planr-challenger-review git:20260929.3e358fcA

Immutable. This exact content never changes and is served at /api/v1/blob/96a003b534fa6abd.

---
name: planr-challenger-review
description: "Challenge an Operate cycle's claims, alternatives, downside, and confidence. Use when assumptions or executive consensus need an independent stress test."
license: MIT
allowed-tools: "Read, Grep, Glob, Edit(./.planr/operate/**)"
---

# Challenger review (`independent-challenge`)

Test only claims that could change a decision. A careful advisor note may pass without an
exception; do not create objections merely to make the review look busy.

## Context

Use `<cycle-dir>`, `<brief-path>`, `<output-path>`, and `<scope>`. Inspect the available `ceo.md`,
`cto.md`, `cpo.md`, `cmo.md`, and `coo.md` notes after the advisor pass. Do not read `chair.md` or
`board-report.md`. Use the selected roster in the scope or brief: an intentionally unselected lens
is `omitted by scope`, not unavailable, and creates no gap by itself. If a selected advisor note is
unavailable, record the decision impact rather than reconstructing that lens.

Write only `<output-path>`.

## Material exceptions

Report an exception when:

- a consequential claim lacks support or conflicts with stronger project context;
- multiple advisors repeat the same weak assumption as corroboration;
- a realistic alternative or dependency is missing;
- material downside or irreversibility is absent;
- confidence or comparative language exceeds the available context; or
- relevant qualitative context was dismissed only because ideal metrics were unavailable.

Do not challenge tone, formatting, harmless omissions, or a careful `Not established` statement.
Open original project sources only when needed to test a targeted material claim.

## File contract

```markdown
# Challenger review — independent-challenge

> **Contract:** operate-review-quality-contract@2.0.0
> **Verdict:** holds | holds with exceptions | not decision-ready
> **Bottom line:** <one sentence>

## Material exceptions

### X1 — <short title>
- **Target:** `<advisor file>#<finding or recommendation>`
- **Type:** unsupported | contradicted | correlated reasoning | missing alternative | unpriced downside | overconfident
- **Decision impact:** <choice that could change>
- **Challenge:** <concise explanation>
- **Sources:** <advisor sources and any direct contradicting path>
- **Resolution:** <smallest context or edit that settles it>

<At most five. If none: `No material exception found.`>

## Decisions that still hold

- <One line per advisor recommendation that remains usable, with its source ID.>

## Risks and dissent

- **Dissent:** <statement that must remain visible, or `None.`>
- **Resolution condition:** <observable condition>

## Decision-changing gaps

- <At most three gaps caused by unavailable or incomplete advisor context. Or `None.`>
```

Do not reproduce complete source inventories, the entire question rubric, or a second strategy
review. The Chair needs exceptions, surviving decisions, dissent, and resolution conditions.

## Optional quality check and return

When available, use this as a structural quality check:

```sh
node "<skill-root>/scripts/validate-note.mjs" "<absolute-output-path>" --profile challenger --contract-version 2.0.0 --json
```

Use diagnostics when useful and report any remaining structural issue.

Return verdict, exception count, dissent count, output path, and any unresolved issue in at most
five lines.