Immutable. This exact content is served forever at /api/v1/blob/5f1b377b1c664105.
--- 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 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. 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. Preserve the target scope, evidence, uncertainty, adjudication, and required result. ## Bind one target 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. ## Assign red reviewers 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. Every role needs a fresh subagent context, including a one-role review. If the host cannot provide one, stop without reviewing the work. Give each reviewer only: - the exact target; - its role and risks to test; - direct evidence it may use; - explicit exclusions; - the expected output; and - this Skill directory. 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. Tell every red reviewer to read `references/red-review.md` and the shared Hope Write standard. 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. ## Decide whether findings need blue verification Seal the red findings first. A candidate requires a fresh blue verifier when any of these applies: - it alleges a high-priority material defect or equivalent; - it would stop a release or require broad, costly, destructive, or difficult-to-reverse action; - its evidence is incomplete or ambiguous; or - its scope or impact is materially uncertain. Reviewer confidence and review size do not change this rule. If no candidate meets it, continue without a blue verifier. 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. If a required fresh verifier is unavailable, stop and identify what could not be validated. ## Adjudicate the evidence 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. 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. 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. Reject a refuted issue or a finding with no supported material impact. When the issue remains material, narrow any refuted impact, scope, or action. Keep rejected and duplicate findings out of the actionable list while accounting for them in a concise adjudication summary. ## Respond once 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 remains, say so and name the checked scope and limits. Do not attack a person. 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.