git:20261021.b68ab89 to v2.8.0

+ version: 2.8.0

+ author: "Gabriel Trabanco <1969593+gtrabanco@users.noreply.github.com>"

+ license: MIT

+ description: >

+ Internal owner of the pre-execution review cycle and the planning ledgers:

+ independence, unioned findings, counter-evidence dismissal, no-progress,

+ `CONVERGENCE-ANOMALY`, and the evidence/obligation/findings tables. Consumed by

+ `execute-phase`, `review-change`, and the lane's authoring steps for the

+ **planning-ledger shapes and ownership**; the pre-execution verdict owners

+ (`review-spec`/`review-plan`) were retired by feature 61. Not a menu entry.

+ ---

+

+ # Pre-Execution Review Policy (internal)

+

+ One owner for the rules that both pre-execution reviewers apply, so a Product

+ review and a Plan review cannot drift into two different definitions of

+ independence, union, or convergence. It states **policy**; it runs nothing,

+ writes nothing, and emits no verdict of its own.

+

+ ```text

+ evidence-grounding = how an author prepares and self-checks an artifact.

+ pre-execution-review = how any pre-execution reviewer judges it, and what the

+ frozen ledgers look like.

+ lane (design/plan/review steps) = the surviving pre-execution path; feature 61

+ P8b retired the standalone review-spec / review-plan

+ verdict skills, so this pack now owns the ledger shapes

+ the lane and execute-phase consume, not a verdict gate.

+ ```

+

+ ## When to use

+

+ - The lane's `plan`/`review` steps — when writing the ledgers and when a review

+ comes back failed.

+ - Nothing else. Candidate-source review (`review-change`), merge gating

+ (`audit-pr`) and execution (`execute-phase`) keep their own contracts; this

+ skill adds no authority over them.

+

+ ## Hard rule — no verdicts, no edits

+

+ This skill never prints `SPEC-REVIEW-PASS`, `PLAN-REVIEW-PASS`,

+ `SPEC-REVIEW-FAIL`, `PLAN-REVIEW-FAIL` or `NEEDS-DESIGN` as a result of its own

+ reading, and it never writes a unit artifact. Quoting a verdict shape here is a

+ definition, not an issuance. A policy summary that reads like an approval is a

+ contract violation — the verdict belongs to the reviewer turn that binds the

+ snapshot.

+

+ ## The three references

+

+ | Condition now | LOAD |

+ |---|---|

+ | Running or repairing a pre-execution review | [references/POLICY.md](references/POLICY.md) — independence, union, dismissal, diversity labels, author exclusion, untrusted content, critique/synthesis/arbitration bounds, no quorum, no-progress, batch repair, `CONVERGENCE-ANOMALY`, write-then-report |

+ | Building or re-checking a snapshot digest | [references/SNAPSHOT.md](references/SNAPSHOT.md) — the one executable recipe (`scripts/pre-execution-snapshot.mjs`), what each stage binds, how a consumer re-verifies a receipt, and why a snapshot digest is not a git blob id |

+ | Writing or validating a Plan-stage artifact | [references/LEDGERS.md](references/LEDGERS.md) — the planning-evidence table, the obligation ledger, the stage-aware `planning-findings.md`, the durable review mark, and who may write each |

+

+ ## Guardrails

+

+ - **Single owner.** A caller may restate a rule only as a one-line pointer plus

+ the stage-specific detail it adds. Two copies of the union rule, the dismissal

+ rule, or the convergence fields is the drift this skill exists to prevent.

+ - **Policy is not a receipt.** Reading this file proves nothing about any

+ artifact; only a reviewer turn that binds a snapshot does.

+ - **No weakening.** The bounds here are ceilings *and* floors: a cycle may be

+ shorter than the budget allows, never looser than the policy allows.

+ - **Vocabulary is closed.** Severity, class, role, verdict and status words are

+ exactly those named in the references. Inventing `accepted`, `waived`,

+ `mitigated`, or a fourth verdict is a contract break.

+ - Docs-language and commit conventions per the project's Workflow conventions.

+

+ ## Done when

+

+ - Every pre-execution reviewer and authoring caller points here for the shared

+ cycle and ledger rules instead of restating them, and each stage file keeps

+ only the detail that is genuinely stage-specific.

+