, why it is never told what not to flag, and why its findings are verified before anything is fixed are `/tenacity`'s, in [../tenacity/SKILL.md](../tenacity/SKILL.md); what differs is only what surrounds the review.

+ The concept: **the diff goes to a reviewer that never saw it being written, judged against what it was for, and its findings come back as claims to check.** What the reviewer is told, why it is never told what not to flag, and why its findings are verified before anything is fixed are `/tenacity`'s, in [../tenacity/SKILL.md](../tenacity/SKILL.md). What differs is only what surrounds the review.

## How it runs

1. Name the scope: the range the user gave, or else the working tree's changes against `HEAD`, and where there are none, the current branch against the branch it forked from. Say which you took.

2. Name what it is judged against: what the user says the diff should do, in their words. Where they said nothing, ask in one line with your reading of the diff's intent as the recommendation, because a reviewer judging a diff against nothing judges it against its own taste.

3. Spawn the `reviewer` agent ([../tenacity/agents/reviewer.md](../tenacity/agents/reviewer.md)), its task message naming the scope, what it is judged against, and where the record lives (`.genius/DECIDED.md`, `CONTEXT.md`, `ARCHITECTURE.md` and `DESIGN.md`, where the repo keeps them). Stay awake until it returns.

4. Verify each finding against the code before reporting it, because a review sent looking will find something.

5. Report: the blocking findings, each with its evidence; what is real but not this diff's; what it tried and could not break. Fix nothing unasked, because the user asked for eyes, not edits.

Nothing is written under `.genius/`, because the user asked for a review and not for tracking. A diff that belongs to tracked work is reviewed by `/enable` at its slice close and by `/tenacity` at close-out, with the contract it was built against.

Done when every finding the user sees has been checked against the code, and each carries its evidence.