73 added, 151 removed. Audit A to A.
---
name: toxic-review
description: Use for a strict, skeptical, risk-focused review of a named work product without attacking people or inventing criticism.
---
# Hope Toxic Review
- Be demanding about the work and respectful toward people.
-
- Use the active host session to bind one named work product, assign fresh
- reviewers, validate consequential or uncertain findings when needed,
- adjudicate the findings, and report the result.
+ Use the active host session to bind one work product, assign fresh red
+ reviewers, arrange blue verification when a finding warrants it, adjudicate the
+ evidence, and report one proportionate result.
- Do not let the active session act as a reviewer or finding verifier.
+ Be demanding about the work and respectful toward people. The active session
+ coordinates and adjudicates; it must not act as a reviewer or verifier.
Read `../write/references/writing-standard.md` before drafting user-facing
- language. Apply it without changing the target scope, evidence, uncertainty,
- adjudication, or required result.
-
- ## Bind the target
-
- State the target, current stage, material risks, evidence in scope, and evidence
- that is unavailable.
-
- Do not widen the review into unrelated work.
-
- Changed evidence starts a new review.
-
- ## Choose red reviewer roles
-
- Choose the smallest useful role set: use one focused role when it covers the
- material question, and add roles only to test distinct risks.
-
- Use a fresh subagent context for every red reviewer role, including a one-role
- review. Give it only the exact target, its role and risks to test, direct
- evidence it may use, explicit exclusions, expected output, and the location of
- this Skill.
-
- Tell each reviewer to read this Skill before acting.
-
- Do not let a reviewer inherit the active conversation, previous reasoning,
- drafts, implementation narrative, prior conclusions, or another red reviewer's
- input or output. Run roles in parallel or in separate sequential contexts.
-
- Repeated prompts in one shared context are not independent reviewers.
-
- If a fresh context is unavailable, stop without performing the review.
-
- ## Review the work
-
- Each finding needs:
+ language. Preserve the target scope, evidence, uncertainty, adjudication, and
+ required result.
- - a concrete issue;
- - practical impact;
- - evidence;
- - a proposed action;
- - priority;
- - confidence; and
- - an important limit or uncertainty.
+ ## Bind one target
- Use the target's priority vocabulary when it exists; otherwise use high,
- medium, or low.
+ State the named work product, current stage, material risks, evidence in scope,
+ and unavailable evidence. Do not widen the review into unrelated work. Changed
+ evidence starts a new review.
- Do not assign a release-blocking label unless the available evidence shows that
- the work should stop.
+ ## Assign red reviewers
- Do not manufacture criticism.
+ Choose the smallest role set that covers the material risks. Use one focused
+ role when it is enough and add roles only for distinct questions.
- Finding no material issue is a valid result.
+ Every role needs a fresh subagent context, including a one-role review. If the
+ host cannot provide one, stop without reviewing the work.
- Do not turn uncertainty into an established defect.
+ Give each reviewer only:
- Use the causal-completeness method only when the named work product makes or
- relies on a material causal claim.
+ - the exact target;
+ - its role and risks to test;
+ - direct evidence it may use;
+ - explicit exclusions;
+ - the expected output; and
+ - this Skill directory.
- When it applies, read
- [references/causal-review.md](references/causal-review.md) and assign the method
- to one role.
+ Do not pass the active conversation, earlier reasoning, drafts, implementation
+ narrative, prior conclusions, or another reviewer's input or output. Parallel
+ roles or separate sequential contexts are valid; repeated prompts in one
+ context are not independent.
- Do not activate it merely because the target is an incident.
+ Tell every red reviewer to read `references/red-review.md` and the shared Hope
+ Write standard.
- ## Validate findings when needed
+ When the work product makes or relies on a material causal claim, assign the
+ causal-completeness method to one role and tell it to also read
+ `references/causal-review.md`. Do not activate that method merely because the
+ target is an incident.
- Seal the red reviewers' candidate findings before validation.
+ ## Decide whether findings need blue verification
- Use a blue verifier subagent in a fresh context when a candidate finding:
+ Seal the red findings first. A candidate requires a fresh blue verifier when
+ any of these applies:
- - has high priority or the target vocabulary's equivalent level for a material
- defect;
- - would stop a release or require broad, costly, destructive, or
+ - it alleges a high-priority material defect or equivalent;
+ - it would stop a release or require broad, costly, destructive, or
difficult-to-reverse action;
- - relies on incomplete or ambiguous evidence; or
- - has materially uncertain scope or impact.
-
- Every candidate that meets any condition must receive blue verification. Do not
- let reviewer confidence bypass it. Review size alone does not call for a blue
- verifier. A small review may remain red-only only when no candidate finding
- meets these conditions.
-
- Give the verifier only the named target, scoped evidence, sealed candidate
- findings, explicit exclusions, the location of this Skill, and the expected
- output. Do not give it hidden reasoning, the active conversation, prior
- conclusions, or unsealed reviewer output.
-
- Tell the verifier to read this Skill before acting.
-
- The verifier tests the candidate findings. It does not defend the work product
- or try to cancel criticism. For each finding, test these parts separately:
-
- - whether the issue exists;
- - whether the claimed impact and priority are proportionate;
- - whether the claimed scope is supported; and
- - whether the proposed action is necessary, proportionate, and no broader than
- the evidence requires.
-
- For each part, try to falsify it, identify missing context, unsupported
- assumptions, and overstatement, acknowledge evidence that survives the
- challenge, and return uphold, qualify, or refute with direct evidence and any
- important uncertainty. For impact, state the highest priority supported by the
- evidence. For action, name a smaller or more reversible action when it would
- address the supported risk.
-
- Return one overall outcome for the finding. Use uphold only when all four parts
- are upheld. Refute the finding when the issue is refuted or no supported
- material impact remains. Otherwise use qualify and state exactly what must be
- narrowed. Missing evidence does not justify a worst-case assumption.
-
- Use one verifier for related findings. Add another only when a distinct kind of
- expertise is needed.
-
- If a required fresh verifier is unavailable, stop and state which validation
- could not be performed.
-
- ## Adjudicate
-
- Use the active host to combine red reviewer output and any blue verifier output.
-
- Adjudicate only from the named target, scoped evidence, red reviewer output,
- and any blue verifier output.
-
- Do not introduce hidden conversation context as evidence.
-
- Treat blue verification as evidence for adjudication, not as a decision.
-
- Judge each material finding by the target evidence, impact, current scope,
- feasibility, duplication, and any blue challenge. Resolve red and blue
- disagreement from the evidence rather than choosing a side.
+ - its evidence is incomplete or ambiguous; or
+ - its scope or impact is materially uncertain.
- Before adjudicating, confirm that every candidate meeting any blue-verification
- condition has a blue result. If any required verification is missing, stop and
- identify it.
+ Reviewer confidence and review size do not change this rule. If no candidate
+ meets it, continue without a blue verifier.
- Do not count reviewer votes.
+ For required verification, give a fresh verifier only the target, scoped
+ evidence, sealed candidates, exclusions, expected output, and this Skill
+ directory. Tell it to read `references/verification.md` and the shared Hope
+ Write standard. Use one verifier for related findings and add another only for
+ distinct expertise.
- Accept, partly accept, reject, defer, or merge each finding.
+ If a required fresh verifier is unavailable, stop and identify what could not
+ be validated.
- For every candidate, record its final disposition, final priority when it
- remains actionable, and a short evidence-based reason. State why the priority
- or proposed action changed from the red finding. Do not report a claim or
- action more strongly than its blue results support. Reject a refuted issue or a
- finding with no supported material impact. Narrow a refuted impact, scope, or
- action when a material issue remains.
+ ## Adjudicate the evidence
- A deferred finding needs a concrete next step.
+ Before adjudicating, confirm that every required candidate has a blue result.
+ Use only the named target, scoped evidence, sealed red findings, and blue
+ results. Do not introduce hidden conversation context or count votes.
- Keep rejected and duplicate findings out of the actionable list, but account
- for them in a concise adjudication summary.
+ Treat blue verification as evidence, not a decision. Judge each candidate by
+ the target evidence, impact, scope, feasibility, duplication, and blue
+ challenge. Accept, partly accept, reject, defer, or merge it.
- ## Respond
+ For every candidate, record its disposition and a short evidence-based reason.
+ Give an actionable candidate its final priority, explain any changed priority
+ or action, and do not state it more strongly than verification supports. A
+ deferred finding needs a concrete next step.
- Use one strict, competent, and proportionate voice.
+ Reject a refuted issue or a finding with no supported material impact. When the
+ issue remains material, narrow any refuted impact, scope, or action.
- Lead with the highest-priority accepted issue.
+ Keep rejected and duplicate findings out of the actionable list while
+ accounting for them in a concise adjudication summary.
- Keep deferred risk visible.
+ ## Respond once
- Include the concise adjudication summary so the person can see every
- candidate's disposition and each actionable candidate's final priority. Keep
- the actionable list focused on accepted, partly accepted, and deferred
+ Use one strict, competent, proportionate voice. Lead with the highest-priority
+ accepted issue and keep deferred risk visible. Include the adjudication summary
+ and focus the actionable list on accepted, partly accepted, and deferred
findings.
- If no material issue was found, say so and name the checked scope and limits.
-
- Do not attack a person.
-
- Perform one review round for one evidence snapshot.
+ If no material issue remains, say so and name the checked scope and limits. Do
+ not attack a person.
- Start another only when changed evidence or an accepted high-impact finding
- creates a different material question.
+ Perform one review round for one evidence snapshot. Start another only when
+ changed evidence or an accepted high-impact finding creates a different
+ material question.
Do not create a custom model adapter, private role-run state, evaluation record,
or persisted review JSON.